Australia’s first female prime minister promised her government will be stable over the next three years, although the defection of a single lawmaker would bring down her administration

Read more:
Gillard’s Labour party wins enough support to rule

This morning, ADP, a payroll processing firm, put out its latest employment report . It isn’t good. Between July and August, private employers shed an estimated 10,000 workers; economists expected an increase of about 20,000 jobs. Moreover, ADP revised down July’s increase from 42,000 jobs to 37,000. Over the past six months, private employers have added 37,000 jobs per month, according to ADP’s estimates. To put that in context, the economy needs to add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with the country’s growing population, and there are currently 14.5 million unemployed persons looking for work. On top of all that, ADP notes that it expects the government’s official employment report, due on Friday, to be worse. “[T]oday’s [ADP] figure does not include the effects of federal hiring — and now firing — for the 2010 Census,” the company notes. “Hiring for the census peaked in May. For this reason, Friday’s figure for the change in nonfarm total employment reported by the [Bureau of Labor Statistics] might be weaker than today’s estimate for nonfarm private employment in the ADP National Employment Report.” That means that both private and public employment might decline — meaning, unless the labor force shrinks dramatically, the unemployment rate will rise.

Go here to see the original:
An Ominous Private Jobs Report

Via TPMDC, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is up with a new advertisement showing his Republican challenger Sharron Angle bashing the unemployed, calling them “spoiled,” for instance. An unemployed Nevadan then criticizes Angle for the remarks. Angle has previously suggested that the government cut unemployment insurance benefits to get people back to work. And this week, a tape of Angle stating that she would have voted against the Hurricane Katrina relief bill, passed just after the hurricane devastated New Orleans, emerged . Reid and Angle remain close in some polls, but in others, the incumbent is pulling ahead.

See the rest here:
Reid Ad Shows Angle Bashing the Unemployed

ED to probe money transfer in Satyam scam : Khurshid Economic Times Khurshid further said the government has put in measures to check a repeat of such scams in country's corporate affairs. “Of late we do not have a problem … and more

ED to probe money transfer in Satyam scam : Khurshid Oneindia Khurshid further said the government has put in measures to check a repeat of such scams in country's corporate affairs. “Of late we do not have a problem … and more

Sharron Angle, the Nevada GOP’s candidate for Senate, is arguing that the government should cut unemployment benefits to get the jobless back to work. Angle has a reputation for taking this hard line: In the past, she has said the unemployed are “spoiled” by jobless benefits — which come from a federal insurance system, not a federal welfare program. Speaking with a local journalist, Jon Ralston, Angle said: What has happened is the system of entitlement has caused us to have a spoilage with our ability to go out and get a job. … There are some jobs out there that are available. Because they have to enter at a lower grade and they cannot keep their unemployment, they have to make a choice now. We’re making them make a choice between unemployment benefits and going back to work and working up through the ranks of that job and actually building up a good wage again. … What we need to do is make that unemployment benefit go down, not just completely remove the safety net from them while they go out and go to work. As any unemployed person will tell you, jobless benefits generally aren’t enough to live on — the average unemployment check is just $293 a week. Unemployed persons often cut back drastically, drawing down savings, selling their car or home and tapping into retirement accounts. The underlying issue here is that there aren’t enough jobs for people who need them: There are 15 million unemployed persons in the United States, around five for each available position. Given those metrics, cutting benefits would just take away subsistence-level funds from the already financially stressed. Angle’s opponent, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is today pushing for an extension of federal unemployment insurance benefits. More than 1.2 million Americans have lost jobless benefits since the end of May as Congress has failed to re-up the extension.

Visit link:
Angle: Cut Unemployment Benefits to Get the Jobless Back to Work

This Gallup poll , in some ways, is tautology: Republicans are conservative about the role of government, and Democrats are liberal. Members of the GOP believe that the government has overextended itself wildly — trying to convince businesses to hire more workers, cajole banks to reform and give more loans, persuade consumers to purchase more goods and save millions of American families from the economic ravages of joblessness. Democrats believe the government is not doing enough. In the past few months, deficit spending has become the battleground for those beliefs. On the Hill, Democrats are desperate to push through legislation that would do much to help the poor and the jobless — providing Medicaid and unemployment benefits, as well as a host of other measures. There, Republicans have drawn the line in the sand. What is interesting to note is that Republicans are winning. They killed legislation that should have been unremarkable, even popular. And they have managed to shift the argument to deficits, to convince the government to trim its programs back, despite economic consensus that the economy needs sustained governmental stimulus until demand returns.

