Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE

OCCUPY THE COMMONS


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0


Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Propagandized in America- the chains of illusion

Wake-up Call

Propagandized in America- the chains of illusion


By David DeGraw, AmpedStatus Report

part of a longer article: The Financial Oligarchy Reigns: Democracy’s Death Spiral From Greece to the United States

Part of the reason we are in this mess, and the main reason why the American people don’t even know what is happening to them, is that the illusion machine (television) has removed the American population tragically far from reality. The gap between the news we see on TV, and what is actually happening in the world today, is the most severe it has ever been. We have been bred to be completely removed from reality. As famed American philosopher and psychologist John Dewey once said, “We live exposed to the greatest flood of mass suggestion that any people has ever experienced.”

The American people need to understand that creating, manipulating and controlling public opinion through mass media propaganda is a science. As social psychologist Kelton Rhoads wrote in his study, Universal Persuasion, Everyday Influence:

“Make no mistake. There are legions of influence agents operating in our society. They thrive — they exist at the pinnacles of power — by getting you to think things and to do things they want you to think and do… Most people are either unaware of these influences, or when they are, vastly overestimate the amount of freedom they have to make up their own minds. But the successful influence agent knows that if he can manage the situation and choose the correct technique, your response to his technique will be as reliable as the springing of a mousetrap.”

People with power have used this science to divide and conquer the United States. In 1923, Edward Bernays, the Godfather of propaganda wrote: “Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.” William Blum in Rogue State wrote: “Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.” Harold Lasswell in 1927 declared: “The new antidote to willfulness is propaganda. If the mass will be free of chains of iron, it must accept its chains of silver. If it will not love, honor, and obey, it must not expect to escape seduction.”

In an extensive study on propaganda, which is also one of the most insightful looks into our modern-day technological society, sociologist Jacques Ellul wrote:

“Governmental propaganda suggests that public opinion demand this or that decision; it provokes the will of a people, who spontaneously would say nothing. But, once evoked, formed, and crystallized on a point, that will becomes the peoples will; and whereas the government really acts on it’s own, it gives the impression of obeying public opinion – after first having built that public opinion. The point is to make the masses demand of the government what the government has already decided to do.”

Famed British philosopher Bertrand Russell summed up the importance of propaganda this way: “It is much easier than it used to be to spread misinformation, and, owing to democracy, the spread of misinformation is more important than in former times to the holders of power.”

Speaking of the “holders of power,” for another historical lesson in how much effort powerful interests put into dominating mass media and controlling public opinion, consider Congressman Oscar Callaway’s report to Congress in 1917 on JP Morgan’s master plan, which has been in effect since 1915:

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached. The policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month, an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

Now consider why it is that so many of the most significant issues and problems facing American society are rarely, if ever, discussed on U.S. television…

I could go on for hours about how mass media propaganda is used to manipulate, confuse, distract and divide us. We, as a population, have been acting against our own interests and fighting amongst ourselves, while the Economic Elite, who control our society and media system, are left unquestioned and unchallenged, operating behind the scenes, beyond the spotlight, above the law, concentrating wealth and resources, at our expense, in unprecedented fashion.

For a painfully obvious example, on the day that the crucial “break up the banks” amendment went to the Senate floor, a deal to gut the vital bill to audit the Federal Reserve was struck; the market had a record-breaking drop; Greece was burning and oil was spewing all over the Gulf of Mexico. I couldn’t believe the amount of historically significant news that was occurring! It was Shakespeare on steroids! I turned on the TV news networks and the coverage primarily focused on two things. One: an old football player, albeit one of the greatest ever, allegedly raped and beat a 16 year old girl. Two: a male anti-gay activist “rented a boy prostitute.”

Tweet this: OMG! What a sign of the times!

Never mind an economic crisis that affects millions. Never mind one of the greatest environmental disasters of all time. Never mind the historic vote on a Senate amendment that will have a profound effect on our economic well-being and possibly break up the Financial Oligarchy that caused our crisis and holds our nation hostage. Never mind the behind-the-scenes dealings to gut the audit of the Federal Reserve that secretly dished out trillions of taxpayer dollars.

While Rome burns, the mainstream media distracts us and spins the economic devastation as business as usual, nothing to be worried about. Yeah, the BS unemployment rate went up, but it’s good news people! Good times ahead, so go invest in some stocks and go buy yourself something special at the mall.

Other than to create and control popular opinion and keep us politically passive, the mainstream media exists to keep people consuming and spending their hard-earned money. That is the bottom line.

Every time you turn on the TV, you have to realize that the entire mass media system is an elaborate psychological operation to keep you passive and make you feel secure in spending your money. That’s why TV pundits and talking heads are paid huge salaries; they are experts in duping us and playing us for fools. We are all being played. We aren’t free citizens; we are indebted wage slaves. That may sound much too harsh for a population that has been propagandized for hours a day, every day of our lives, but it is the truth. As the brilliant John Dewey said, “We live exposed to the greatest flood of mass suggestion that any people has ever experienced.”

Who needs reality when you have American Idol, Disneyland and celebrity sex scandals?

Until we can block out these distractions and face reality, our future and living standards will continue to spiral downward.

See also:

Delusions and illusions of press freedom: The Israel lobby’s control of Western media

Monday, June 27, 2011

Fragmented Medical Care: America’s Health Care Scam

Healthcare Economist

Fragmented Medical Care I: America’s Problem


The U.S. healthcare system is one of the more fragmented systems in the world. Traditionally, economists believe that a splash of decentralized planning with a heap of free markets is a recipe for efficient outcomes. In the case of health care coordination, however, information sharing, and collaborative work are needed if quality is to improve and decentralization may not be the best option. Cebul et al. (2008) describe some of the problems with America’s fragmented system. For instance:

  • Health insurance is a high turnover product. About one-fifth of health insurance policyholders cancel their plans in any given year. Most of these changes are due to i) employees switching jobs and ii) employers cancelling their group plans in favor of other plans. When insurers have short term relationships with their customers, it likely does not pay for them to invest in preventive care or chronic disease management programs.
  • Having a fragmented insurance market can give insurers an incentive to lower quality. When adverse selection is present, offering high quality medical care will attract sicker individuals which will drive up insurance premiums. Thus, insurers often do not have an incentive to provide high quality care.
  • The fragmented insurance system means that hospitals must spend more money paying administrators to collect claims. Woolhander et al. (2003) finds that hospitals in the U.S. spend $315 per capita on administration compared with $103 in Canada.
  • The fact that physicians are rarely employed by the hospitals has lead to some perverse behavior by nurses. For instance at Stanford Hospital, “Nurses were harshly blamed by surgeons for instrumentation failures, but nurses who delivered clean instruments on time achieved ‘star status’ among surgeons. In this setting, some operating room staff shared instruments between surgical suites. Some nurses kept critical instruments in their personal lockers. Some surgeons also took instruments with them when they left the hospital.”
  • Further, physician heterogeneity hurts efficiency by making standard operating procedures nearly impossible to implement. Generally, hospitals allow doctor to gets what they want in order to attract physicians with large patient bases to their hospital. However, this creates an incredible amount of complexity and possibility for error in the health care system.
  • When providers do consolidate, it is often not done in the best interest of the patient. While vertical integration could improve quality, consolidation is often done with the purpose of locking-in profitable referrals or increasing bargaining power.
  • “[Medicare] patients with diabetes see a median of eight physicians in five distinct medical practices.”

In future posts, I will give some examples of organizations that have been able to overcome these problems, as well as policy prescriptions to improve the health of America’s medical system.

See also: Fragmented Medical Care II (The Models) and III (Policy Options).

Cebul RD, Reibitzer JB, Taylor LJ, Votruba M (2008) “Organizational Fragmentation and Care Quality in the U.S. Health Care System” NBER WP 14212.

Friday, June 24, 2011

America, A Nation of Cowards

CommonDreams.org

If the mission to neutralize Osama bin Laden were a blockbuster movie, the screen would have almost certainly faded to black as soon as the accused terrorist's death was announced. No doubt, the credits would roll to Queen's "We Will Rock You” and then a big “The End” would appear.

Alas, real life is not one of Hollywood's many Pentagon-sponsored flicks -- and as hard as President Obama tried to portray last week's events as proof "that America can do whatever we set our mind to," the mission and its cloudy aftermath have raised troubling questions about the "whatever" part. Among the most important of those queries are:

  • Is it legal for a president to issue extrajudicial "kill only" orders -- that is, orders to kill but not capture a suspect, even if that suspect surrenders? United Nations investigators are now asking this very question after Reuters cited an Obama administration official in reporting that U.S. troops were "under orders to kill (bin Laden), not capture him."

    Tellingly, the revelation of the possible "kill only" order came as the administration was retracting claims that bin Laden was armed and resisting arrest, and just as the British press reported on bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter alleging that her father was first captured alive and then summarily executed.
  • Who is the president now prohibited from executing sans due process? At first glance, the answer might seem to be "anyone not named Osama bin Laden." Except, days after the bin Laden mission, Obama ordered the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, even though Awlaki hasn't been charged with -- much less convicted of -- a crime. If this is now acceptable, whom else can the president order killed without judicial review?
  • Why were the Nazis entitled to due process, but accused terrorists aren't? Nazis killed millions of innocents and were convicted at the much-celebrated Nuremberg trials. Yet, many insist bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders must be executed or detained without a similar trial because a courtroom drama would supposedly generate a circus (this, as if Nuremberg were some low-key affair).

