spread of the red
number 112 07.22.07
FEMA Found Legal Liability More Threatening Than Trailer Toxicity
Documents obtained by a Congressional
committee reveal that senior officials of
the Federal Emergency Management
Agency knew that trailers provided to
victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
contained dangerous levels of
formaldehyde, but discouraged field
workers from addressing the issue in an
effort to minimize the agency’s legal
liability.
Representatives from both parties
expressed their outrage at FEMA’s
response to the initial evidence of
formaldehyde contamination, and their
frustration at agency attempts to
obstruct Congressional investigation of
the reports, at a hearing of the House
committee reveal that senior officials of
the Federal Emergency Management
Agency knew that trailers provided to
victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
contained dangerous levels of
formaldehyde, but discouraged field
workers from addressing the issue in an
effort to minimize the agency’s legal
liability.
Representatives from both parties
expressed their outrage at FEMA’s
response to the initial evidence of
formaldehyde contamination, and their
frustration at agency attempts to
obstruct Congressional investigation of
the reports, at a hearing of the House
Oversight and Government Reform
Committee last week. FEMA officials
withheld 5000 relevant documents, citing
attorney-client privilege, until they
received subpoenas from the
committee. Among the papers are
transcripts of e-mails in which FEMA
lawyers explicitly forbid field staff from
performing tests to determine
formaldehyde levels in the trailers, with a
view to protecting the agency’s litigation
position.
“Do not initiate any testing until we give
the OK,” wrote FEMA attorney Patrick
Preston in June 2006, a month after the
first lawsuit against the agency by a
trailer resident was filed, “Once you get
Committee last week. FEMA officials
withheld 5000 relevant documents, citing
attorney-client privilege, until they
received subpoenas from the
committee. Among the papers are
transcripts of e-mails in which FEMA
lawyers explicitly forbid field staff from
performing tests to determine
formaldehyde levels in the trailers, with a
view to protecting the agency’s litigation
position.
“Do not initiate any testing until we give
the OK,” wrote FEMA attorney Patrick
Preston in June 2006, a month after the
first lawsuit against the agency by a
trailer resident was filed, “Once you get
results and should they indicate some
problem, the clock is running on our
duty to respond to them.” After the
death of an evacuee in July 2006 a
group of 28 officials from six agencies
recommended independent testing of
trailer air quality, but they were
blocked by FEMA lawyers who
warned that any action not approved
by the agency’s Office of General
Counsel “could seriously undermine
the Agency’s position” in future
litigation.
According to FEMA director David
Paulison, 58 of the 66, 800 trailers
still in use have been replaced due to
formaldehyde concerns. it's all true
problem, the clock is running on our
duty to respond to them.” After the
death of an evacuee in July 2006 a
group of 28 officials from six agencies
recommended independent testing of
trailer air quality, but they were
blocked by FEMA lawyers who
warned that any action not approved
by the agency’s Office of General
Counsel “could seriously undermine
the Agency’s position” in future
litigation.
According to FEMA director David
Paulison, 58 of the 66, 800 trailers
still in use have been replaced due to
formaldehyde concerns. it's all true
| interpreting the constitution crowd control spread of the red one nation, under surveillance fun d' mental in bed with the red red state rebate verbatim |
crowd control
interpreting the constitution
Modern Monarchy May Be Bush's Crowning Achievement
City Shields
Chitmo Cops
Chitmo Cops
In a gesture that Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-NV) called an “outrageous
abuse of executive privilege,”
presidential advisors have said that the
White House will move to forbid the
Justice Department from compelling
administration officials to give testimony
before Congress.
The Washington Post reported that an
unnamed presidential spokesperson said,
“A US attorney would not be permitted
to bring contempt charges or convene a
grand jury in an executive privilege
case.” The prohibition comes within
days of the House Judiciary Committee
voting to begin to explore bringing
contempt of Congress charges against
former White House counsel Harriet
Miers and the current White House
Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten, after they
ignored congressional subpoenas.
Harry Reid (D-NV) called an “outrageous
abuse of executive privilege,”
presidential advisors have said that the
White House will move to forbid the
Justice Department from compelling
administration officials to give testimony
before Congress.
The Washington Post reported that an
unnamed presidential spokesperson said,
“A US attorney would not be permitted
to bring contempt charges or convene a
grand jury in an executive privilege
case.” The prohibition comes within
days of the House Judiciary Committee
voting to begin to explore bringing
contempt of Congress charges against
former White House counsel Harriet
Miers and the current White House
Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten, after they
ignored congressional subpoenas.