Link:
Republicans: Stop Doing So Much; Dems: Do More

The jobs bill, which includes an extension to unemployment benefits among other provisions, could be passed if Democrats would be willing to pay for it with stimulus money and offset other spending, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in an interview with TWI sister site The Iowa Independent . Last week the bill failed to garner the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. “Ninety percent of the bill isn’t controversial,” Grassley said, concluding that the big problem is that he and many other lawmakers don’t want to add to the federal deficit. He chided Democrats for refusing to pay fully for the legislation with offsetting savings, revenue increases or the remaining federal stimulus funds. Even though Democrats repeatedly cut the bill in an effort to win Republican backing, the latest version would have added $55 billion to the nation’s $1.4 trillion deficit over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Grassley said he’s heard from his constituents that they are tired of the government running up huge debt, and that the message is starting to get through to Democrats as well. “It wasn’t just Republicans who voted against the bill in the U.S. House,” he said. “There were plenty of Blue Dog Democrats who don’t agree with this type of spending either.” He added that in February, he and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) put forth a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits and other important items in the jobs bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) killed the measure. “It was paid for,” Grassley said. “We could have passed that in three days instead of wasting three weeks.” Reid said at the time that the Baucus-Grassley bill wouldn’t do enough to show voters that the Senate was serious about addressing the unemployment problem, focusing too much on tax cuts and not enough on job creation. Critics also pointed out that extensions of both unemployment and COBRA benefits would have run only three months in Grassley’s legislation.

Continued here:
Grassley: Unemployment Extension Will Pass If Dems Can Pay for It

