One of the consequences of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent (but unrelated) anthrax attacks was a rapid increase in the number of high-containment biosafety/biodefense laboratories in the US.  In October 2007, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled "Germs, Viruses, and Secrets: The Silent Proliferation of Bio-Laboratories in the United States".

The Center For Disease Research And Policy at the University of Minnesota (CIDRAP) summarized the hearing:

A US House of Representatives committee today explored problems at the nation's biodefense labs, including a lack of coordinated federal oversight and even a lack of knowledge of how many high-containment labs exist.

These concerns have been highlighted recently by aggressive efforts from the Sunshine Project, a watchdog group that monitors biodefense research safety, and by other media reports.

[snip]

Testifying on behalf of the GAO, Keith Rhodes, PhD, chief technologist for the [Government Accountability Office's] Center for Technology and Engineering, said because a baseline of human error will always be present in laboratory settings, the level of safety risks will rise as the number of labs increases. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the number of BSL 4 labs has risen from 5 to 15, he said. The GAO estimated in its report that there are nearly 1,400 BSL 3 labs in the United States.

Of 12 [government] agencies the GAO surveyed, none is responsible for tracking the number of BSL 3 and BSL 4 [Biosafety Level 3 and Biosafety Level 4] labs in the United States. "Consequently, no agency is responsible for determining the risks associated with the proliferation of these labs," the GAO report states.

To emphasize the importance of that last paragraph, I'm including a table from Rhodes' report (pdf) for the GAO (click to enlarge):

Federal Agencies’ Mission to Track and Know the Number of All BSL-3 and BSL-4 Labs within the US

The report stresses that biodefense research is indeed important;  however:

... unwarranted expansion without adequate oversight is proliferation, not expansion. Since the full extent of the expansion is not known, it is unclear how the federal government can ensure that sufficient but not superfluous capacity—that brings with it additional, unnecessary risk—is being created.

In other words, the rapid increase in the number of labs can lead to self-policing (and failure to report risks and accidents).  Regarding accidents, here's a sobering example:

Three University of Texas facilities have recently had laboratory accidents with dangerous pathogens, including the agents of anthrax, tularemia, and shigellosis, according to a statement yesterday from the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit group that monitors biodefense research safety.

Two of the locations—University of Texas (UT) Health Science Center at Houston and UT at San Antonio—perform "select agent" work in biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) labs.

[snip]

The incidents were revealed as a result of Texas freedom-of-information requests made by the Austin-based Sunshine Project. The lab accidents involved:

• Aerosolized Bacillus anthracis, a category A bioterrorism agent, at UT Health Science Center in Houston
• Francisella tularensis, another category A bioterrorism agent, at UT at San Antonio
• Shigella, a food- or waterborne category B agent, which the Sunshine Project says may have been genetically engineered, at UT at Austin

Dr. Alan Pearson of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation also testified (pdf).  His statement is very detailed, and is recommended reading;  since he is an expert in biological weapons, as well as biodefense, he emphasizes the national security risk, hinted at here:

Our current biosafety and biosecurity system is plagued by significant and systemic weaknesses, inadequate oversight and transparency, and a lack of rigorous interagency needs assessment and strategic planning. Unless corrective action is taken, the risks to our nation and its people from accidental or deliberate disease outbreaks arising from our own activities and institutions will continue to rise. The US biosafety and biosecurity system needs to be made more coherent, more comprehensive, more effective, and more transparent...

Put that together with the revelation that the 2001 anthrax attacks were most likely perpetrated by a "rogue" government scientist, Pearson's testimony cannot be emphasized enough.  Again, please read it (much shorter version here, pdf).

If you still aren't convinced that there's a huge problem, a recent article in the Hartford Courant revealed that the number of laboratories individuals in the US performing bioterrorism research has increased to 15,000.  Not only that, but:

Among the concerns is that background checks conducted by the federal government before lab workers are allowed to work with substances such as anthrax aren't thorough enough, said Gigi Kwik Gronvall, a senior associate at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

[snip]

Gronvall said there are other concerns in addition to inadequate background checks.

"Nobody is checking to see if people being approved to work with anthrax or other biological agents actually have the scientific skills to work with it," Gronvall said.

"Problem" is an understatement.

The legacy of the 2001 anthrax attacks is complex.  We got a swift kick in the ass regarding emergency preparedness for bioweapons attacks, as well rapid detection of disease agents.  Increased laboratory dedication to related research is critical.

