Untitled Document

Texas abortion law under fire
for ignoring science
go to article

NATION BRIEFS
go to briefs

So much for the peace dividend: Pentagon
is winning the battle for a $400bn budget
Republicans return defense spending to
Cold War levels to buy Cold War weaponry
go to article

US orders interviews and fingerprinting
for millions of foreigners
go to article

Pentagon surveillance plan decried as
invasion of privacy

By Jim Lobe

Washington, DC, May 21— A left-right alliance of US civil liberties and privacy groups called Tuesday for Congress to maintain vigorous oversight of a proposed Pentagon project originally called “Total Information Awareness,” but whose name has now been changed to “Terrorist Information Awareness” (TIA).

Although a Pentagon report submitted to Congress assured lawmakers that it has no intention of collecting personal data under the program, in violation of existing privacy laws, groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Conservative Union (ACU) said their doubts about the project remained as strong as ever.

“The government can’t expect us to forget everything they’ve said before about this program just by changing its name,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program, who added that the project retained its “Orwellian” features.

“TIA is a blueprint for unlimited government,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Regardless of who proposes this or any other comparable expansion of government power, our deep suspicions will remain. We’re going to watch them as closely as they intend to watch us.”

The comments came in response to the submission by the Pentagon of a 99-page report about the project and its purposes that was mandated by Congress. Congress approved legislation earlier this year that both required a report on the project’s possible impact on civil liberties and privacy and barring its implementation until Congress gave the go-ahead.

As originally conceived by its promoter, former National Security Adviser ret. Adm. John Poindexter, the system was to be used to scan commercial and scores of other data bases, and, using complex mathematical formulas, to detect patterns that might indicate terrorist activity or associations. Records subject to scanning could include driver’s licenses, car rentals, educational records, credit card transactions, airline tickets, and even medical records.

The sheer scope and ambition of the project raised serious fears about its possible abuse, and its original name—as well as its symbol, a pyramid with the all-seeing Masonic eye that appears on US dollar bills—added to concerns. It did not help that the project was the brainchild of Poindexter, who played a key role in the Iran-Contra affair that earned him a three-year suspended sentence, which was reversed on appeal because his conviction was based on testimony for which Congress had given him immunity.

The report insisted that the project, to be administered by the Pentagon’s main research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), would feature a number of safeguards, including automated records of the data’s use and an explicit recognition that some current laws will “completely preclude deployment of TIA search tools with respect to some data,” which it did not identify.

The report also said it had changed the project’s name in order to make the system’s objective “absolutely clear.” The previous name, it said, “created in some minds the impression that TIA was a system to be used for developing dossiers on US citizens.” The goal, it said, is “to protect US citizens by detecting and defeating foreign terrorist threats before an attack.”

The project is currently being tested by several Pentagon agencies and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Civil liberties groups, however, said the report leaves many questions unanswered. “This is only the beginning of the oversight process,” said James X. Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. “Before any data mining is implemented, Congress needs to ensure that it is subject to clear rules and checks and balances. Currently, the privacy laws simply don’t address this kind of thing.”

“It goes against our very character as a nation to accept that anybody is guilty until proven innocent in America,” said Lori Waters, executive director of the right-wing Eagle Forum. “And that’s exactly what TIA does. It makes us all summary suspects, and does so without any guarantee that it will catch the bad guys.”

“The privacy of thousands of Americans is too high a price to pay for TIA’s unproven value,” said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way. “Congressional oversight—from requiring this report to conducting ongoing hearings—is absolutely necessary. We should not be sacrificing our freedom under the guise of protecting it.”

Critics are also concerned about the political uses to which the system could be put against perceived opponents of the Pentagon or a sitting administration, or what defenses possible targets might have if data is entered incorrectly into the system.

Despite these questions, the Pentagon is reportedly considering even more ambitious information-gathering systems.

DARPA is currently soliciting proposals for a new “concept” called “Lifelog” that would capture all computer-based interactions and transactions throughout the day from e-mail, calendar, instant messaging, web-based transactions, and other common computer applications. It may also include voice transactions and all interactions with media, including broadcast media, newspapers, magazines, books and other documents.

Source: OneWorld.net

Texas abortion law under fire
for ignoring science

By Duncan Campbell

Los Angeles, California, May 23— In what is being seen as the latest attempt to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion, Texas has passed a law which requires all doctors in the state to warn women that an abortion may lead to breast cancer.

The law is one of many being introduced across America as the battle over abortion rights intensifies. It compels women applying for an abortion to go through a 24-hour “reflection” period. During this time, doctors will be required to show women pictures of fetuses, tell them about adoption procedures and warn them that an abortion could lead to breast cancer.