Flickr: respres On Wednesday, Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored enterprise that buys up mortgage contracts from loan originators to keep the housing market liquid, announced new penalties for homeowners who strategically default . “Defaulting borrowers who walk away and had the capacity to pay or did not complete a workout alternative in good faith will be ineligible for a new Fannie Mae-backed mortgage loan for a period of seven years from the date of foreclosure,” the company announced, adding that the policy goes into effect July 1. “Fannie Mae will also take legal action to recoup the outstanding mortgage debt from borrowers who strategically default on their loans in jurisdictions that allow for deficiency judgments.” The new provisions mean that if you strategically default, you likely cannot get a conforming mortgage for seven years. And if you strategically default in some areas, Fannie Mae will come after you in court. Image by: Matt Mahurin Share But the Fannie Mae rule — one of several new provisions aimed at penalizing strategic defaulters — raises the possibility that the government and loan servicers might imminently begin targeting an economically vulnerable population, one characterized by housing insecurity and joblessness. It brings up the immediate concern — for both defaulting homeowners and the agencies trying to keep them paying — of how to distinguish “strategic” defaulters from those defaulting because they have no choice. And the data shows that those considering default are by most metrics in financial straits, whether solvent or not. Consider, for instance, the situation of Charlene Mueller-Holden of Newark, Del. Mueller-Holden is a wife and the mother of two young boys, ages three and six. She lost her $60,000-a-year job as an instructional designer in January 2008. Two and a half years later she has not found a job, despite persistent searching. “My family is slowly starting to lose the things that everyone takes for granted — a roof over our head and food on the table,” she says. “I was living the American dream. I did everything that everyone tells you to do. I had a great 401k, life insurance and five months’ [worth of] bills sitting in the bank in case of an emergency,” she notes. The family lives in a modest three-bedroom. After Mueller-Holden exhausted her $1,200-a-month unemployment benefits and the family traded in for a cheaper car, exhausted its savings and tapped its retirement accounts, it has still had trouble keeping up on the mortgage. Her husband brings home around $1,800 a month — the family’s only source of income now. The $1,046.73 monthly mortgage payment started eating up 60 percent of the family’s income. Given food, gas and utilities — plus the cost of keeping the kids clothed and unexpected car repairs — the Mueller-Holdens became hard-up. They refinanced their mortgage under the Home Affordable Modification Plan, seeking to bring the payment down to a sustainable level. Their new payment? $1008.77 — 56 percent of their monthly income. And the balance on the mortgage increased. “This year my husband’s overtime has been cut out and his hourly salary has been cut and now we are just grateful he has a job,” Mueller-Holden says. “We are beyond struggling. Each month I have to go through our bills to see which one might be able to wait, because we have to buy bread and peanut butter so the kids have something to eat. No more vegetables, no more fresh fruit. No new or used clothes for them this year.” According to Mueller-Holden, it is not a question of whether the family will default on the mortgage if she does not find work, and fast. It is a question of when and how. The family’s credit score is already seriously tarnished. “I used to have an 820,” Mueller-Holden, says, referring to her FICO score. Imminent default and the six- or twelve-month period before actual foreclosure would provide some relief. No other federal program or bank refinancing initiative will. Indeed, the government itself is on the verge of penalizing strategic defaulters. The FHA Reform Act passed by the House but not yet taken up by the Senate excludes strategic defaulters from receiving Federal Housing Administration-backed loans — a provision included with bipartisan backing, including from most Republicans and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the head of the House Financial Services Committee. The question confronting Mueller-Holdens and the millions of other homeowners facing default is this: How will Fannie Mae and other entities going after defaulters decide what “strategic” default really is? Will they qualify? Will the government or their bank come after them, even when they are on the verge of poverty? Certainly, over the course of the recession, strategic default has emerged as a phenomenon, with a few particularly famous cases of families pulling the plug on the mortgage and heading to Disney World. The most cited study of strategic default, from credit firm Experian and consulting firm Oliver Wyman, found that as many as 588,000 families strategically defaulted nationwide in 2008 — mostly prime and subprime borrowers in the “sand states” worst hit by declines in home values. Experian and Oliver Wyman deemed people defaulters strategic if they went from having “perfect payment histories” to stopping paying the mortgage entirely, intentionally and suddenly. (All in all, more than three million homeowners received foreclosure filings from banks that year, and banks repossessed 850,000 houses.) But a more recent study by the Federal Reserve showed that four in five strategic defaulters walked away only when deeply underwater, and generally after an “income shock,” such as job loss. Fannie Mae did not respond to repeated requests for clarification about how hard-up homeowners will need to be before they can default without the new penalties. Thus far, none of the housing experts reached by TWI knew the definition either. The FHA Reform Act that might institute federal penalties for some defaulters instructs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to figure it out. But Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute points to the strictures used by one subprime lender in the 1990s: post-mortgage income of less than $400 a month per family member. By that standard, Fannie Mae would let homeowners like the Mueller-Holdens off of the hook. They live on just $790 a month after taxes and mortgage payments, but before utilities and all other expenses. (Additionally, they attempted to ameliorate their situation through a HAMP refinancing that ultimately proved useless, as Fannie requests hard-hit borrowers do.) But they exemplify the 5.5 million Americans currently in the foreclosure pipeline. A majority have suffered an “income shock,” like job loss. For many, their mortgage is eating up more than half of their post-tax income. And now, they have Fannie to worry about.

Read the original here:
Strategic Default Penalties Threaten Struggling Homeowners