But it's gotten out of hand.  We have increased our risk for accidents and criminal activity involving potentially lethal disease organisms.

In essence, the line between defense and weapons research (intentional or unintentional) is becoming more and more blurred.

You'd think we would have learned that by now.

How can impeachment be off the table if there is proof that documents that linked al Qaeda to Saddam or documents that made the case for invading Iraq were forged by the Office of Special Plans/Doug Feith/Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby or whoever else may have forged them?  

How can impeachment be off the table if over 4,000 American troops were killed, tens of thousands more injured, not to mention all of the Iraqis who have been killed, displaced or had their lives ruined when intelligence officials spoke on the record about Bush knowing that Iraq had no WMDs, yet repeated this charge over and over and over and over?

Of course there were flat out denials of this by those close to the White House, as well as many rightist bloggers.  But they have denied other lies and actions that have been proven to have occurred (or not occurred), or said (or not said) when it comes to this administration and its’ enablers in Congress.

As I pondered U.S. security and foreign policy, it struck me just how necessary it is that the national intelligence community undergo serious reform. Especially when facing a multi-national, multi-ethnic terrorist threat, the U.S. vitally needs intelligence agencies that are accountable, well-trained, and most importantly, good at what they do. Unfortunately, despite a $44 billion budget and one of the most diverse and largest talent pools ever (the American people), the intelligence community repeatedly fails, and has done so throughout its history.

It is not only former White House employees who are declining invitations to appear before Congress. Battles on similar fronts are occurring on the labor and employment fields. There are two primary battles. One involving a secret regulation issued by the Department of Labor

The second - and the one reported on here - concerns the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). After a very negative report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Rep. Miller demanded that the PBGC turn over documents related to that GAO report. So far PBGC has not provided the documents. PBGC says that it will comply but first it has to get a report from its consultant.

crossposted from unbossed

One fundamental issue that has yet to be addressed by our political leaders is the privatization of vital U.S. military/intelligence operations. I've yet to hear either candidate even mention this trend, yet it is one of the most basic and pervasive issues of American government today. Chalmers Johnson has written an astounding piece for Salon describing the history of privatization within the "military-industrial complex," as well as the major, negative effects it creates in terms of efficacy and accountability.

I don't know about you, but July seemed like a really long month this year.  So much has happened in MN politics in these mere 28 days.  The Minnesota Senate race (MN-SEN) was no exception.  In particular, Sen. Norm Coleman has been liberal with the Norm-speak^TM.  He's stretched the truth, abused the truth, twisted the truth and flat out just plain lied.

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland

If Congressman Steve King hadn't already won the "jackass award," someone would need to give it to him for the way he behaved at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week.

It's no secret that King isn't interested in the Congress serving as a check or balance on executive power. As we saw just a few weeks ago, King believes former White House spokesman Scott McClellan could have "done this country a favor" by keeping his mouth shut about alleged lawbreaking and lying in the Bush administration.

Apparently not satisfied with his efforts to sidetrack the McClellan hearings, King used one parliamentary trick after another on Tuesday to prevent Democrats on the Judiciary Committee from effectively questioning Douglas Feith, the former number three Pentagon official.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), the Senator you can count on when it doesn't matter, is once again challenging for the title of Republican Champion of Oversight.  This would be the equivalent of world's sharpest spoon, largest shrimp, tallest midget, etc.  He's worked himself up into an a high dudgeon over fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims from dead doctors.

“This is simply unacceptable — making sure that the prescribing doctor is alive before paying a claim should be a no-brainer,” Sen. Norm Coleman, the committee’s ranking Republican said in a statement. “It’s time to close this $100 million loophole.”
(Wall Street Journal)

Norm wants to save American taxpayers 2% of what we spend in Iraq each week.

Below are 2 ideas for amendments that our congress should debate before capitalizing on the terrible legislation which is FISA.  The amendments below are what I feel is the compromised position that is likely to pass.  I have also added the reasoning behind the amendments and some extra points that I would like to see put in them.  

I would like to see the works gummed up as much as possible so am also recommending that congress debate variations of these amendments.  This will help determine exactly were each member stands and how far they are willing to go.  With the added benefit of keeping discussion open as long as possible.

Follow me below the fold.

Back in March, I wrote a story laying out the rationale for drawing out a FISA fight that everyone expected us eventually to lose. ("We don't have the votes!") The basic premise:

Every time Congressional Dems actually slow down and take stock of the situation -- from Senator Chris Dodd's brave (and lonely and seemingly futile) stand, to the cautious maneuvering of House Dems today -- new revelations arise that should make all Americans who value our freedoms glad they did.