Cancer organizations yesterday denied the link between abortion and breast cancer. Earlier this year the National Cancer Institute, the official government cancer agency, concluded after a consultation with 100 experts that an abortion “does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.” The American Cancer Society also backed this position.

The bill was introduced by Texas Republican congressman Frank Corte of San Antonio, who described it as “the woman’s right to know act.”

He said: “This is an issue that many folks see as something we need to do. We think these are standards that should be set.”

It is already difficult for women to have an abortion in Texas, where the service is available in 15 of the state’s 254 counties.

Twenty-eight other states have introduced “counseling requirements” but only two -- Mississippi and Minnesota -- include the requirement of the warning of breast cancer.

The abortion rights group Naral Pro-Choice America described the measure as another attempt to whittle away at a woman’s right to choose. Other organizations accused Texan lawmakers of cynicism in passing the measure when they knew the scientific information did not back their claims.

The Bush administration is opposed to abortion but has said that it would honor existing Supreme Court rulings allowing choice.

The change in the Texas law has come as a result of Republican control of the state’s congress and the governorship for the first time in 130 years.

Attempts by Democrats to exclude women who were victims of rape or incest from being made to look at color photos of fetuses were unsuccessful.

The bill also requires abortions taking place after 16 weeks of pregnancy to be performed in special centers. Supporters of the bill say that this is for safety reasons while opponents say it will quadruple the cost of such abortions.

At the heart of abortion legislation in the US is the 1973 supreme court decision in Roe v Wade. Abortion rights groups fear that President Bush’s next appointment to the Supreme Court will reverse that decision and severely restrict the rights of American women to abortions. Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights, claims that current attempts to weaken abortion rights could lead to back-street operations.

The issue is likely to feature in next year’s presidential campaign with most Democrat candidates backing abortion rights.

In the last election, pro-abortion groups called on voters to back Al Gore against President Bush.

Source: Guardian (UK)

So much for the peace dividend: Pentagon
is winning the battle for a $400bn budget
Republicans return defense spending to
Cold War levels to buy Cold War weaponry

By Julian Borger and David Teather

Washington, DC and New York, New York, May 22— The biggest US defense budget since the cold war is being rammed through Congress by the Republican majority this week despite persistent questions over waste and the Pentagon’s own admission that it cannot account for more than a trillion dollars.

The 2004 military spending request of over $400 billion does not include the occupation of Iraq, which will be covered by a later, supplemental bill of up to $35 billion. Very little of the money will go towards the war on terrorism or homeland security, which are principally paid for by other agencies like the FBI and the CIA.

The threat of more terrorist attacks has created public and congressional support for a ballooning defense budget, but the lion’s share of the money is being spent on traditional weapons such as the jet fighters and submarines originally designed to fight the Soviet Union.

The last time the US spent this much on defense was in 1991. In fact the current budget is bigger in real terms than the average during the cold war, when US force levels were considerably higher.

The 2004 budget also represents a bonanza for big military contractors, some of whom had faced significant losses from the Bush administration’s initial plans to axe some cold war-era programs to pay for “transformational” new technology like unmanned drones, to make the US military more agile.

After intense lobbying from the defense industry and its allies in the Pentagon and Congress, known as the Iron Triangle, the new spending bill represents a decision to pay for both the old and the new.

“There’s a lot of stuff for everybody,” Christopher Helman, a military analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said. “A couple of years ago we were looking at a situation which would force some hard choices. But this is a no-choice budget.”

Only $25 billion of the $400 billion could be described as “transformational,” aimed at modernizing, he said, and of that $10 billion will be spent on the controversial national missile defense “star wars” scheme.

Defense contractors have been celebrating the budget’s generosity. Ronald Sugar, the chief executive of Los Angeles-based defense company Northrup Grumman, recently said he saw “very significant growth in sales and earnings” as a result of the hikes in budgets.

The budget is being accompanied by a Pentagon bill entitled “Defense Transformation for the 21st Century” which would significantly reduce congressional oversight on military spending, by cutting scores of cost-benefit reports the defense department supplies to the legislature.

Some Democrats in Congress have vigorously objected to the bill, at a time of unbridled Pentagon waste. In an open letter to leaders of both parties, they said: “To date, no major part of the department of defense has passed the test of an independent audit.”

The Pentagon’s own inspector general recently admitted that the department could not account for more than a trillion dollars of past spending. A congressional investigation reported that inventory management in the army was so weak it had lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 missile launchers.

“There’s no accountability,” said Danielle Brian, head of the Washington budget watchdog, Project on Government Oversight. “Any other agency would be closed down but the Pentagon is Teflon. Any challenge to the Pentagon is seen as unpatriotic.”