The White House’s proclamation that
Justice would not be allowed to enforce
the congressional subpoenas is a further
extension of the expansive “executive
privilege” that President Bush has
asserted over the course of the past few
years. The administration most recently
asserted the privilege to prevent White
House aides from testifying under oath
before a congressional committee that is
investigating the Justice Department’s
firing of US Attorneys.
The administration has crafted an
interpretation of executive privilege
based upon an opinion written in 1984
by the Reagan administration to prevent
the testimony of the administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The opinion asserted that “the
President, through a US Attorney, need
not, indeed may not, prosecute
Justice would not be allowed to enforce
the congressional subpoenas is a further
extension of the expansive “executive
privilege” that President Bush has
asserted over the course of the past few
years. The administration most recently
asserted the privilege to prevent White
House aides from testifying under oath
before a congressional committee that is
investigating the Justice Department’s
firing of US Attorneys.
The administration has crafted an
interpretation of executive privilege
based upon an opinion written in 1984
by the Reagan administration to prevent
the testimony of the administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The opinion asserted that “the
President, through a US Attorney, need
not, indeed may not, prosecute
criminally a subordinate for asserting
on his behalf a claim of executive
privilege.” That opinion was never
tested in the courts because the
Reagan administration
accommodated the congressional
panel seeking testimony. A study by
the Congressional Research Service
found that relevant appellate court
cases cast “considerable doubt on the
broad claims of privilege posited” by
the president. The study found that
appellate judges have determined
that the protection accorded by
executive privilege is highly
“qualified” and must relate to acts of
“quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power.”
Reid said that the president must be
“accountable to Congress and the
American people.” it's all true
on his behalf a claim of executive
privilege.” That opinion was never
tested in the courts because the
Reagan administration
accommodated the congressional
panel seeking testimony. A study by
the Congressional Research Service
found that relevant appellate court
cases cast “considerable doubt on the
broad claims of privilege posited” by
the president. The study found that
appellate judges have determined
that the protection accorded by
executive privilege is highly
“qualified” and must relate to acts of
“quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power.”
Reid said that the president must be
“accountable to Congress and the
American people.” it's all true
A 200-page document was
recently made available to the
Chicago City Council that details
the complaints filed against
officers of the Chicago Police
Department over the past five
years. The document disclosed
that over 660 Chicago Police
officers have had ten or more
complaints filed against them
during the past five years.
The report revealed that the
CPD’s Special Operations Unit
was the subject of the majority of
the complaints, with 30 officers in
that unit being the subject of 862
individual allegations of brutality.
The report further identified that
just ten Special Operations
officers had a total of 408
complaints filed against them.
The department’s Office of
Professional Standards, the
division of the Chicago Police
Department that investigates
claims of police brutality, decided
that after reviewing these
complaints, only a single officer
deserved suspension.
The document was released by
Chicago's mayor, Richard M.
Daley, to members of the city
council in advance of a meeting
where the objectivity of the
Office of Professional Standards
was to be reviewed. When asked
about the startling number of
brutality complaints filed against
his police officers, Daley told
reporters that officers of the
Special Operations Unit have
seized “12,000 and 15,000 guns”
over the past few years, and
added “if you want them to stop
seizing guns, then write an
editorial.” it's all true
recently made available to the
Chicago City Council that details
the complaints filed against
officers of the Chicago Police
Department over the past five
years. The document disclosed
that over 660 Chicago Police
officers have had ten or more
complaints filed against them
during the past five years.
The report revealed that the
CPD’s Special Operations Unit
was the subject of the majority of
the complaints, with 30 officers in
that unit being the subject of 862
individual allegations of brutality.
The report further identified that
just ten Special Operations
officers had a total of 408
complaints filed against them.
The department’s Office of
Professional Standards, the
division of the Chicago Police
Department that investigates
claims of police brutality, decided
that after reviewing these
complaints, only a single officer
deserved suspension.
The document was released by
Chicago's mayor, Richard M.