Last week, thousands of Americans who have exhausted their unemployment insurance — the 99ers , named after the maximum number of weeks of state and federal benefits — sent letters and petitions to Washington as part of a futile campaign to convince the Senate to pass a bolstered version of the jobs bill , now stalled and being pared back. There were many common themes in their stories, but one of the more surprising was age. Image by: Matt Mahurin Share One woman from Warren County, New Jersey, wrote : “I am (or was) a legal secretary with several years of experience (30+ years). … I have applied to jobs that are more than one-half less than what I was earning. I search for a job each and every day. … Where do people in my age bracket go? Too young not to work but too old to work?” Such stories of older workers too young for retirement but struggling for months if not years to find jobs have policy experts concerned as the recession drags on and long-term unemployment continues to rise. Experts say that age discrimination is severely compounding the jobs crisis for older workers, although the phenomenon is difficult to quantify or to prove, and remains under-examined by the government. This time, it is not just making it more likely that these workers will be laid off. It is also making it much harder for them to gain new positions. Last week, a hearing called by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights examined the issue, attempting to determine whether part of the reason older workers have such trouble finding work, on aggregate, is due to employer biases out of their control. The unemployment rate is a comparatively moderate 7.1 percent for workers over the age of 55 — it’s 9.7 percent nationally — as older workers are more likely to retire early or leave the workforce if they lose their jobs. But that hides the troubling reality for those who can’t afford to leave the labor force. The unemployment rate for over-55s is at the highest level since 1948. Since the recession started, both the number of older people seeking work and the rate of unemployment for over-55s have increased more sharply than for all other demographic groups. And older workers comprise a high share of the long-term unemployed. In May, the average duration of unemployment for older job-seekers climbed to 44.2 weeks, 11 more weeks than the national average. Nearly six in ten older job-seekers have been out of work for more than six months. There are structural reasons that the unemployment crisis is hitting older Americans so hard. Older workers are more likely to be underwater homeowners, unable to sell their house and move away. They often have highly specific marketable skills, and seek positions more selectively. They also often have skills rendered obsolete by the recession, in outdated trades. But too often, employers illegally presume that older workers will be harder to train, more likely to leave for other positions, less productive, less technologically able or less willing to move — and do not hire them for those reasons. Laurie McCann, a senior attorney at the AARP Foundation Litigation and expert on age discrimination, explains that the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires employers to assess candidates as individuals and not to make assumptions about their abilities or requirements due to their age. “Employers have legitimate concerns about older applicants,” she says. “But the problem is, we find that people aren’t even getting in the door to have an interview or have their resume looked at, because employers assume that older workers aren’t looking for a job at a lower salary or aren’t willing to relocate.” Dianna Johnston, assistant legal counsel to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, explains that the statistics fail to capture this side of the picture. Speaking before the Commission on Civil Rights, she said, “Most labor-force statistics don’t really tell us much about the labor force. But one does. … Older workers remain unemployed one to three months longer than [younger workers]. And that is partly attributable to discrimination.” McCann called age discrimination in hiring “the most under-reported form of discrimination” and “prevalent” throughout the recession, as an average of 5 workers compete for every job opening. In an interview, she explained why age discrimination is so hard to quantify: “[It is] the lack of proof. If you’re laid off, you might be in outplacement, and see that everyone who got laid off was older. Or, you might have friends in your office to tell you that a younger person took your job when your employer told you the position was being eliminated. But hiring discrimination is much harder to see, and can be impossible to prove. In most cases, you’re not going to know who was hired. You’re not going to know how they filled the position. There’s just a hunch, or a feeling, that you’re not getting through the door because of your age.” Incidences of age discrimination in firing are much clearer to see, and have risen along with the recession. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says age discrimination cases have jumped 17 percent since the start of the recession, and climbed 30 percent between 2007 and 2008. But virtually all of those cases involve layoffs, rather than the lack of job offers. Still, evidence of age bias in hiring is accumulating in academic research and anecdotal reports to the EEOC, Commission on Civil Rights and AARP. In one famed 2005 study , a Texas A&M economist sent out 4,000 job applications for entry-level positions. (The resumes were only women’s.) Older workers were 40 percent less likely to receive a response back. And of the letters sent to Congress last week, a vast majority mentioned age, many coming from older workers who had applied for hundreds of positions, to no avail. “Who will help the over 50 population find work? I have been out of work, laid off from the military/defense industry and apply to anything and everything I am qualified for, but with no luck,” one wrote . “ I am told I am too qualified and when I respond with, ‘I am willing to take this position, take less money, I will give you my experience at that salary,’ I am still turned away.” Unfortunately, policy experts fear that age discrimination in hiring, compounded by the recession, is a problem without a solution. Individuals can bring cases against individual companies, but discrimination is virtually impossible to prove, even if it is easy to see as an aggregate phenomenon. Plus, McCann says, explains, the phenomenon is so prevalent that discrimination simply seems like reality. “As a society, we’re willing to tolerate age discrimination, more so than other kinds of discrimination,” she argues. “People sense that, and it gives older job-seekers a sense of futility. Why even bother applying for jobs, or bringing a discrimination case? I won’t win.”

See the article here:
‘Too Young Not to Work but Too Old to Work’