    Why the double standard in confronting the Nazis and al-Qaida? Is it because since bravely facing down Hitler, we became a nation of cowards? Are we today so intimidated by the possibility of al-Qaida retribution that we're willing to subvert the ideals enshrined in our Constitution? And if so, isn't that letting the terrorists win?

This is not easy stuff to ponder, especially in a nation that has so radically changed over the last century. Whereas World War II America strove to embody Norman Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" painting of the patriot standing up and asking questions, America circa 2011 is more a country of Howard Stern and "South Park" -- a society that implores fellow countrymen to "shut up, sit down!" and tells inquiring citizens that "if you don't like America, you can get out!"

But regardless of such ubiquitous vitriol, we still need answers -- and not just because the international community wants them, but because Americans have a right to know what "America" is, beyond just the "A" in a drunken "USA!" chant.

Is America a nation "of laws, not of men," as John Adams promised? Or has it become another synonym for lawless tyranny?

Is "America" a place that obligates its leaders to respect the Constitution? Or is America governed by Richard Nixon's notion that "if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal"?

And perhaps the moment's most disturbing query is the simplest of all: Is America a country where self-reflection is valued? Or are we a country where these critical questions are no longer permitted?

David Sirota

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose new book "Back to Our Future" is now available. He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and is a contributing writer at Salon.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Heed the Warning Signs; America is Edging Ever Closer to a Societal Implosion

June 21, 2011 at 12:41:13

Heed the Warning Signs; America is Edging Ever Closer to a Societal Implosion

By michael payne (about the author)


Warning by printablesigns.net

Many millions of Americans are currently experiencing intense, unrelenting stress and feelings of despair and futility as they try to cope with a myriad of personal problems largely brought on by this nation's economic crisis. They are not unlike the millions of people in the Middle East that find themselves caught up in protests and violent civil disobedience; in fact they have one thing very much in common with them.

And that is that humans, no matter the nation or the culture, living under these kinds of extremely stressful conditions of despair and hopelessness, will eventually reach a breaking point when they have had all that they can take and they just can't take anymore; and then they react. Americans haven't reached that point, at least not yet. But conditions are continuing to deteriorate and many signs now indicate that a societal implosion is looming on America's horizon.

What we're talking about is an inward collapse of this society and its institutions. What exact form this collapse would take, how severe and far reaching it might be, and what it might do to this nation and its people is difficult to predict. But it's not the least bit farfetched to think that, at some point in the not too distant future, the American people will reach that breaking point and there will be a violent societal reaction.

Let's consider when that might happen and what would trigger such a reaction:

When millions of Americans completely give up on any possibility of finding a decent job in an atmosphere where there is no job creation by either the government or the business sector; when corporations continue to eliminate jobs in the U.S. and outsource them to China, India, and other nations and our government does nothing to reverse it.

When millions more Americans lose their homes to foreclosure and then, to their dismay, find that they cannot afford to rent. When personal bankruptcies due to home foreclosures and monumental health care costs overwhelm millions of Americans, leaving many of them destitute.

When America's financial institutions continue to hoard money and refuse to make loans to small businesses and individuals and, at the same time, devise new ways to increase service charges, ATM fees, and assess an array of penalties involving overdrawn accounts or minimum checking balances.

When the number of homeless people in America and those on food stamps double or even triple. When church charities and food pantries are overwhelmed by those trying but failing to make ends meet.

When the U.S. dollar continues to rapidly decline in value and rampant inflation makes it extremely difficult to feed and clothe a family.

When our states that cannot solve their massive deficit problems lay off even larger numbers of police and firefighters; when these states decimate our education systems by laying off more and more teachers; when they eliminate many social services to the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill.

When the cost of gasoline skyrockets and most people can no longer afford long commutes to their jobs or when trying to find a job. When the costs of home heating and electricity become unbearable.

When those many millions of Americans under great stress, who are just trying to survive, see corporate profits rise while their incomes go down, CEO's getting massive bonuses and the wealthiest of Americans finding ways to get more tax breaks and stashing their savings in tax exempt shelters.

When people see the taxes they pay being foolishly and recklessly wasted on needless wars that accomplish nothing except to strengthen the vice grip of the military-security complex over this country.

When the millions of Americans who live in extreme poverty in this nation's cities can find no work of any kind, when their neighborhoods are overrun with violent crime by roaming gangs of young kids that include their own.

When those millions of Americans throw up their hands and say that "enough is enough" and "I can't take it any more," and decide that they will do whatever is necessary to survive, no matter what the consequences..

It is not difficult to understand how such an implosion could take place in America. All one has to do is to take our most critical domestic problems, such as I have outlined above, and project them into the future. You will then find a point at which our combination of problems will reach a boiling point that can no longer be relieved and there will follow an eruption in this society, the likes of which we have never seen.

Such an implosion might also be described as "blowback." Blowback is defined as " an unforeseen and unwanted effect, result, or set of repercussions." That is what happens when people react with violence of many different forms when they feel that they have been harmed or taken advantage of by those in positions of power and they want to strike out at the perceived perpetrators of such actions.

So under such circumstances America could experience great turmoil, great violence, massive protests, rioting in the streets and other happenings that would be very detrimental to this nation's stability. We currently live in very tenuous times and, yet, what we are experiencing is nothing compared to what may be rapidly heading our way.

When a societal implosion rocks America, what is going to happen to those greedy giant corporations who made obscene profits when they outsourced millions of American jobs to overseas slave labor? Who is going to buy their products? These corporations will see their profits plummet when those without jobs cannot buy their products and those with jobs cannot afford them due to rampant, out of control inflation. Many will go bankrupt.

What's going to happen to those financial manipulators on Wall Street that have used every conceivable way to suck the lifeblood out of the American people when there is no more blood left? What people will be left in America that can be taken advantage of by these financial predators? Maybe they will have to turn on each other and start to drain each other's wealth through devious tactics.

What about those wealthiest of Americans who live in opulence in their penthouses or in gated, heavily guarded communities? Will they become isolated, unable to go out in public among people who are in a dangerous mood? What good will their great wealth do them if they cannot feel free to live their lives as they have; when they feel threatened by the chaos and danger all around them?

Actually it doesn't have to come to this; such a scenario could be avoided but it will not be easy. The riots and extreme violence that have happened in other parts of the world must be avoided at all costs. This government and the business community must recognize the immense dangers that lie ahead if positive, constructive steps are not taken to alleviate many of the problems that the American people face. We can no longer follow the disastrous course we are taking.

But what exactly must be done? Well, I have writer's cramps from the many times that I have listed all the things that I think our government must do to turn America into a new direction. So, I will simply boil it down to only two things that I believe must be done to prevent such a domestic disaster:

#1: This president, the Congress and the military establishment must take positive, irreversible steps to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and end our involvement in Libya ASAP. Troops should be returned to the U.S. beginning by July 31 of this year and be fully completed by the end of 2012. The American military empire must be largely scaled back and replaced with effective security systems that do not involve massive wars.

#2: This president and this Congress, together with the business sector must, collectively, develop the most aggressive and innovative job creation program in this nation's history, even greater than the series of work programs that were instituted by President Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal. This massive jobs program would have to be of the magnitude or even greater than the ambitious program that put a man on the moon.

Just these two great initiatives would be enough to begin the process to turn America away from its disastrous, debilitating wars and into a new direction for the future. With those two foundations for recovery in place, it would pave the way for other critical initiatives. Making this happen would demand that the political bickering, the obstructive tactics, the corporate control, and the vacillating would have to be replaced by logical, rational, creative thinking with all parties dedicated to putting all Americans back to work.

That's exactly what must happen. But what if that ambitious objective fails to materialize because the parties mentioned will not change, have no intention of working together to do what is right for America, and they continue to maintain a state of gridlock? What then will happen, what will be the consequences?

That's very easy to predict. Down the road, before very long, the people of America will finally reach that breaking point, when they will have had enough, when they will find that they can take no more; and, then, this nation will experience a societal implosion of unthinkable proportions.

Michael Payne

Michael Payne is an independent progressive who writes articles about domestic social and political matters as well as American foreign policy. He is a U.S. Army veteran. His major goal is to convince Americans that our perpetual wars must end (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Scab Nation

DAILY KOS

Origins of a Scab



by Kate Thomas


Ever wonder where the labor term "scab" comes from? For those who might not know, a scab is also sometimes called a "strikebreaker:" --a person who returns to the job without permission from the union or the striking workers during a strike action. One of the most powerful weapons a labor union has is a strike. By crossing the picket line, a scab can render a strike useless.

In the 16th century, a scab was a "a low or despicable person," and the labor sense of this word dates back as far back as 1777. The understanding of the term "scab" rose in the 1800s and changed from industrial slang into more of a household world after the unionizing drives of the 1930's.

Author Jack London, who was born on this day in 1876, penned the most famous description of scabs in the U.S. labor movement:

After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad and the vampire, He had some awful stuff left with which He made a scab.

A scab is a two-legged animal with a cork-screw soul, a water-logged brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

Although the poetic diatribe does not seem to appear in any of London's published work, it figured in a 1974 Supreme Court case, in which Justice Thurgood Marshall quoted the passage in full. London once gave a speech entitled "The Scab" in 1903, which he published in his book The War of the Classes.