Daley, to members of the city
council in advance of a meeting
where the objectivity of the
Office of Professional Standards
was to be reviewed. When asked
about the startling number of
brutality complaints filed against
his police officers, Daley told
reporters that officers of the
Special Operations Unit have
seized “12,000 and 15,000 guns”
over the past few years, and
added “if you want them to stop
seizing guns, then write an
editorial.” it's all true
one nation, under surveillance
| redstat |
Inspector General Eyeing Illegal Spying
| Kilograms of municipal waste generated per person-per year selected countries |
The Inspector General for the US
Department of Justice is investigating a
section of the FBI that is responsible for
sending administrative demands to large
telephone companies for personal
information about their customers.
Wired Magazine reported that the
Inspector’s office is investigating the
Communications Analysis Unit of the FBI
for sending National Security Letters, or
‘exigent letters’, to America’s largest
telecommunications companies, including
AT&T and Verizon. The investigation is
the first time that the agency has been
scrutinized for misusing the expanded
powers accorded to it under the
PATRIOT Act.
Although National Security Letters were
authorized by the PATRIOT Act, they
can only be authorized by counter
terrorism agents in investigations having
Department of Justice is investigating a
section of the FBI that is responsible for
sending administrative demands to large
telephone companies for personal
information about their customers.
Wired Magazine reported that the
Inspector’s office is investigating the
Communications Analysis Unit of the FBI
for sending National Security Letters, or
‘exigent letters’, to America’s largest
telecommunications companies, including
AT&T and Verizon. The investigation is
the first time that the agency has been
scrutinized for misusing the expanded
powers accorded to it under the
PATRIOT Act.
Although National Security Letters were
authorized by the PATRIOT Act, they
can only be authorized by counter
terrorism agents in investigations having
to do with international terrorism or
espionage. The Communications
Analysis Unit was found by investigators
to have issued 739 exigent letters
involving the records of more than 3000
customers with no authority under the
law.
The letters required the companies to
hand over information about specific
customer’s phone numbers including
local and long distance call histories, e-
mail transactional records, and billing and
payment records. Recipients of exigent
letters could not advise the customers
who owned the phone numbers that the
records were demanded by the FBI.
The FBI is not required to obtain judicial
approval to make the information
demands using National Security
Letters. The letters were also used to
obtain financial records. it's all true
espionage. The Communications
Analysis Unit was found by investigators
to have issued 739 exigent letters
involving the records of more than 3000
customers with no authority under the
law.
The letters required the companies to
hand over information about specific
customer’s phone numbers including
local and long distance call histories, e-
mail transactional records, and billing and
payment records. Recipients of exigent
letters could not advise the customers
who owned the phone numbers that the
records were demanded by the FBI.
The FBI is not required to obtain judicial
approval to make the information
demands using National Security
Letters. The letters were also used to
obtain financial records. it's all true
800
400
0
japan italy austria us
source: OECD
spread of the red
News
Feds Elect to Ignore Vote Suppression Tactics
Report Reveals
Spending Surge
Spending Surge
A report published last month by the
federal Election Assistance Commission
reveals that despite an 80 percent
decrease in voter registrations from
public assistance agencies over the last
decade, the Department of Justice has
done little to enforce the law mandating
states to offer registration services to
public aid applicants. But the
Department is reportedly stepping up
efforts to increase enforcement of
another section of the same statute: one
that requires states to conduct “purges”
of their voter registration records to
remove the names of ineligible voters.
The apparently uneven enforcement
amounts to a policy that seeks the
disenfranchisement of minority and low-
income voters, according to national
voting rights organizations that have
charged the Bush administration with
improperly politicizing the Justice
Department’s Voting Section and Civil
Rights Division in an attempt to influence
the outcomes of elections in key states.
The EAC report documents that
registrations in public assistance agencies
have dropped by almost half since 2003,
and that most states do not provide any
form of voter registration training to
agency workers. A consortium of voter
advocacy groups including Demos,
Project Vote, and the Lawyers’
federal Election Assistance Commission
reveals that despite an 80 percent
decrease in voter registrations from
public assistance agencies over the last
decade, the Department of Justice has
done little to enforce the law mandating
states to offer registration services to
public aid applicants. But the
Department is reportedly stepping up
efforts to increase enforcement of
another section of the same statute: one
that requires states to conduct “purges”
of their voter registration records to
remove the names of ineligible voters.
The apparently uneven enforcement
amounts to a policy that seeks the
disenfranchisement of minority and low-
income voters, according to national
voting rights organizations that have
charged the Bush administration with
improperly politicizing the Justice
Department’s Voting Section and Civil
Rights Division in an attempt to influence
the outcomes of elections in key states.