This morning, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is testifying before the House Committee on the Budget about the current economic situation and the federal budget. These are contentious times when it comes to the relative importance of debts and deficit-spending. Hawks — and the American public — are deeply worried about the $13 trillion in the red the government finds itself in and the specter of inflation. Doves — and the American public — are concerned that the sky-high unemployment rate and slow recovery means the government might need to raise deficits more to boost growth and create jobs. Bernanke’s remarks could have been controversial — particularly given that several members of the Fed have started to call for rate hikes that would cool off the economy but prevent inflation from taking hold. But his prepared testimony and the hearing thus far offer a dose of cool realism: Things are bad but getting better slowly, and the debt situation is “unsustainable.” First, Bernanke noted the headline statistics: “Real gross domestic product will grow in the neighborhood of 3.5 percent over the course of 2010 … probably [meaning] only a slow reduction in the unemployment rate over time. In this environment, inflation is likely to remain subdued.” Still, he did not advocate for more deficit spending or stimulus: “Although the support to economic growth from fiscal policy is likely to diminish in the coming year, the incoming data suggest that gains in private final demand will sustain the recovery in economic activity.” He again noted the drag the housing market has had on the economy: “In the housing market, sales and construction have been temporarily boosted lately by the homebuyer tax credit. But looking through these temporary movements, underlying housing activity appears to have firmed only a little since mid-2009, with activity being weighed down, in part, by a large inventory of distressed or vacant existing houses and by the difficulties of many builders in obtaining credit.” He did not elaborate on the possibility of a continued decline in home prices, and the ripple effect that might have on the economy. He spoke about Europe and Greece, and warned that the United States should learn something from across the pond, without scaremongering: “Ongoing developments in Europe point to the importance of maintaining sound government finances. In many ways, the United States enjoys a uniquely favored position. Our economy is large, diversified, and flexible; our financial markets are deep and liquid; and, as I have mentioned, in the midst of financial turmoil, global investors have viewed Treasury securities as a safe haven.” And he saved his strongest words to state that deficits should only be widened in emergencies, calling the current path “unsustainable” ( emphasis added) : “ The exceptional increase in the deficit has in large part reflected the effects of the weak economy on tax revenues and spending, along with the necessary policy actions taken to ease the recession and steady financial markets. As the economy and financial markets continue to recover, and as the actions taken to provide economic stimulus and promote financial stability are phased out, the budget deficit should narrow over the next few years. Even after economic and financial conditions have returned to normal, however, in the absence of further policy actions, the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path. ” Watch Bernanke respond to questions from House committee members here .

Go here to see the original:
Bernanke: Debt Is ‘Unsustainable’

The May jobs number is out, and at first blush it looks good. The economy added 431,000 jobs in May and the unemployment rate tracked down to 9.7 percent. But the report, in reality, is terrible, another sign of the long-standing crisis of joblessness in the United States. Economists were hoping that the private sector would add between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs. But private employers expanded their payrolls by a measly 41,000 positions. That is simply not enough: The United States needs to add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth, and jobs need to grow a lot faster than that to make a dent in the headline unemployment rate. Fifteen million Americans are unemployed, several million of whom have been out of work for more than six months and more than one million of whom have been out of work for two years . Again, crisis is the appropriate word. Politicians might try to spin this. This morning Christina Romer, the head of the administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote on the White House blog that today’s report “shows continued signs of labor market recovery.” She posted this chart, where the trends do look good. But if you take that right-most blue bar — which shows job growth — and take out the temporary census jobs, it’s barely existent. And once the census is over, those jobs are gone. Washington has not run out of options to tackle the unemployment crisis. The government could expand, directly hiring workers. (As the census demonstrates, when the government hires workers, unemployment goes down.) It could push tax incentives and stimulus, so that Americans spend more and companies decide to hire more workers. It could take up Rep. George Miller’s (D-Calif.) Local Jobs for America Act , providing $75 billion to local governments to keep employees on the payroll. Or it could have considered Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) proposal to grant $23 billion to keep public school teachers in their classrooms, the Keep Our Educators Working Act. Both of those bills would have preserved or created local government jobs, and a spate of other congressional initiatives are aimed at private-sector hiring. But the issue at this point is not ideas, but will. Congress has simply lost its appetite for expensive job-saving or job-creating programs given the deficit. That does not mean the economy won’t recover. It will. But it means that unemployment will continue to lag behind the recovery, sustaining severe hardship for families and individuals.

Read the original here:
Unemployment Remains in a State of Crisis

Census Workers Blow Whistle on Hiring Fraud Big Government (blog) Labor doesn't check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is … and more

The big macroeconomic news today is that the United States’ GDP grew at a 3.2 percent per year pace in the first quarter — the third straight quarter of strong growth, weaker than the 5.6 percent pace in the fourth quarter of 2009 and right in line with economists’ expectations. The Bureau of Economic Analysis cites growth in personal consumption (that is, consumer spending), private inventory investment (stores restocking their shelves), exports and nonresidential fixed investment (business purchases of things like wells, hotels, computer systems and plumbing) as the major factors accounting for the growth. Consumer spending increased at a 3.6 percent pace, the strongest in more than three years. Of course, GDP is just one number among many. But the slowdown in its pace of growth is a sign of how strong the headwinds remain as the government withdraws its crisis programs and unemployment remains high (a lag on GDP growth, because all those unemployed people are not producing much, nor are they consuming much). The stronger the growth, the faster the United States fills its output gap .