"It is not nice to be a scab. Not only is it not in good social taste and comradeship, but, from the standpoint of food and shelter, it is bad business policy. Nobody desires to scab, to give most for least."

Did you know there have been scabs in professional sports too, not just on the picket line? In 1987, National Football League (NFL) players went on strike when owners refused to loosen the free agency rules in their contracts. For three weeks, the owners fielded scab players who earned $4,000 a game. The fans reacted with disgust,re-naming some of the new squads to reflect their use of temporary players: The Washington Scab-Skins, the Chicago Spare Bears, the San Francisco Phony-Niners and the Miammi Dol-Finks. (In spite of my DC-ite status, I must admit that "Scab Skins" is my choice for wittiest name of the group!)

The Rising Role of Permanent Replacement Workers

Before 1981, no major U.S. industry had hired permanent replacements during a labor strike, even though the law allowed them to do so. The turning point came with the federal air traffic controllers' strike, which resulted in a series of events that would redefine labor relations in America. When 12,000 air traffic controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), walked off the job on August 3, 1981, Republican President Ronald Reagan declared the strike illegal and called for all striking workers to be fired and permanently replaced with scabs. Reagan's decision was a huge blow to unions and signaled in a shift in the use of strikes.

  • In the decades before 1981, major work stoppages averaged around 300 per year.
  • From 1985 to 1990, the average was 52.
  • By 2006, the average had dropped to less than 30 a year.

[Source: NPR and NY Times]

Originally posted to Kate Thomas on Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM PST.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Killing Democracy One File at a Time: Justice Department Loosens FBI Domestic Spy Guidelines

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice

Killing Democracy One File at a Time: Justice Department Loosens FBI Domestic Spy Guidelines

While the Justice Department is criminally inept, or worse, when it comes to prosecuting corporate thieves who looted, and continue to loot, trillions of dollars as capitalism’s economic crisis accelerates, they are extremely adept at waging war on dissent.

Last week, the New York Times disclosed that the FBI “is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.”

Under “constitutional scholar” Barack Obama’s regime, the Bureau will revise its “Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide.” The “new rules,” Charlie Savage writes, will give agents “more latitude” to investigate citizens even when there is no evidence they have exhibited “signs of criminal or terrorist activity.”

As the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) recently pointed out, “When presented with opportunities to protect constitutional rights, our federal government has consistently failed us, with Congress repeatedly rubber-stamping the executive authority to violate civil liberties long protected by the Constitution.”

While true as far it goes, it should be apparent by this late date that no branch of the federal government, certainly not Congress or the Judiciary, has any interest in limiting Executive Branch power to operate lawlessly, in secret, and without any oversight or accountability whatsoever.

Just last week, The New York Times revealed that the Bush White House used the CIA “to get” academic critic Juan Cole, whose Informed Comment blog was highly critical of U.S. imperial adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The former CIA officer and counterterrorism official who blew the whistle and exposed the existence of a Bush White House “enemies list,”, Glenn L. Carle, told the Times, “I couldn’t believe this was happening. People were accepting it, like you had to be part of the team.”

Ironically enough, the journalist who broke that story, James Risen, is himself a target of an Obama administration witchhunt against whistleblowers. Last month, Risen was issued a grand jury subpoena that would force him to reveal the sources of his 2006 book, State of War.

These latest “revisions” will expand the already formidable investigative powers granted the Bureau by former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

Three years ago, The Washington Post informed us that the FBI’s new “road map” permits agents “to recruit informants, employ physical surveillance and conduct interviews in which agents disguise their identities” and can pursue “each of those steps without any single fact indicating a person has ties to a terrorist organization.”

Accordingly, FBI “assessments” (the precursor to a full-blown investigation) already lowered by the previous administration will, under Obama, be lowered still further in a bid to “keep us safe”–from our constitutional rights.

The Mukasey guidelines, which created the “assessment” fishing license handed agents the power to probe people and organizations “proactively” without a shred of evidence that an individual or group engaged in unlawful activity.

In fact, rather than relying on a reasonable suspicion or allegations that a person is engaged in criminal activity, racial, religious or political profiling based on who one is or on one’s views, are the basis for secretive “assessments.”

Needless to say, the presumption of innocence, the bedrock of a republican system of governance based on the rule of law, like the right to privacy, becomes one more “quaint” notion in a National Security State. In its infinite wisdom, the Executive Branch has cobbled together an investigative regime that transforms anyone, and everyone, into a suspect; a Kafkaesque system from which there is no hope of escape.

Under Bushist rules, snoops were required to open an inquiry “before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database,” the Times reported. In other words, somewhere in the dank, dark bowels of the surveillance bureaucracy a paper trail exists that just might allow you to find out your rights had been trampled.

But our “transparency” regime intends to set the bar even lower. Securocrats will now be allowed to rummage through commercial databases “without making a record about their decision.”

The ACLU’s Michael German, a former FBI whistleblower, told the Times that “claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse.”

Such abuses are already widespread. In 2009 for example, the ACLU pointed out that “Anti-terrorism training materials currently being used by the Department of Defense (DoD) teach its personnel that free expression in the form of public protests should be regarded as ‘low level terrorism’.”

As I reported in 2009, citing a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Bureau’s massive Investigative Data Warehouse (IDW), is a data-mining Frankenstein that contains more “searchable records” than the Library of Congress.

EFF researchers discovered that “In addition to storing vast quantities of data, the IDW provides a content management and data mining system that is designed to permit a wide range of FBI personnel (investigative, analytical, administrative, and intelligence) to access and analyze aggregated data from over fifty previously separate datasets included in the warehouse.”

Accordingly, “the FBI intends to increase its use of the IDW for ‘link analysis’ (looking for links between suspects and other people–i.e. the Kevin Bacon game) and to start ‘pattern analysis’ (defining a ‘predictive pattern of behavior’ and searching for that pattern in the IDW’s datasets before any criminal offence is committed–i.e. pre-crime).”

Once new FBI guidelines are in place, and congressional grifters have little stomach to challenge government snoops as last month’s disgraceful “debate” over renewing three repressive provisions of the USA Patriot Act attest, “low-level” inquiries will be all but impossible to track, let alone contest.

Despite a dearth of evidence that dissident groups or religious minorities, e.g., Muslim-Americans have organized violent attacks in the heimat, the new guidelines will permit the unlimited deployment of “surveillance squads” that “surreptitiously follow targets.”

In keeping with the Bureau’s long-standing history of employing paid informants and agents provocateurs such as Brandon Darby and a host of others, to infiltrate and disrupt organizations and foment violence, rules governing “‘undisclosed participation’ in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant” will also be loosened.

The Times reports that the revised manual “clarifies a description of what qualifies as a “sensitive investigative matter”–investigations, at any level, that require greater oversight from supervisors because they involve public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars.”

According to the Times, the manual “clarifies the definition of who qualifies for extra protection as a legitimate member of the news media in the Internet era: prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs.”

In other words, if you don’t have the deep pockets of a corporate media organization to defend you from a government attack, you’re low-hanging fruit and fair game, which of course, makes a mockery of guarantees provided by the First Amendment.

As I reported last month, with requests for “National Security Letters” and other opaque administrative tools on the rise, the Obama administration has greatly expanded already-repressive spy programs put in place by the previous government.

Will data extracted by the Bureau’s Investigative Data Warehouse or its new Data Integration and Visualization System retain a wealth of private information gleaned from commercial and government databases on politically “suspect” individuals for future reference? Without a paper trail linking a person to a specific inquiry you’d have no way of knowing.

Even should an individual file a Freedom of Information Act request demanding the government turn over information and records pertaining to suspected wrongdoing by federal agents, as Austin anarchist Scott Crow did, since the FBI will not retain a record of preliminary inquiries, FOIA will be hollowed-out and become, yet another, futile and meaningless exercise.

And with the FBI relying on secret legal memos issued by the White House Office of Legal Counsel justifying everything from unchecked access to internet and telephone records to the deployment of government-sanctioned malware on private computers during “national security” investigations, political and privacy rights are slowly being strangled.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His articles are published in many venues. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press. Read other articles by Tom, or visit Tom's website.

This article was posted on Monday, June 20th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Civil Liberties, Democracy, Espionage/"Intelligence", FBI, Legal/Constitutional, Obama, Privacy, Security, Terrorism (state and retail).

Thursday, June 16, 2011

America: Once the Most Respected Nation in the World; What Happened?




June 15, 2011 at 20:50:57

America: Once the Most Respected Nation in the World; What Happened?

By michael payne (about the author)


Respect by scrolling.bigelow.com

What happened? Well, that's really not difficult to explain. America once was the most respected, and admired, nation in the world. But then, suddenly, things began to change quite radically and, over a period of several decades, America went from being the most respected nation in the world to the most feared. Going from the most respected to the most feared is quite a feat, so how did such a transformation evolve?

We might call what happened to America "the good cop, bad cop" syndrome. After World War II, the U.S. was highly respected and thought of as that good cop that had led the efforts to defeat the primary Axis powers of Germany and Japan. After that war, it had, more or less, assumed the role of protector of the world.