The budget and the transformation bill is being voted through the chain of congressional committees by disciplined Republican majorities. Most Democrats have been reluctant to delay the process for fear of appearing soft on defense.

The share of national income that the US spends on defense has risen steadily from 3.0% to 3.5% of GDP since President Bush took office. It is also increasingly displacing expenditure on public services like schools and hospitals, which are facing cuts across the country.

The Pentagon budget currently accounts for half of all the US government’s discretionary expenditure, and is nearly twice the defense spending of the next 15 of the world’s military powers combined.

Since the end of the cold war, the US air force has faced no serious competition to its main warplanes, the F-15 Strike Eagle and the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Moreover, America’s last three opponents, al-Qaida, the Taliban, and Iraq have had no serious air force. Nevertheless the 2004 budget includes $4 billion for a new fighter-bomber, the F-22, $3 billion for a new navy fighter, the Super Hornet, and $4bn for research on an experimental Joint Strike Fighter.

The F-22, made by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, has been dogged by technical problems and huge cost over-runs. Each plane is now priced at $257 million, more than $50 million above estimates only a few years ago. The marines’ V-22 Osprey, an experimental tilt-rotor plane made by Boeing, also gets a further $1 billion, despite a series of fatal crashes and delays that have put the project 10 years behind schedule.

The “something for everyone” budget suggests that the Pentagon’s close ties with the defense industry have outweighed the reforming zeal the new administration brought to office. As a recent New York Times article pointed out, James Roche, the outgoing air force secretary (now taking over the army) is a former president of Northrop Grumman; his assistant secretary Nelson Gibbs is another Northrop alumni. An under secretary at the air force, Peter Teets, was chief operating officer at Lockheed while Michael Wynne, a defense department undersecretary, was a former senior vice-president at General Dynamics.

The defense secretary himself, Donald Rumsfeld, is an ex-director of a General Dynamics subsidiary and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, acted as a consultant to Northrop.

Source: Guardian (UK)

US orders interviews and fingerprinting
for millions of foreigners

Compiled by Eamon Martin

May 27 (AGR)— The State Department has ordered US Foreign Service officers to begin face-to-face interviews with millions of visa applicants who previously haven’t merited such scrutiny, according to officials and documents.

The rules, formally issued in a cable sent to 221 embassies and consulates on May 21, have prompted strong objections from business, education and tourism groups, whose leaders argue that delays in obtaining visas will discourage foreign citizens from visiting the United States at a time when the economy is struggling.

The heightened scrutiny will be applied to about 90 percent of visa applicants from countries in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, with general exceptions for diplomats and people age 16 and younger or 60 and over.

The regulations won’t affect citizens of Canada and 27 other countries, most of them in Europe, who aren’t required to obtain US business or tourist visas.

US consulates have until Aug. 1 to implement the new rules.

The policy change is part of an array of new restrictions designed to monitor visitors in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The government has also established a new internet-based registration system for foreign students and now requires visitors from many Muslim countries to register and be fingerprinted at ports of entry.

For months, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security have advocated increasing the number of visa interviews. The Homeland Security Department now has jurisdiction over visa policy.

Stuart Patt, a spokesman for the US Bureau of Consular Affairs in the State Department, said that by requiring the interviews, US officials hope to increase their chances of catching terrorists or preventing them from attempting to obtain visas in the first place.

Scans, fingerprints, and photos

Foreign visitors arriving with visas at US airports or seaports next year will have their travel documents scanned, their fingerprints and photos taken and their identification checked against terrorist watch lists.

On May 19, Homeland Security Department undersecretary Asa Hutchinson gave details of the department’s new US Visitor and Immigration Status Indication Technology, or US VISIT.

The tracking system, which goes into effect Jan. 1, will check the comings and goings of foreign travelers who arrive in this country carrying visas. Travelers with visas made up about 60 percent, or 23 million, of foreign visitors to the United States last year.

“Border security can no longer be just a coastline, or a line on the ground between two nations. It’s also a line of information in a computer, telling us who is in this country, for how long and for what reason,” Hutchinson said.

Under the US VISIT system, a visa carrier will be required to provide immigrant and citizenship status, nationality, country of residence and an address where the visitor will be staying in the United States.

When the visitor leaves, Hutchinson said, the system will verify the traveler’s departure and identification.

The system will later be enhanced, possibly to include iris scans or facial recognition technology, Hutchinson said.

As part of US VISIT, the department has created an Office of Compliance that will analyze all the information collected from visitors and refer cases requiring follow-up to investigators.

Because border security sometimes comes down to on-the-spot decisions, Hutchinson said, “the more we are able to identify people and assess them based on their individual traits, the less dependent we are on broad, general categories such as national origin.”

Congress has provided about $380 million for the new system.

Sources: Associated Press, San Francisco Chronicle