Read more here:
GDP Grows at 3.2 Percent Per Year Pace in Q1

With unemployment still hovering near double digits, the Christian Science Monitor this week highlights a forgotten angle in the government’s efforts to help laid-off folks weather the storm: Getting part-time work could leave them in worse shape than if they’d remained jobless. “Many people who have been out of work for a year are picking up work as temps or part-timers,” the Monitor writes, “unaware that state agencies will recalculate their unemployment benefits after a year – and use their most recent work history and pay level to do it.” “What is going on for these workers is that because their most recent wages are much lower than the wages they earned in their prior fulltime job, they are facing substantial cuts in their weekly unemployment benefits,” says George Wentworth, a consultant at the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in New York. The Monitor spotlights the case of a Massachusetts worker who was receiving $540 in federal help each month, only to see that figure drop to $103. The reason? She took a temporary job that slipped her from federal to state benefits, causing the state to recalculate her benefits based on the last job she had. Not that Congress isn’t aware of the issue. A Senate bill passed earlier in the month would extend the filing deadline for emergency federal UI benefits through Dec. 31, but would also alter the underlying law so as not to penalize workers who take up part-time jobs in their search for longer-term employment. That provision, though, is not contained in a separate House-passed bill, which the Senate is expected to take up April 12.

See the original post here:
An Unfortunate Disincentive for the Unemployed to Take Part-Time Jobs

The government said it was also offering to recapitalise Dubai World through the equitisation of the Government’s $8.9 billion claim and a commitment to fund up to $1.5 billion in new funds

See the original post:
Dubai in $9.5 bn debt offer, no new Abu Dhabi aid

How the IRS Helps H&R Block Scam Taxpayers AlterNet After lenders learn there is no lien on the prospective borrower's soon-to-arrive return, they can make the high-interest loans knowing the government check … and more

Local Guilty Plea Expected in Massive Investments Fraud KYW1060.com According to a change-of-plea memo filed by the government, Alexander held himself out as an investment manager, but it was a scam . …

See the original post:
Local Guilty Plea Expected in Massive Investments Fraud – KYW1060.com

BJP demands JPC probe into food ' scam ' Indian Express … the “ scam ” in import and export of sugar and wheat. Leading the BJP charge, Naidu said the government has run out of ideas to check price rise, … and more

On Tuesday, America’s poverty rate jumped from 13.2 percent to 15.8 percent — or from 39.8 million to 47.4 million of 308 million Americans — as the government finally acknowledged that the way it calculated the poverty rate was designed to artificially deflate the statistics. The previous poverty rate was based on what an emergency food diet cost in 1955 and didn’t take into account government transfer payments, let alone differential living expenses and health care costs. The official yearly statistics, to be released in September, will account for medical costs, transportation costs and updated costs of living when determining poverty, and add in food stamps and tax credits (like the fully refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, which often pays the working poor more in refunds than they paid in taxes) as income. Elderly people are expected to see the largest rise in their poverty rate due to medical expenses, while children are expected to appear less poor because of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) funds. High costs of living are expected to drive up poverty rates in major urban areas like New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. What the government will not do is allow the more realistic poverty calculations help determine which Americans qualify for transfer payments such as food stamps, Medicaid, housing benefits, WIC and child care benefits. That might be considered too generous for the likes of some in Congress who prefer to complain about budget deficits for the benefit of the television cameras rather than extend unemployment benefits to those Americans who can’t find jobs in a jobless economic recovery.