America is no longer viewed as a protector of the world but, rather, a mighty military force that is protecting its own national interests. Quite a reversal of roles, is it not? The skies are full of our air power; the seas teeming with our fleets; and a large part of the world is garrisoned with our military installations and troops. The America of today is largely being viewed as the bad cop after its invasions and occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan over the past decade.

If I had to come up with one word to describe the dramatic change that has come over America during the last half of the 20th century and thus far in the 21st, it would be - rampant Militarism. It's as if an obsessive-compulsive behavioral disorder had entered the body of America, one that is totally resistant to any known treatment. It's a condition that is not improving over time but is continuing to grow with ever more intensity.

But let's get back to determining why America has largely lost the respect of the world. When did all this unrestrained militarism really take shape? We could say it began when, in 1950, U.S. forces were deployed in South Korea to help that nation fend off the threats of invasion by North Korea's armies. The stated reason for our involvement in that war that ended in 1953 was, supposedly, to stop the spread of communism. So let's call that the beginning.

However, I believe that the large growth of U.S. militarism began after several hundred thousand of our troops were deployed in Vietnam, beginning in 1965 during the era of the Cold War. That horrific military conflict lasted until the U.S. was forced to exit that country in 1975, but not before we had lost the astounding number of 58,000 troops and more than 2 million Vietnamese had been killed. During that war the U.S. used napalm, white phosphorus, and Agent Orange toxic chemicals to subdue the enemy and that country; it didn't work.

That was the point, in my estimation, at which the respect for America among the nations of the world began to erode. Sure there was a communist threat during that era, and it certainly had to be addressed, but the question was -- did it necessitate such a massive, long war to deal with the threat, or was it one of the greatest military blunders in history? We will let historians make that judgment, but this we know: from that time on the U.S. went on to involve itself in a succession of military conflicts against supposed enemies, mostly in very small nations, all over the world. And, unfortunately, the trend continues to this day.

If Korea was the beginning of our militaristic machine, and Vietnam greatly escalated its scope, then the terrorist attack on 9/11 can be considered as the event that capped the entire process and locked America into its current agenda of perpetual war.

Our government always needs some kind of bogeymen in order to justify its wars; during World War II the bogeymen were Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo -- and, yes, they were that and a whole lot more. More recently it was Saddam Hussein, then Osama Bin Laden, and now it's Libya's Gadhafi. Which country and which designated bogeyman within it will be the next target? Stay tuned because it could be Yemen, Syria, Iran or any nation in the Middle East, Central Asia or who knows where.

Currently the U.S. and NATO have about 150,000 troops caught up in a large quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan while, at the same time, the U.S. is trying to make deals with the governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq to maintain a military presence in those nations for many decades to come. We continue to spend massive amounts of taxpayer money on our military empire while these same taxpayers would like that money spent on domestic needs, including the repair of our rapidly deteriorating national infrastructure.

I think the nations of the world are looking at America and what it is doing and just shaking their heads in utter disbelief -- and in fear. Is this the very same country for which they formerly had such great respect and admiration? They wonder how much longer all this aggressive U.S. military action will continue around the world, and if they could be next target on the list.

Remember when the "Acting" President Ronald Reagan said, " America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere." Does anyone still think that this is the way that the world views America today?

A further question might be to ask: does America even care whether it is respected by the other nations of the world? Do we really care what they may think about us? Well, I'd answer that in two ways: I'd say that the majority of Americans would like to regain the respect of the world that this nation once had and that they don't particularly like being viewed as hostile and belligerent.

In the case of our government that's an entirely different matter. By all its aggressive military actions around the world it appears that it is not concerned about having the respect of the world; it has a set agenda that involves military control over specific regions of the world, and it simply wants the nations of the world to accept that fact and not to interfere with how its being carried out.

The leadership of our government may not be the least concerned about respect because, in this highly dangerous world, power is what counts and that it has. Respect, therefore, is not an important issue to our leaders. But things have a way of changing quite dramatically, as history tells us. The day is fast approaching when America's vast military empire will have to be drastically scaled back because our failing economy and our financial instability will no longer be able to sustain it. All the meaningful indicators are telling us that a huge financial crisis is imminent.

When that happens we might just be looking for a few friends in the world to help us in our time of crisis, and the respect of other nations will, without a doubt, become extremely important. The question is; at that time, when we're looking for and needing those friends and their respect and support, will America get it; will it even deserve it?

Michael Payne is an independent progressive who writes articles about domestic social and political matters as well as American foreign policy. He is a U.S. Army veteran. His major goal is to convince Americans that our perpetual wars must end (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Congressional Investigation Confirms: US Funds Afghan Warlords



Iraq & Afghanistan



Congressional Investigation Confirms: US Funds Afghan Warlords


By Aram Roston, The Nation


The congressional report was sparked by an Investigative Fund/Nation magazine probe.


Security for key US military supply routes in Afghanistan is in the hands of a small group of powerful Afghan warlords who run a massive protection racket and may be paying off the Taliban, according to a congressional report being released Tuesday. The report, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Nation, discloses that the Army has opened a criminal investigation into the payoffs, as an Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesman confirmed this evening to the Associated Press.

The jarring report, called “Warlord, Inc.,” is the result of a six-month investigation prompted by a Nation cover story last November, "How the US Funds the Taliban," about the largest US logistics contract in Afghanistan. Under that $2.16 billion contract, called Host Nation Trucking (HNT), the US Army has hired eight civilian trucking firms to transport supplies to a web of combat outposts and bases set up throughout Afghanistan. The Nation story, which was reported in conjunction with The Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute, described how US taxpayer dollars are being funneled into an elaborate system of extortion in Afghanistan as well-connected security firms made payoffs to warlords allied with insurgents for safe passage of US military goods.

In the HNT contract, firms pay for their own private security, with little oversight from the US government. The report by the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs says the resulting system promotes corruption and strengthens warlords — while the US military looks on. The contract “fuels warlordism, extortion, and corruption,” the report asserts, “and it may be a significant source of funding for insurgents. “When HNT contractors self-reported to the military that they were being extorted by warlords for protection payments for safe passage and that these payments were ‘funding the insurgency,’ they were largely met with indifference and inaction,” the report adds. Among the most significant findings in the report: “security for the US supply chain is principally provided by warlords”; “the highway warlords run a protection racket”; and “protection payments for safe passage are a significant source of funding for the Taliban.”

“It’s outrageous that this is going on,” said Congressman John Tierney, chairman of the subcommittee, in an interview with The Nation. “The evidence indicates a protection racket that would make Tony Soprano proud.”

Committee investigators obtained emails and documents in which US contractors repeatedly warned the US military that they were paying bribes and being extorted, and that US taxpayer funds might be going to the Taliban.

In 2009, a contractor wrote frankly to military officers, “It is believed [that certain funds] are being paid as bribes to local Commanders, and therefore inevitably to the enemy.” In another case, a contractor wrote in an internal company memo of a meeting with the military where there was discussion of “funding the insurgency” with “what is estimated at 1.6 – 2 million Dollars per week.”

In one email the subcommittee obtained, a US contractor shares explicit details with the military logistics headquarters at Bagram, writing that “the current price to the Taliban is $500 per truck from Kandahar to Herat, $50 from Kabul to Ghazni.” The contractor complains that “if we make payment that money will be funneled back into their fight against the Coalition.”

Driving home how much influence the warlords now have, the report includes a contractor’s printed list of forty-four military supply routes, each apparently controlled by one of ten warlords. The subcommittee report compares it to a “prix fixe menu” for security.

Committee staff interviewed one key warlord, Commander Ruhullah, who was first identified in the Nation article, calling him “the single largest security provider for the U.S. supply chain in Afghanistan.” The report says Ruhullah, nicknamed “The Butcher” by villagers along his route, has a private army of 600 armed guards. “Despite this critical and sensitive role,” the report says, underlining the chaotic nature of Afghan security, “nobody from the Department of Defense or the U.S. intelligence community has ever met with him (except for a brief detention by U.S. Special Forces on what he says are false drug charges).”

As The Nation had previously reported, Ruhullah operated with a private security company called Watan Risk, which is owned by Ahmad Rateb Popal and Rashid Popal. Both men are cousins of Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai, and both have old convictions for federal heroin charges in the United States.

According to the report, Ruhullah denied bribing the Taliban, but admitted he paid bribes to “governors, police chiefs, and army generals." He said he guarded 3,500 trucks per month, charging up to $1,500 a truck, a fee that ultimately comes from US taxpayers.

The committee report found that Department of Defense oversight of the multi-billion dollar contract was “virtually non-existent.” The officer in charge of the technical contract oversight told committee staff that his unit had “zero visibility” over the subcontractors who actually did the work bringing supplies to various US bases and outposts.

One lieutenant colonel to whom contractors had complained told the committee that he couldn’t have investigated. “That was way, way, way, way above my level,” he said, “my job was to get barrels of insulating foam for tents out to Dwyer so Marines didn’t suffocate from heat exhaustion.”

While the military unit that oversaw the contract treated the allegations with "indifference," according to the subcommittee, there was a criminal investigation launched. The subcommittee released a PowerPoint from the Criminal Investigation Command-Afghanistan entitled "Host Nation Trucking. Payments to Insurgents." Most of the slides have been redacted. In one email cited by the committee, dated December 2009, a military commander says "We had the FBI, CIA, CID and 3 or 4 other acronym agencies in the office to work this topic."