Well, the House stopped slowing down recently, and have handed an all-too-willing Senate (which has all along been more willing than the House, it must be noted) a bill that puts retroactive immunity for the pay-for-play telecom spies back on the table. Now it's back in the Senate's lap, with a few brave souls preparing to do what they can to keep the train wreck in slow motion.

Is that worth doing? Sure. And for all the same reasons, which perhaps deserve mention again as Senators prepare to vote on this mess when they come back to work next week. And it couldn't hurt for you to be armed with this list if you see your Senators or Representatives at your local Fourth of July festivities.

So, over the years since we first learned of the Bush domestic spying scheme, and in the six month reprieve that the extended FISA fight has given us, what have we learned about the security and surveillance practices of the "administration" that we supposedly should trust with these new powers?

• We learned that:

  A U.S. government office in Quantico, Virginia, has direct, high-speed access to a major wireless carrier's systems, exposing customers' voice calls, data packets and physical movements to uncontrolled surveillance

• We learned that they resurrected and hid Total Information Awareness:

  Five years ago, Congress killed an experimental Pentagon antiterrorism program meant to vacuum up electronic data about people in the U.S. to search for suspicious patterns. Opponents called it too broad an intrusion on Americans' privacy, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

  But the data-sifting effort didn't disappear. The National Security Agency, once confined to foreign surveillance, has been building essentially the same system.

• We learned that all the lines are being erased, with the national security apparatus monitoring domestic data traffic and the FBI becoming a foreign intelligence outfit.

• We've learned that the FBI has committed massive abuses of its powers::

  The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.

• We've learned that the FBI still gets it wrong pretty often, too:

  A technical glitch gave the F.B.I. access to the e-mail messages from an entire computer network — perhaps hundreds of accounts or more — instead of simply the lone e-mail address that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation, according to an internal report of the 2006 episode.

• And of course, we've not forgotten the good, old "No-Fly List"

  The Transportation Security Administration's secret no-fly list includes some very unlikely terror suspects -- Bolivian President Evo Morales, 14 of the 19 dead 9/11 hijackers, and every single person named "Robert Johnson."

• We learned that the argument still frequently made that foreign-to-foreign phone calls that pass through the U.S. can't be monitored without the PAA and the new FISA changes, and which are constantly pointed to as the proximate cause of the deaths of American soldiers was... a lie:

  The fight in Congress and the big push for expanded wiretapping powers has nothing to do with intercepting foreign-to-foreign phone calls inside the United States without a court order. In fact, it turns out that the nation's secret wiretapping court is fine with that.

• We learned that the "administration" believes the AUMF rendered the fourth amendment a nullity:

  ... our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 2001).

• We learned that that might not even matter, since the head of the NSA is dead certain there's no probable cause standard in the fourth amendment, anyway:

• We learned that the DOJ may be using your cell phone to track your physical movements without a warrant, or any court oversight.

• We learned that the "administration" says it can read your mail without a warrant:

  President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.

  Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.

  A White House spokeswoman disputed claims that the move gives Bush any new powers, saying the Constitution allows such searches.

• We learned that racial profiling is back at the FBI, and this time, it's a-ok:

  Nearly 40 years ago, the FBI was roundly criticized for investigating Americans without evidence they had broken any laws. Now, critics fear the FBI may be gearing up to do it again.

  Tentative Justice Department guidelines, to be released later this summer, would let agents investigate people whose backgrounds — and potentially their race or ethnicity — match the traits of terrorists.

  Such profiling faintly echoes the FBI's now-defunct COINTELPRO, an operation under Director J. Edgar Hoover in the 1950s and 1960s to monitor and disrupt groups with communist and socialist ties.

  Before it was shut down in 1971, the domestic spying operation — formally known as Counterintelligence Programs — had expanded to include civil rights groups, anti-war activists, the Ku Klux Klan, state legislators and journalists.

  Among the FBI's targets were Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and John Lennon, along with members of black extremist groups, Fidel Castro sympathizers and student protesters.

And of course, all of these unchecked expansions of executive spying power are occurring in a context in which the Congress has found itself almost completely without power to compel any compliance at all with its most serious oversight responsibilities. Despite the assurances they're scrambling to give that all will be well and closely-watched, the reality is that this Congress has been unwilling and/or unable to exercise any serious control over the executive in the way it interprets or implements these powers, even when such implementation is clearly outside the law. In fact, it is precisely because the implementation was outside the law that we're even having this debate, and incredibly, it's a debate about retroactively legalizing it.