See the original post:
Government Admits Poverty Statistics Designed to Keep Official Poverty Low

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) (EPA/ZUMApress.com) As job creation continues to be the caboose of economic recovery, employment experts of all stripes are hiking the pressure on Congress to tackle the crisis by encouraging employers to cut hours rather than firing workers. And more and more lawmakers are taking heed. Seventeen states have already adopted so-called “job-sharing” programs, which encourage employers to reduce workers’ hours in lieu of firing them outright. The state government, in these cases, then steps in to make up a portion of the lost wages. Between 300,000 and 350,000 workers are participating nationwide, saving roughly 100,000 jobs that would have otherwise been scrapped, according to Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research and a long-time supporter of the concept. Image by: Matt Mahurin Share Yet that’s just a drop in the bucket relative to the 12-million-job crater the country is in, leading many economists — not all of them liberal — to push Congress for a much larger federal investment in job-sharing programs. Kevin A. Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told lawmakers this week that such programs are among the most targeted and cost-effective ways to tackle the nation’s jobs crisis, which has left nearly one in five workers without a job or underemployed. The concept is simple: Rather than laying off a few workers during lean times, businesses instead could spread the pain by reducing work hours for many. In Hassett’s example, if five workers had their hours cut by 20 percent it would prevent one worker from being fired at no cost to the company. And if Congress were to alter its policies surrounding emergency unemployment insurance, those workers could then access a portion of those benefits — in this case, 20 percent. Workers benefit by keeping their jobs. Employers win because they don’t have to train new part-time workers. And states would gain because their share of the partial benefits would be less than they would otherwise have to pay. “Right now the government only really shares in supporting that worker if you lay the whole worker off,” Hassett said Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee , advocating a policy that isn’t supported by the Republicans who invited him to testify. “By adopting job sharing, we could give firms an incentive to slow job destruction.” The call is timely. Even as the nation’s unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent last month, the number of long-term unemployed — those without work longer than 27 weeks — jumped to a historic high. Economists are projecting not only that unemployment will rise later this year, but also that it will remain above 8 percent even two years from now — higher than the peak jobless rate in either of the last two recessions. Hassett pointed out that the job numbers coming out of the Labor Department each month are net figures reflecting the difference between the millions of jobs created and the millions of jobs lost — a constant churning that he says represents a vital opportunity for lawmakers interested in reducing unemployment. “There is already a massive amount of job creation out there,” he testified. “If we can slow job destruction even a little bit, then we will have set the stage for big increases in net job creation.” Reducing involuntary job losses by 10 percent, Hassett estimates, would be the equivalent of adding 200,000 jobs a month to the economy. Job-sharing policies in Germany have kept unemployment rates steady, Hassett said, even while that country’s GDP has tanked almost as drastically as that of the United States. And an additional perk: job sharing would be particularly beneficial to black workers, Hassett said, for the simple reason that blacks are often the first folks to be laid off in tough economic times. Congress is paying attention. Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) called Hassett’s proposal “very useful.” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) offered to give him an extra five minutes to testify. And Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) called job sharing “a wonderful idea.” “I turned to my staff and said, ‘Go draw me a bill that will do this kind of sharing, if nobody else has introduced that bill,” Watt said. Turns out, the legislation is already out there. Bills sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) would provide more money to the 17 states already operating job-sharing programs, while offering additional funds to other states that choose to adopt similar initiatives. The White House, Baker said in a phone interview Wednesday, is supportive, though officials there seem intent to let Congress design its own jobs legislation. Not everyone, though, is on board. Republicans, claiming that the first stimulus hasn’t done anything to help the economy, are near-united in opposition to another large spending bill — regardless of what it contains. “I’m really surprised that we’re even debating the need for a new stimulus in light of our experience with the old stimulus,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus (Ala.), senior Republican on the Financial Services panel. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) agreed, arguing that the Democrats’ $787 billion stimulus bill was “a complete failure.” “I’m not even sure that John Maynard Keynes would have [supported] that particular stimulus program,” Hensarling said. “And here we are contemplating another one.” Testifying before the House panel Tuesday, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, carried another message, warning lawmakers that current interest-rate and deficit-spending levels leave policymakers will few remedies should the country slip back into recession. With that in mind, Zandi urged panel members “to be aggressive” in crafting more stiumulus measures. “If we have another recession, we will have no policy response,” he said. “We have to err on the side of doing too much.”