Tags: afghan warlords, aram roston, investigative, investigative journalism, investigative reporting, us and the taliban, warlord inc

  • Aram Roston is an Emmy Award-winning journalist and author who covers national security, crime and corruption, in addition to more enjoyable matters. Based in Washington, he’s been breaking major stories for more than 17 years, on air and in print. He has worked as an investigative producer at NBC News, a correspondent for CNN, a polic...

    Aram Roston's reporter page »

The Manufacture of American Madness: 100% Scared: How the National Security Complex Grows on Terrorism Fears


Americans don't expect 100% safety from illness, car crashes, or even shark attacks. But our obsession with 100% safety from terrorism is fueling the military-industrial complex.




[Note to TomDispatch Readers: Consider today’s post a stand-alone companion to my previous piece “Welcome to Post-Legal America.” And keep in mind that the offer of a signed, personalized copy of Adam Hochschild’s bestselling new book, To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918, in return for a $100 contribution to this website remains open for perhaps another week. To check it out, click here or simply go to our donation page here. Many thanks, by the way, to the startling numbers of TD readers who took us up on this offer. Your contributions really do help keep this site chugging along! Tom]

100% Scared
How the National Security Complex Grows on Terrorism Fears

By Tom Engelhardt

Here’s a scenario to chill you to the bone:

Without warning, the network -- a set of terrorist super cells -- struck in northern Germany and Germans began to fall by the hundreds, then thousands. As panic spread, hospitals were overwhelmed with the severely wounded. More than 20 of the victims died.

No one doubted that it was al-Qaeda, but where the terrorists had come from was unknown. Initially, German officials accused Spain of harboring them (and the Spanish economy promptly took a hit); then, confusingly, they retracted the charge. Alerts went off across Europe as fears spread. Russia closed its borders to the European Union, which its outraged leaders denounced as a “disproportionate” response. Even a small number of Americans visiting Germany ended up hospitalized.

In Washington, there was panic, though no evidence existed that the terrorists were specifically targeting Americans or that any of them had slipped into this country. Still, at a hastily called news conference, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano raised the new terror alert system for the first time from its always “elevated“ status to “imminent” (that is, “ a credible, specific, and impending threat”). Soon after, a Pentagon spokesman announced that the U.S. military had been placed on high alert across Europe.

Commentators on Fox News, quoting unnamed FBI sources, began warning that this might be the start of the “next 9/11” -- and that the Obama administration was unprepared for it. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in a rare public appearance at the American Enterprise Institute, denounced the president for “heedlessly putting this country at risk from the terrorists.” In Congress, members of both parties rallied behind calls for hundreds of millions of dollars of supplementary emergency funding for the Department of Homeland Security to strengthen airport safety. (“In such difficult economic times,” said House Speaker John Boehner, “Congress will have to find cuts from non-military discretionary spending at least equal to these necessary supplementary funds.”)

Finally, as the noise in the media echo chamber grew, President Obama called a prime-time news conference and addressed the rising sense of hysteria in Washington and the country, saying: “Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies will stop at nothing in their efforts to kill Americans. And we are determined not only to thwart those plans, but to disrupt, dismantle and defeat their networks once and for all.” He then ordered a full review of U.S. security and intelligence capabilities and promised a series of “concrete steps to protect the American people: new screening and security for all flights, domestic and international;... more air marshals on flights; and deepening cooperation with international partners.”

Terrorism Tops Shark Attacks

The first part of this scenario is, of course, a “terrorist” version of the still ongoing E. coli outbreak in Germany -- the discovery of an all-new antibiotic-resistant “super toxic variant” of the bacteria that has caused death and panic in Europe. Although al-Qaeda and E. coli do sound a bit alike, German officials initially (and evidently incorrectly) accused Spanish cucumbers, not terrorists in Spain or German bean sprouts, of causing the crisis. And the “disproportionate” Russian response was not to close its borders to the European Union, but to ban E.U. vegetables until the source of the outbreak is discovered.

Above all, the American over-reaction was pure fiction. In fact, scientists here have been urging calm and mid-level government officials have been issuing statements of reassurance on the safety of the country’s food supply system. No one attacked the government for inaction; Cheney did not excoriate the president, nor did Napolitano raise the terror alert level, and Obama’s statement, quoted above, was given on January 5, 2010, in the panicky wake of the “underwear bomber’s” failed attempt to blow a hole in a Christmas day plane headed from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Ironically, non-super-toxic versions of E. coli now cause almost as much damage yearly in the U.S. as the recent super-toxic strain has in Europe. A child recently died in an outbreak in Tennessee. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have estimated that earlier in the decade about 60 Americans died annually from E. coli infections and ensuing complications, and another 2,000 were hospitalized. More recently, the figure for E. coli deaths has dropped to about 20 a year. For food-borne disease more generally, the CDC estimates that 48 million (or one of every six) Americans get sick yearly, 128,000 are hospitalized, and about 3,000 die.

By comparison, in the near decade since 9/11, while hundreds of Americans died from E. coli, and at least 30,000 from food-borne illnesses generally, only a handful of Americans, perhaps fewer than 20, have died from anything that might be considered a terror attack in this country, even if you include the assassination attempt against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the Piper Cherokee PA-28 that a disgruntled software engineer flew into a building containing an IRS office in Austin, Texas, killing himself and an IRS manager. ("Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well" went his final note.)

In other words, in terms of damage since 9/11, terror attacks have ranked above shark attacks but below just about anything else that could possibly be dangerous to Americans, including car crashes which have racked up between 33,800 and 43,500 deaths a year since 2001.

While E. coli deaths have dropped in recent years, no one expects them to get to zero, nor have the steps been taken that might bring us closer to the 100% safety mark. As Gardiner Harris of the New York Times wrote recently, “A law passed by Congress last year gave the Food and Drug Administration new powers to mandate that companies undertake preventive measures to reduce the likelihood of such outbreaks, and the law called for increased inspections to ensure compliance. The agency requested additional financing to implement the new law, including hiring more inspectors next year. Republicans in the House have instead proposed cutting the agency’s budget.”

Doctrines from One to 100

Here, then, is one of the strange, if less explored, phenomena of our post-9/11 American age: in only one area of life are Americans officially considered 100% scared, and so 100% in need of protection, and that’s when it comes to terrorism.

For an E. coli strain that could pose serious dangers, were it to arrive here, there is no uproar. No screaming headlines highlight special demands that more money be poured into food safety; no instant plans have been rushed into place to review meat and vegetable security procedures; no one has been urging that a Global War on Food-Borne Illnesses be launched.

In fact, at this moment, six strains of E. coli that do cause illness in this country remain unregulated. Department of Agriculture proposals to deal with them are “stalled” at the Office of Management and Budget. Meanwhile, the super-toxic E. coli strain that appeared in Europe remains officially unregulated here.

On the other hand, send any goofus America-bound on a plane with any kind of idiotic device, and the politicians, the media, and the public promptly act as if -- and it’s you I’m addressing, Chicken Little -- the sky were falling or civilization itself were at risk.

This might be of only moderate interest, if it weren’t for the U.S. national security state. Having lost its communist super-enemy in 1991, it now lives, breathes, and grows on its self-proclaimed responsibility to protect Americans 100% of the time, 100% of the way, from any imaginable terror threat.

The National Security Complex has, in fact, grown fat by relentlessly pursuing the promise of making the country totally secure from terrorism, even as life grows ever less secure for so many Americans when it comes to jobs, homes, finances, and other crucial matters. It is on this pledge of protection that the Complex has managed to extort the tidal flow of funds that have allowed it to bloat to monumental proportions, end up with a yearly national security budget of more than $1.2 trillion, find itself encased in a cocoon of self-protective secrecy, and be 100% assured that its officials will never be brought to justice for any potential crimes they may commit in their “war” on terrorism.

Right now, even in the worst of economic times, the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon, and the sprawling labyrinth of competing bureaucracies that likes to call itself the U.S. Intelligence Community are all still expanding. And around them have grown up, or grown ever stronger, various complexes (à la "military-industrial complex") with their associated lobbyists, allied former politicians, and retired national security state officials, as well as retired generals and admirals, in an atmosphere that, since 2001, can only be described as boomtown-like, the modern equivalent of a gold rush.

Think of it this way: in the days after 9/11, Vice President Cheney proposed a new formula for American war policy. Its essence was this: even a 1% chance of an attack on the United States, especially involving weapons of mass destruction, must be dealt with as if it were a certainty. Journalist Ron Suskind dubbed it “the one percent doctrine.” It may have been the rashest formula for "preventive" or "aggressive" war offered in the modern era and, along with the drumbeat of bogus information that Cheney and crew dished out about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it was the basis for the Bush administration’s disastrous attempt to occupy that country and build a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East.

There was, it turns out, a “homeland” equivalent, never quite formulated or given a name, but remarkably successful nonetheless at feeding an increasingly all-encompassing domestic war state. Call it the 100% doctrine (for total safety from terrorism). While the 1% version never quite caught on, the 100% doctrine has already become part of the American credo.

Thanks to it, the National Security Complex of 2011 is a self-reinforcing, self-perpetuating mechanism. Any potential act of terrorism simply feeds the system, creating new opportunities to add yet more layers to one bureaucracy or another, or to promote new programs of surveillance, control, and war-making -- and the technology that goes with them. Every minor deviation from terror safety, even involving plots that failed dismally or never had the slightest chance of success, is but an excuse for further funding.