In the face of all of these absurdities, rely on the Washington Post to tell us that opposition to this bill at this time -- in the hands of this president, too -- is inherently unreasonable:

Reasonable people can differ on the issue of immunity, but the FISA debate hasn't been overpopulated by reasonable people. As a result, the immunity issue has assumed a significance in the legislative process that far exceeds its underlying importance. We understand the heartfelt arguments of those who believe that closing the courthouse door to Americans who claim the warrantless wiretapping invaded their privacy rights represents "an abandonment of the rule of law," as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said last month.

The editorial actually has passages in it that are considerably worse, and some which are outright false. For example, the assertion that "no one can claim with certainty that his or her communications were monitored." Untrue, as the parties in the Al-Haramain case (as well as that class of people in possession of eyeballs used for reading) well know, but the Washington Post apparently does not.

But if it's true, as the editorial whines, that immunity "is the least -- not the most -- important aspect of the complex FISA debate," you couldn't tell from the traditional media coverage of that debate. Crocodile tears from the Post editorial board are no substitute for the media's missed opportunity to discuss those "most important" aspects of the complex FISA debate. But they've been AWOL on those issues, and it took bloggers latching onto the most politically explosive of the issues to even slow the runaway train long enough for the more important issues -- and I agree there are plenty of them -- to even get a second look.

The Post, of course, would have you flush that opportunity down the toilet in the mad rush to inscribe the mistakes being made on those more important issues on the books. How "reasonable," indeed.

Unchecked expansion of spying powers. A complete lack of enforceability of Congressional oversight. A lapdog press that actually can't wait to cheerlead for the collapse of all controls.

Has there been any point in our history when it's made less sense for the Congress to cede even broader powers to the executive?

In one last, great irony, you and your representatives in Congress are given one last chance to think this over: the Independence Day holiday. I urge you to think more deeply and seriously about it than the Washington Post has.

The FISA Amendments Act has however generated controversy in some circles [HAND GESTURE].

"I don't have a formal opening statement."

Liberal critics contend that its provisions amount to a constitutional farce.

"I don't recall seeing this memorandum and I don't recall specific objections of this nature."

[CAMERA RIGHT] But supporters point out [HAND GESTURE] that it is a "strong bill".

"This bill represents a strong compromise between Republicans and Democrats, giving our intelligence officials the tools they need to keep America safe and strengthen civil liberties protections," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

"I don't recall specific concerns."

Most Democrats in Congress appear to concede that the compromise strikes the right balance [HAND GESTURE] between civil liberties and unchecked government surveillance.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the new bill "balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans' civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements." [...]

"I don't remember doing something with this information."

Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the bill "will prevent any repeat of warrantless surveillance undertaken by the president and will hold our government accountable for its actions, past and future, through strengthened court review and congressional oversight."

"I don't remember doing that."

In many ways the bill mirrors the warrantless wiretapping program that President Bush secrectly began using in 2001.

But supporters say it also creates a legal framework for spying activities that will include significant oversight from Congress and the federal courts. [...]

"I don't recall being aware of any particular memoranda."

To address the inevitable spying that will occur on Americans in these communications, the legislation includes a number of provisions lawmakers believe will safeguard the privacy and rights of U.S. citizens.

"I don't know that I was aware of those."

In what supporters described as "rare cases," in which "critical intelligence could be lost," eavesdropping could begin before a court has an opportunity to authorize it.

"I mean, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of decisions made every day. This was one."

In such cases, officials would have to submit their surveillance plan within a week and the court would rule within a month.

"I don't know precisely when, and I cannot discuss it further without getting into classified information."

What critics of the bill fail to acknowledge is that it provides a key role for each branch of Government.

It assigns responsibilities jointly to the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to ensure that the Nation's chief law enforcement and intelligence officials work together in collecting foreign intelligence in accordance with the law. It requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) to review and approve, or order modifications to, the procedures required by the Act and to ensure that those procedures are consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

"I can't even read this document, but I don't remember seeing it."

And it requires that information about the implementation of these new procedures be reported to Congress, to ensure that Congress can fulfill its oversight role.

"I'm not even sure this is one I've seen before."

At least annually, the AG and DNI must submit to the FISA Court for review and approval targeting procedures for making that fundamental determination.

"I don't know when I became aware of that."