The EAC report documents that
registrations in public assistance agencies
have dropped by almost half since 2003,
and that most states do not provide any
form of voter registration training to
agency workers. A consortium of voter
advocacy groups including Demos,
Project Vote, and the Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
has monitored Justice Department
enforcement of the National Voter
Registration Act, regularly providing the
Civil Rights Division with evidence that
states are failing to comply with Section
7 of the law. But there has been only
one recent DoJ lawsuit seeking
enforcement of Section 7, a 2002 case
that resulted in federal oversight of
elections in Tennessee.
In a statement, the groups said, “As a
testament to what DoJ oversight can
accomplish, Tennessee accounted for
almost a quarter of the nation’s public
assistance voter registrations in 2005-
2006. Unfortunately, DoJ has continued
to ignore the evidence of Section 7
violations in almost all other states, and
instead has pursued policies to remove
voters from the voter rolls.” The
coalition has called on the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees to conduct
formal investigations of the Justice
Department’s “selective enforcement”
of voter registration laws.
Last week, a hearing of the House
Judiciary Committee was postponed
when the Justice Department "refused to
make Voting Section chief John Tanner
available to testify," according to a panel
press release. it's all true
has monitored Justice Department
enforcement of the National Voter
Registration Act, regularly providing the
Civil Rights Division with evidence that
states are failing to comply with Section
7 of the law. But there has been only
one recent DoJ lawsuit seeking
enforcement of Section 7, a 2002 case
that resulted in federal oversight of
elections in Tennessee.
In a statement, the groups said, “As a
testament to what DoJ oversight can
accomplish, Tennessee accounted for
almost a quarter of the nation’s public
assistance voter registrations in 2005-
2006. Unfortunately, DoJ has continued
to ignore the evidence of Section 7
violations in almost all other states, and
instead has pursued policies to remove
voters from the voter rolls.” The
coalition has called on the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees to conduct
formal investigations of the Justice
Department’s “selective enforcement”
of voter registration laws.
Last week, a hearing of the House
Judiciary Committee was postponed
when the Justice Department "refused to
make Voting Section chief John Tanner
available to testify," according to a panel
press release. it's all true
Spending on the Iraq war will reach
half a trillion dollars and total
expenditures for the global “war on
terror” will exceed three quarters of
a trillion dollars in the coming fiscal
year, according to a new report by
the Congressional Research Service.
The current “burn rate” of $12
billion a month for operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan is up from about $8
billion in 2005. In 2003, the year of
the invasion of Iraq, monthly
spending was less than $6 billion.
The report, which endeavors to
quantify total spending on President
Bush’s “war on terror” since
September 2001, projects that
Congress will have allocated more
than $758 billion for these operations
by the end of fiscal year 2008. The
authors are critical of the scope of
information provided to Congress by
the Pentagon, describing “many
unresolved discrepancies and gaps in
reported Defense Department
figures,” with “trends difficult to
decipher and explanations unlikely to
be available.” The report notes that
a continuation of the current troop
"surge" levels beyond September will
require additional funding. it's all true
half a trillion dollars and total
expenditures for the global “war on
terror” will exceed three quarters of
a trillion dollars in the coming fiscal
year, according to a new report by
the Congressional Research Service.
The current “burn rate” of $12
billion a month for operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan is up from about $8
billion in 2005. In 2003, the year of
the invasion of Iraq, monthly
spending was less than $6 billion.
The report, which endeavors to
quantify total spending on President
Bush’s “war on terror” since
September 2001, projects that
Congress will have allocated more
than $758 billion for these operations
by the end of fiscal year 2008. The
authors are critical of the scope of
information provided to Congress by
the Pentagon, describing “many
unresolved discrepancies and gaps in
reported Defense Department
figures,” with “trends difficult to
decipher and explanations unlikely to
be available.” The report notes that
a continuation of the current troop
"surge" levels beyond September will
require additional funding. it's all true
redstateupdate.net
| redstat archive |
| verbatim archive |
| Inside Wrigley Field |
verbatim number 22.1
...They use violence as
a tool to do that."
Washington DC 03.22.06
a tool to do that."
Washington DC 03.22.06
“No question that
the enemy has tried
to spread sectarian
violence...
the enemy has tried
to spread sectarian
violence...