Meanwhile, the Complex continually “mans up” (or drones up) and, from Pakistan to Yemen, launches attacks officially meant to put terrorists out of action, but that have the effect of creating them in the process. In other words, consider it a terrorist-creating machine that needs -- what else? -- repeated evidence of or signs of terrorism to survive and thrive.

Though few here seem to notice, none of this bears much relationship to actual American security. But if the National Security Complex doesn’t make you secure, its 100% doctrine is by no means a failure. On the basis of ensuring your security from terror, it has managed to make itself secure from bad times, the dangers of downsizing, job loss, most forms of accountability, or prosecution for acts that once would have been considered crimes.

In fact, terrorism is anything but the greatest of our problems or threats, which means that acquiescing to a state dedicated to expansion on the principle of keeping you safe from terror is like making a bargain with the devil.

So suck it up. Nothing is secure. No one is safe. Now, eat your sprouts.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book is The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s (Haymarket Books).

[Note: For a canny analysis of how the National Security Complex’s embrace of the 100% doctrine has enhanced its powers, check out David Bromwich’s “Obama, Bush, and the Patriot Act”; special thanks for research help on this piece goes to that invaluable former TomDispatch intern Erica Hellerstein; and as for Christopher Holmes, this site’s eye-in-the-sky copyeditor, he holds TomDispatch mail down by keeping mistakes readers would otherwise write in about to a miraculous minimum.]

Copyright 2011 Tom Engelhardt

American Banks 'High' On Drug Money: How a Whistleblower Blew the Lid Off Wachovia-Drug Cartel Money Laundering Scheme

AlterNet.org

DRUGS
A fraud investigator helped expose the shocking world of multi-billion dollar drug laundering by American banks and the surprising lack of oversight by the Feds.

Martin Woods, an Englishman in his mid-40s, is blessed with a Sherlock Holmes instinct and demeanor. Woods is an expert at sniffing out "dirty" money passing through International Banking Systems.

A police officer for 18 years and later a detective with London Metro Police Agency, Woods capitalized on his unique expertise as a fraud expert by joining Wachovia's London-based Bank in March 2005 as an anti-money laundering officer.

It wasn't long after taking the job that he discovered that his own employer, one of America's leading banks, was a major player in aiding the "bloodthirsty" Mexico drug cartels to launder billions of dollars in drug money through Wachovia banks. Woods traced and identified a "number of suspicious transactions" related to Mexico-based Casa de Cambios (CDC).

Casa de Cambios are currency-exchange operations set up along the U.S. Mexico-border to assist cross border transfers of money to remit labor paychecks. And on the illegal side the Casa de Cambios are also known as the superhighway for narcotic proceeds into the U.S. and overseas financial markets.

When Woods zeroed in on deposited traveler's checks with sequential numbers sent by the CDC he discovered that large amounts of funds were exceedingly more than a typical person would need. The questionable CDC checks either lacked adequate identifying information or had none at all, including no legible signatures affixed on the funds.

Following this discovery investigator Woods issued a "suspicious activity report" (SAR) on a series of the CDCs' financial transfers and deposits. Then he requested the CDC checks to be temporarily blocked from transaction pending further investigation.

Not long after, an exchange of heated words occurred. A senior Miami-based manager called Woods' SAR reports "defensive and unwarranted."

Feeling jaded, Woods, as he recalls, "came under fire from the bank staff to change tactics and develop a better understanding of Mexico."

Wachovia officials ordered Woods to cease inquiries about Mexican CDCs and to also stop blocking other Eastern Europe and Moscow accounts. The British investigator, snapped, "I don't need to read up on Mexico. My interest are drug trafficking and money laundering."

His instincts proved correct. On April 10, 2006, during early morning hours, a DC-9 airplane landed onto the tarmac at the International Airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, located east of Mexico City. Once the engine turned off, military soldiers trained by U.S. FBI agents immediately grew suspicious and surrounded the aircraft. Armed with high-powered weapons, the soldiers searched the luxury plane and discovered five-plus tons of pure cocaine packed in suitcases.

The cocaine was valued at $120 million, and the Feds working with Mexico later determined the drugs were headed for the United States from Venezuela. A stash of paperwork found on the plane eventually identified discreet connections between an American bank and Mexico-based currency operation Casa de Cambios Puebla. A subsequent investigation would prove that Wachovia Bank washed billions of illegal drug money into the U.S. financial system on behalf of the Mexico-based Casa Cambios.

With U.S. Federal law enforcement backing him up, Martin Woods investigation assisted the Feds to build an airtight case against Wachovia. Starting off, the Feds discovered that $13 billion dollars in drug money was transferred by the CDC into correspondent bank accounts at Wachovia to purchase airplanes for the use of trafficking drugs from Colombia to Mexico and then the drugs were shipped to the U.S.

This high-profile investigation ultimately revealed that from 2004-2007, a staggering amount of illegal drug proceeds totaling $378.4 billion dollars were transferred into Wachovia by the Mexico-based Casa Cambios that violated U.S. government anti-money laundering compliance.

Following these findings a slew of federal charges filed in 2009 by Federal prosecutors in Florida hit Wachovia with the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act in U.S. history.

Douglas Edwards, senior vice president of Wachovia Bank confessed they didn't do enough to spot illicit funds in handling the $378.4 billions for the Mexico's Casa Cambios. But Edwards declined to answer specific questions including how much they earned for handling the billions of dollars for the currency operation.

Overall, the amount of drug proceeds ($378 billion dollars) that the CDC deposited into Wachovia Bank actually equaled one third of Mexico's entire $1.4 trillion dollar annual GDP.

As part of the agreement Wachovia agreed to pay the government a fine of $110 million dollars with an additional fine of $50 million dollars to be paid to the U.S. Treasury Department. The total fine of $160 million dollars was less than 2% of the bank's $12.3 billion dollars in profit made in 2009. By the time Wachovia agreed to pay the hefty fine, Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia during the banking crisis for $12.7 billion. Then Well Fargo reaped a windfall from the government, a gift of $25 billion dollars of taxpayers money as part of President Obama stimulus package in 2009.

"Today, we announce the deferred prosecution of Wachovia, one of the largest banks in the United States, said U.S. Jeffrey Sloman on March 12, 2010. "Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations by laundering drug proceeds."

Sloman further stated, "as this case demonstrates, financial institutions---no matter how large will be held accountable when they allow 'dirty' money to pollute the U.S. banking system."

The Wachovia scandal sent fears into the banking industry among prominent members because now they suspected the Feds would crack down more heavily against foreign customers, particularly Mexico.

In an interview with a Daily Business Review reporter, International Banking Attroney Clemente Vazquez-Bello, said, "The concern, obviously, in the industry is are we going to pay for the sins of Wachovia. ... It's mind-boggling beyond comprehension that in the compliance world that an institution of their size and stature would have permitted these enormous deficiencies."

Mexico Drug Cartel

Mexican drug lords are among the world's most dangerous and wanted criminals. They are savage, rich, notorious for violence, and transport massive shipments of narcotics into the United States and throughout the world. They profit billions from the prohibitionist drug policies of the U.S. government.

When Mexico president Felipe Calderon took office in December, 2006, he immediately ordered the armed forces to kill or capture the cartels including their members and associates. So far, the unrelenting violence has killed more than 35,000 people, with 15,000 last year. Overall, the stark reality in this ongoing brutal and sadistic violence has failed to stem the drug war.

The tremendous amount of proceeds that the CDC transferred in-and-out of Wachovia bank raise a provocative question: How do Mexican cartels get their money into American banks? Either banking officials were asleep at the wheel or tacitly ignored the shady business going on to boost profits for themselves.

"The failure of U.S. banks to take adequate steps to prevent money laundering is a widespread and ongoing problem," said Michigan U.S. Senator Carl Levin in February 2010.

Investigative journalist Daniel Hopsicker wrote stories about the Wachovia drug cartel scandal on his website. Hopsicker's investigation uncovered the fact that the airplanes that were busted with cocaine and purchased through Wachovia with illegal drug funds, previously had a steamy relationship with CIA and National Defense contractors.

Disappointed that the case against Wachovia didn't go to a criminal trial, investigator Woods lamented, "Bankers will continue to take dangerous risks because the deferred prosecution concludes there's no personal consequences for their actions."

"We were hoping the case against Wachovia went to trial because the laundering of drug money was related to organized crime, drug trafficking and thousands of murders in Mexico," he said.

Antoino Maria Costa, former executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said in 2008, "there's evidence to suggest that proceeds from drugs and crimes were the only liquid investment capital for banks in trouble of collapsing [during the financial crisis]."

If billions of dollars in drug money rescued banks and other financial institutions from closing down then it's reasonable to argue that the economy itself is addicted to drugs.

As professor Dale Scott noted in his book, American War Machine: Deep Politics; the CIA Global Drug Connection: "A U.S. Senate staff chaired by the banking committee reportedly estimated that between $500 billion and $1 trillion dollars are laundered each year through banks worldwide, with approximately half of that amount funneled through U.S. Banks."

The UK Independent newspaper reported in 2004 that drug trafficking constituted "the third-biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade."