The Act provides for multiple levels of oversight both within the Executive Branch, including by Department of Justice and Intelligence Community Inspectors General, and in regular reporting to both the Congress and the FISA Court.

"My memory is not perfect."

[SHOULDER SHRUG, SMILE CAMERA LEFT]

Nightmares must be the bane of Waxman’s nights lately. I think it's safe to say that he regrets not taking this scofflaw administration to account two-years ago instead of allowing enabling the Bush crime family to run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law for so long.

I suppose it really never was a fair fight though. With the impeachment tool foolishly taken "off the table" from the opening day of the 110th Congress, Waxman, Conyers, Leahy and Biden never really stood a chance of holding Bush and Cheney accountable for their eight-year, worldwide crime spree. You can bet every one of them are marking off each day on the calendar until the fascistic ones finally leave office for good.

But, you kinda have to hand it to Cheney. The man’s had the entire Congress tilted back on their collective heels. They've been reeling for almost two-years now; not knowing how to deal with the unprecedented level of stonewalling and mendacity doled out of the OVP on a daily basis. When they asked for documents and testimony, Cheney got creative and claimed he was neither in the executive branch nor the legislative branch. Whenever they issued STLs, Cheney ignored them altogether. And, when they issued subpoenas, Cheney's answer was, "So."

I just returned from a book signing event for "Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan's Bank" and had the opportunity to hear the author, Robert D. Auerbach, speak about the ridiculous lack of oversight at the Federal Reserve.  He spoke about the efforts of the late, great Henry B. Gonzalez, then Chairman of the House Banking Committee, to bring the activities of the Fed into greater transparency and accountability.  The event was sponsored by the Henry B. Gonzalez Foundation and was attended by Henry B. Gonzalez's son, Charlie Gonzalez, who is currently US Congressman from TX-20.
More...

Please read and rec this!

Today, June 5th, 2008, Senator Rockefeller has released the long, long overdue "Phase II" report on how the Bush Administration used intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq.

I had pretty much given up on the Phase II ever coming out, or if it did come out, it would be a whitewash.

Here is the stunner: The Phase II is out, and judging by the press release, the Phase II report is NOT a whitewash.. I am shocked at how strong the language is. Read below for some quotes.

Forgive me if someone else has posted this today, but I have a slightly different perspective: When the report was released I was a taping a segment for tomorrow's "Bill Moyers Journal" with two of the few "heroes" of the early Iraq coverage, John Walcott and Jonathan Landay of McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder).  It was exciting to watch them go through the report, as it was handed to them in bunches as it was printed, in the Green Room as they noted how it confirmed so much of their very presicent reporting up to six years ago.

If you haven't heard, the devastating report featured Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe joining the Democrats.    Sen. Jay Rockefeller declared, "Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

My full wrapup follows.

Scott McClellan’s Revelations

LACK OF OVERSIGHT – A FATAL FLAW

With ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s recent about face, and the publication of his book "WHAT HAPPENED?" which describes a lot of his life in the bush White House for three years, the American population is finally able to draw a more reasonable breath.  I use that metaphor, because, as Keith Olbermann alluded, most Americans simply didn’t believe the degree of the republican excesses since January of 2001.  Most of us were just wishing he and his Administration would go away, collectively holding our breath.

We've been talking quite a bit about how Bush-Cheney will leave little landmines inside the government, codifying their vision of radical executive power, a hollowed-out set of regulatory agencies and a civil service dedicated to a deeply conservative vision.  In a fantastic new article, the very first by the best hire the New York Times has made in the past decade, Charlie Savage (on this one he was aided by Robert Pear), we get another example of this in the area of regulatory rules changes.

The Bush administration has told federal agencies that they have until June 1 to propose any new regulations, a move intended to avoid the rush of rules issued by previous administrations on their way out the door.

The White House has also declared that it will generally not allow agencies to issue any final regulations after Nov. 1, nearly three months before President Bush relinquishes power.

Sounds harmless, right?  Why would this provoke any outcry?  Well...

Gigabytes of news articles and commentary have been written about the kangaroo court established to try prisoners at Guantanamo.  But, hardly anything is written about another kangaroo court; one that hears cases of American citizens - federal government employees who report lawbreaking, negligence and abuses of power by government officials.  

The outcomes of those cases, involving issues of national security, public health and environmental safety, affect everyone; for, often the cases are the only times officials face being held accountable.  So, what does it say to you that the court that hears those cases rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time - one pitiful percent? [1]