"New York and London are the world's biggest financial institutions for money laundering and offshore tax havens," Woods told this journalist during recent interview. "New York is the global currency for legitimate and criminal business because it is offshore to everywhere. And London is the world's biggest financial center by value and volume."

How Martin Woods Exposed Wachovia's Drug Money Laundering Scheme

Back in 2001, Martin Woods played an instrumental role in helping U.S. authorities to crack a Russian-based money laundering scheme involving Lucy Edwards, Vice President of Bank of New York. Wood's tenacious undercover work led the FBI to charge Edwards and her husband with laundering illegal proceeds for the Russian Mob.

In March 2005, as mentioned earlier, Woods joined the London branch of Wachovia Bank as a senior anti-money laundering officer. Woods strategic M.O. was to safeguard the company from cleverly disguised illegal proceeds by implementing bank policies referred to as "Know Your Client" (KYC).

KYC requires investigators and banking officials to identify dirty money ranging from fraud, tax evasion, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing as the primary target.

Once fraud was detected, Woods was charged with reporting to Wachovia Bank headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. So when the Mexico-based Casa Canbios began sending suspicious funds into the bank, Woods implemented an enhanced transaction monitoring program to retrieve more intricate details on customers making deposits. He struck gold.

Woods identified similar numerous "suspicious transactions" of proceeds deposited into Wachovia banks that was traced back to Casa Cambios in Mexico.

The funds in question were traveler cheques in euros. A close inspection of the cheques showed the lack of "know your client" information and the cheques had no legible signatures.

"It was basic work," Woods later recalled in his whistleblower lawsuit against Wachovia. He pointed out how the Mexico-based CDC failed to answer simple questions: "Is the transaction real? Does the cheques meet the protocols? Is it all there, and if not, why not?"

Prior to Wachovia hiring Martin Woods in 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department had already issued warning alerts to foreign and American-based banks explaining that Mexico-based CDCs were primarily owned by kingpin drug cartel Joaquin "el Chapo" Guzman. In 2006, the Feds, working with Mexico identified six CDCs that laundered $120 million dollars in drug money for the Arellano Felix cartel.

Treasury officials said the CDCs were used exclusively by money launderers to transfer or exchange the value of Mexican hard currency that was sent to bank accounts in the United States or other countries to conduct financial commerce.

The U.S. government further said that the CDCs did not operate in the same manner the way banks operated in the United States, nor did the CDCs provide or maintained checking accounts, savings accounts or any commercial banking services.

Alarmed over the CDC transactions, Woods reviewed previous wire transfers that CDC sent and he was shocked to learn that the techniques the CDC had used earlier duplicated the scheme. For instance, a retrack of CDC transactions revealed lack of sufficient information to identify the true identities of the individuals that sent the money from the CDC businesses in Mexico.

Realizing the wire transfers from the CDCs was most likely a money laundering operation, Martin Woods began an inquiry by filing "suspicious activity reports" (SARs) and sent them to the London authorities and he also sent duplicate SARs to Wachovia supervisors in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Following the SARs alert, Woods requested the Wachovia banking system to deny Mexico-based CDCs sequentially numbered traveler's cheques.

Satisified he'd done his job, Woods expected Wachovia to respond accordingly with an internal investigation into his discovery of the CDCs banking operations.

As an investigator, Martin Woods held the belief that it was his duty to prevent criminals from polluting Wachovia Bank with illegal proceeds and that the bank would back him up.

He was wrong.

Dirty work at the cross road awaited him. Wachovia's top-level officials became his worst enemy that culminated into a force of subterfuge to undermine his superior work and destroy his credibility.

According to court records, on June 16, 2007, Wachovia ifficials challenged Woods for filing the "suspicious activity reports" (SAR). They argued that the SARs' should have never been filed against Mexico-based CDCs' and that Woods had no legal clout to investigate a foreign case.

Adding injury to insult the bank officials said Woods had no 'right' to access sensitive documents held overseas from Britain, regardless if Wachovia maintained the documents.

Following confrontations with Wachovia staff, Woods received a letter from a manager calling him a failure to perform at acceptable standards.

Apparently the controversy surrounding the proceeds that CDC was sending into the bank finally took effect. A few months later Woods noticed something odd: the Casa Cambio Puebla, simultaneously stopped routing traveler's checks through Wachovia's London branch.

A gut instinct motivated the investigator to ask Wachovia's American-based banks if they seen a similar routing change involving CDC traveler's checks.

His request caused an uproar from Wachovia's Miami-based manager Carlos Perez. Perez managed the Latin American accounts owned by the CDC Puebla. Visibly upset, Perez angrily questioned Woods, demanding to know "why he had problems when there was no problems when the CDC sent traveler's checks to London."

Meanwhile Martin Woods was overwhelmed with stress and frustration. Each attempt he made to crack this monstrous case his superiors sabotaged the investigation. During a conference held in London with foreign and U.S. federal law enforcement agents, Woods informed the DEA and FBI of his suspicion about the amount of quesionable funds that the CDCs' were sending into Wachovia banking systems.

He further told the agents that he suspected the involvement of certain top-level officials in helping the CDCs' to launder drug profits into Wachovia banks.

U.S. federal authorities immediately started an investigation beginning with the Wachovia branch in Miami Florida. "A narcotic investigation always involve two things and that's drugs and money," said Mark R. Trouville, the Special Agent in charge of Miami's DEA field division.

Once U.S. investigators confirmed Woods' suspicion they put in a lot of time to examine the SARs' that he sent from London to Wachovia's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

And Wachovia offered no blunt resistance or sabotage. "I felt good that the U.S. federal government wouldn't be intimidated by Wachovia," Woods wrote in an email sent to the author of this story.

Following a long deceitful trail of cover-ups by Wachovia to protect the CDCs' illegal proceeds the Feds soon discovered that Casa Cambio Puebla, one of Wachovia's long-term customers, had deposited hundreds of millions of dollars into different accounts at the bank.

The mastermind behind CDC Puebla was Pedro Alatorre, a savvy businessman who fronted the CDCs' as a money laundering operation for the Mexico cartels, specifically the Sinaloa and Gulf drug syndicates. Evidence showed the CDC Puebla owned over 40 interbank accounts at Wachovia branches in Miami, New York and London.

Things began to heat up. On May 26, 2007, DEA seized CDC Puebla accounts at Wachovia's bank in Miami Florida. The Feds contacted Mexico law enforcement and they agreed to help.

During the investigation Mexico agents started watching Alatorre's operation and they observed undercover couriers carrying "clear plastic bags" stuffed with cash that was transported to Alatorre's Puebla branch located at the Mexico City Airport.

"I am sure Wachovia knew what was going on," says Mexico Attorney General Jose Luis Marmolejo, who supervised the investigation against Wachovia's CDC customers.

In May 2008, the U.S. Justice Department charged Alatorre and his group with federal money laundering charges. Alatorre is fighting extradition to the United States. Investigators made additional arrests of cartel members who deposited drug proceeds into Bank of America in Brownsville Texas. Drug money was also detected in banks in Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, and New York.

Infuriated over the mistreatment by certain members of Wachovia's staff, Martin Woods, took a leave of absence to seek counseling. Convinced he was battling against enemies from within his work place, Woods filed a whistleblower lawsuit in May 2009 against Wachovia with London Employment Tribunal.

Cocaine Airplanes: The Wachovia Connection

Journalist Daniel Hopsicker is the host and writer of the prominent website Madcowmorningnews. He's also the exclusive producer of the highly-rated documentary DVD movie "American Drug Lords". Hopsicker is the investigative journalist who reported on his website the embarrasing, but true details of the two airplanes caught red-handed on separate occasions with tons of cocaine on board including Wachovia's connections with these aircrafts.

In an interview for this article, Hopsicker explained, "When Wachovia paid a $160 million fine for a decade-long history of laundering billions of drug money for Mexican drug cartels, it spotlighted the preferential treatmant given some participants in the international drug trade."

Hopsicker deadpanned, "An incredible $378 billion dollars had been laundered through Wachovia Bank whose money origins, according to U.S. prosecutors, were murky."

Hopsicker posed the billion dollar question: "How much did Wachovia make for washing all that filthy lucre?"

"The figure was never revealed although Wachovia had been operating as what federal prosecutors called, 'continuing criminal enterprise.' Yet Wachovia was allowed to plead guility to laundering a fraction of that amount and was only fined $160 million dollars, then sold off to Wachovia."

Regarding Wachovia's dark secrets involving the purchase of U.S. registered narco airplanes that were caught transporting cocaine, Hopsicker unraveled the dirty trail.

"Both of the drug-running American airplanes cited -- a DC-9 airliner (tail# N900SA) [was] also caught in the Yucatan in 2008 carrying 4 tons of cocaine which had connecttions with the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security."

Hopsicker gave the low down on the second airplane. "The Gulfstream was -- or had been -- a CIA plane. And the officers of Skyway Aircraft which owned the airplanes included former CIA and NSA (National Security Agency) operatives."

"One would think an important story of this magnitude would make headlines in every American newspaper and major TV networks including cable programs. But none of the prominent news media outlats reported the story of the U.S. registered aircrafts caught with the narcotics."

Hopsicker concluded, "with the exception of several stories written by Tampa Tribune reporter Howard Altman, those embarrasing details received zero exposure in America's mainstream media." Hopsicker also pointed out that Bloomberg Magazine reporter Michael Smith who wrote an extensive article about Wachovia's sordid history of laundering drug money for Mexican drug cartels did little to inspire interest.

"My investigation into the airplanes further uncovered a paper trail of FAA registration documents that revealed hidden connections between Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, Wachovia Bank and their American partners: people who the DEA insists don't exist: "The American Drug Lords."

Greed and Corruption: A Continuing Criminal Enterprise

A confession by Wachovia Bank executives last year indicating they laundered billions of dollars in drug money for the CDC was historic, and highly revealing of their approach to business. The executives had already been warned by U.S. Treasury Department of the serious risks associated with the CDCs.

As early as June 2004, the Treasury Department and banking regulators sent letters to U.S. banks indicating that the CDCs' were illegal money laundering operations; the letter appeared to encourage, not dissuade Wachovia from going after the CDC's drug tainted money.

In the legal agreement, Wachovia confessed to taking over other large banks after terminating their contract with Mexico-based CDCs' based on warnings from FBI, DEA and Treasury Department. Despite repeated warnings, Wachovia washed the bloody profits belonging to Mexican drug cartels to take their own cut.

To fill the void left behind by other competing banks who maintained business accounts for the CDC, Wachovia executed a clever scheme. In September 2005, Wachovia purchased the "rights" to solicit the international banking customers of Union Bank of California (UBOC).

The UBOC had backed off from doing business with the CDCs after warning letters from the Treasury Department. Wachovia wooed the CDC customers of UBOC into doing business with Wachovia although UBOC had already paid the government a fine of $31.6 million dollars for laundering over $20 million dollars in drug money for a Mexico-based currrency operation called Ribadeo Casa.

Once UBOC ceased the CDC operation, Wachovia "sweeten the deal" by hiring a former UBOC manager who previously supervised the CDC accounts and the manager even helped Wachovia's Miami branch to set up the structure of wire transfers. This under-the-table scheme increased Wachovia's business volume with the regular CDC customers.

Under Deferred Prosecution Agreement, here is an additional list of Federal Banking rules and laws that Wachovia also apparently violated to wash billions in profits:

(1) Pursuant to Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 5318, Wachovia failed to establish and maintain an anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program which provides internal policies, procedures and controls designed to guard against money laundering.

(2) Under same Federal Statue, Wachovia failed to implement risk-based programs to verify and record the identity of customers, like the Mexico-based CDCs'. If Wachovia officials would have properly complied with their own AML procedures they would have traced the origins of the CDCs' suspicious transactions, first reported by whistleblower Martin Woods.

(3) Wachovia was also required, Pursuant to rule 31, U.S. code, to file 'suspicious activity report' called the "SAR" with U.S. Treasury Department. But when investigator Woods filed SARs', he was demonized, bullied, and demoted in rank by Wachovia management.

(4) Wachovia intentionally violated banking policies and ignored their own internal policies to assist the CDCs' to launder illegal money into the U.S. Financial System and also failed to govern the repatriation of nearly $14 billion that came from the high-risk CDC business.

(5) Failure to detect and report suspicious activity in a timely manner of the $378.4 billion that Wachovia processed through wire transfers for Mexico-based CDCs'.

(6) When British investigator Martin Woods warned Wachovia of the CDCs' suspicious traveler's checks without legible names and that the names were either handwritten or stamped with numbers and letters, the bank also failed to properly investigate Woods complaints---thus allowing the CDC to launder illegal funds from May 1, 2004, through May 31, 2007.

(7) Between September 2005 and December 2007, Wachovia provided correspondent banking service to several Mexico-based Casa Cambios and also provided them with three valuable services to wash drug profits:

--Unlimited wire transfers of funds without IRS intervention.

--Bulk cash: Without detection the CDC co-workers used armor trucks and undercover vans to transport and deposit over $4 billion dollars in cash into a Wachovia business account.

--Around May 2005, Wachovia introduced a new delivery technique to accept international check deposits called "Remote Deposit Capture" (RDC). RDC allowed the CDCs' to scan deposits into a digital format and the scanned files were forwarded electronically to Wachovia for credit.

Another clever tactic used by Wachovia to buy airplanes for drug dealers who had business accounts at Wachovia was the "structured wire transfer" (SWT). SWT included other serious charges against Wachovia.

Under SWT violation the Feds said that between November 2005 and January 2006, Wachovia, on behalf of the CDC Puebla, transferred over $300,000 dollars from the CDC into a Bank of America account in Oklahoma City.

To assist the CDC to purchase airplanes to transport cocaine, ten wire transfers by four different individuals was sent to Wachovia and deposited into a business account owned by an aircraft broker.

On another occasion, a CDC sent eight wires to Wachovia; two for $49,000 dollars and six for $50,000 each. These funds were also deposited into the account owned by the aircraft broker.

"The funds were used to buy airplanes from a Oklahoma aircraft broker called Aircraft Titles," said journalist Daniel Hopsicker.

According to Bloomberg reporter Michael Smith, when Aircraft employees was queried about the narco airplanes bought from the company they refused comment.

Criminal Charges Rare Against Corporate CEOs, including Executives of America's Largest Bank

With headline stories across the nation exposing massive fraud and money laundering schemes infilitrating the American financial systems: how could it have been so difficult for the Feds to establish criminal intent for these lawbreakers?

Although in selected cases, a civil complaint filed by the SEC (Security Exchange Commission) is usually offered to corporations and banks that allow them to wiggle out of a criminal indictment in exchange for a fine. A civil fine is usually the norm but the bulk of wrongdoing goes unpunished.

Experts familiar with large corporations and banks that violate the law have said the fine these companies pay the government is merely the cost of doing business.

High profile criminal defense attorney Kent Schaffer of Houston Texas is familiar with the disparity in treatment of criminal defendants by the federal government. Schaffer recently represented Allen Stanford, a former owner of several U.S.banks and offshore banks. Stanford is charged in a multi-billion dollar fraud case.

"Federal prosecutors rather have a fine from banks and corporations that violate the law because prosecutors know the banks have the money." When this journalist asked Schaffer if any of his clients were offered a deferred prosecution for laundering drug money, the attorney said, "no, most of them went to prison."

Therefore we must question why bank executives and corporate CEOs' rarely face criminal indictments. And if by chance a series of criminal indictments are handed down the ripple effect of the massive injuries and loss of investor's funds outweigh the civil penalties and fines levied against the 'big wigs.'

A recent Associated Press story provides a penetrating insight into the broader picture illustrating the mindset of prosecutors regarding whether or not to pursue prosecutions in major white collar crimes.

According to prosecutors attending Florida's Anti-money Laundering Conference this past March, the lack of prosecutions of executives and CEOs' boils down to standards of proof to deal with the case criminally or civil.

"You don't find the smoking gun email where an executive said," "I know it's drug money but go do it anyway," New York federal prosecutor Evan Weitz told the AP reporter.

Bypassing criminal charges the prosecutors usually hit a bank with a civil indictment known in the legal circle as 'deferred prosecution agreement', the same deal Wacovia accepted despite overwhelming evidence of intentional criminal conduct.

Adam Kaufman, chief of the investigative division of the Manhattan D.A. office defended the approach in the AP story, by saying, "prosecutors could have indicted low-level bank employees who handled the transactions on a daily basis. But that wouldn't get the executives making the decisions and figuring out exactly who that is can be daunting."

Kaufman continued, "An indictment can be a death sentence for a financial institution and ruining large banks can trigger unforseen economic ripple effects."

The DA summed up what many believe is true, that banks and corporations are "too-big-to fail and too-big-to jail."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner echoed Kaufman's sentiments. Geithner once described the financial system as a "target rich environment" for financial fraud. Geithner further explained how massive a problem it can be: "if banks and corporations were criminally indicted the results would inflict disaster for investors and stockholders."

To prevent financial institutions from facing criminal indictments for intentional violation of federal bank laws, the Feds often press the executives, in exchange for a civil fine, and be put on probation, to confess illegal activity that is particularly described in the media as an oversight to uphold federal policy rules.

Or the government can recommend a "deferred prosecution" or drop the matter altogether.

A deferred prosecution gurantee zero jail time. In 2003, U.S. Justice Department issued a memo commending deferred prosecution as a legal approach. "With cooperation by the corporation, the government may be able to reduce tangible losses, limit damage to their reputation and preserve assets for restitution."

The memo included cozy safeguards: "a deferred prosecution or non-prosecution agreement can help restore the integrity of a company's operation and preserve the financial viability of a corporation involved with criminal conduct."

We are currently living under government more interested in preserving the integrity of financial operations that it has investigated for fraud and money laundering. Even more appalling is the fact our government found the institutions guility of intentionally breaking the law. And still no real punishment.

Whistleblower Vindicated

British investigator Martin Woods felt a relief of vindication when he received the news that Wachovia confessed to all the illegal activity that he brought to their attention. But instead of being commended for a job well done when he uncovered the "dirty money" scheme the executives made him the villain.

In May 2009 he settled the "whistleblower" lawsuit for an undisclosed amount of compensation against Wachovia. Martin Woods is on the rebound and now runs a London-based company called "Hermes Solution," drawing on his expertise.

Clarence Walker is a veteran Houston-based journalist who writes on criminal justice issues. He can be reached at cwalkerinvestigate@gmail.com.