Read more:
Economists Push for Federal Job-Sharing Program

BBC News Scammers target jobseekers BBC News Trading Standards officer, Kevin Mc Namara, talks to BBC Newsline's Julie Mc Cullough about the jobseeker scam . “I literally had the TV on and the phone … UK Government Steps Up War on Internet Fraud EU Ticket News – B2B Ticketing Industry website Britain sets up cyber-enforcement team to check online World Cup ticket scam Daily News & Analysis all 53 news articles

MyFinances.co.uk Government to combat online fraud with £4.5m cyber team Broadband Genie … be set up as part of a £4.5m investment project by the government over a period of three years to tackle, among other things, internet and email scams . … UK.gov invests £4.3m in cyber- scam crackdown team Register Cyber Scammers Beware, the British are Coming The New New Internet Government unveils £4.5m online fraud crackdown V3.co.uk IT PRO

BBC News Internet fraud targeted by new team BBC News The “cyber enforcement team” will be set up as part of a £4.3m investment by the government over three years to tackle internet and e-mail cons. … Government invests £4.5 million into scam busting FinancialAdvice.co.uk Government takes fight to Internet scammers THINQ.co.uk all 13 news articles

Some perspective on the Labor Department’s latest unemployment figures , from the National Employment Law Project: With January’s unemployment figures, the average duration of unemployment has hit another record high of 30.2 weeks, with a historic 41.2% of the unemployed remaining out of work for six months or longer. 11.5 million Americans are collecting some form of unemployment insurance. During the most recent previous peak in long term unemployment in 1983, a comparatively low 26% of unemployed workers were out of work for six or more months, and the average duration of unemployment peaked at 21 weeks. “With the jobs hole this deep, Congress and the Administration must bravely stare into the headwinds of budget concerns and continue to fortify the safety net throughout this year,” Christine Owens, NELP’s executive director, said in a statement. ”Any faltering of their support will bring disaster for families, communities and the economy.” Economists are pretty much in agreement that the government, as spender of last resort, must step in with more spending to fill the void left by the drop in consumer spending that’s undermined the jobs market. The short-term borrowing, they say , is much less threatening to the economy than continuation of double-digit unemployment that would surely result without that spending. Whether lawmakers on Capitol Hill have the appetite for it is another question altogether . Early indications are that they don’t.

View post:
More on the Long-Term Unemployment Crisis

Sam Stein nabs a memo written by Frank Luntz — whose influence among Republican strategists is as strong as ever, given his presence at the House GOP retreat — telling conservatives how they can talk about financial reform while killing the reforms on the table right now. The gist, according to Luntz, is that supermajorities of voters doubt that Washington can effectively regulate business, and blame the crisis on a combination of human stupidity and Washington stumbling — not on Wall Street. Here, for example, is Luntz’s proof that voters are going to be skeptical of Washington reform. Here’s the proof that the “spending and stimulus” have further damaged trust in Washington: And here’s the data that suggests that only a third of people blame Wall Street for the economic mess. You could hardly find a better endorsement of Tea Party rhetoric. The Tea Parties began, remember, when CNBC’s Rick Santelli ranted against the idea that the government should save the homes of “losers” who shouldn’t have bought them anyway.

Read more here:
‘Individuals Who Took Out Loans They Could Not Afford Are Mostly to Blame for the Financial Crisis’

James O’Keefe has issued a statement on his arrest in Louisiana, portraying himself as a maligned investigative journalist who was merely trying to see whether the phones worked in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) office. I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars (sic) in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working. I noted an error in the statement — the controversy is not over whether Landrieu is “taking millions of federal dollars,” but why the Senate added $300 million in Medicaid subsidies that stood to benefit Louisiana. That’s a legitimate issue — O’Keefe, trying to clear the air, bends it into a bribery smear. That, and his use of the statement to demand retractions from “reporters who can’t get their facts straight,” indicate that he’s going to fight this out. The full statement: The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false. As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth. I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working. On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media. It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

More here:
James O’Keefe: Phone Sting Was Staged to See Whether Sen. Landrieu Was ‘Trying to Avoid Constituents’

Al Jazeera : Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has said his country must reach out to its “disenchanted brothers” in an effort to stabilise the war ravaged nation. Addressing a one-day international conference on Afghanistan’s future in London, the British capital, Karzai said that fighters who are “not part of al-Qaeda or other terror groups” must be reconciled with the government. The specific plan is to establish a reconciliation initiative that focuses on district-by-district Taliban outreach . In the past, the Karzai government’s security ministers have said that they wanted to target mid-level Taliban for reconciliation, while using jobs packages to lure away and reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers.  This new initiative appears more comprehensive. The New York Times : “We see this program as the main pillar for bringing peace to Afghanistan,” said Shaida Mohammed Abdali, the deputy national security adviser. “There’s an ideological motive for an insurgency like this, and the trouble will not be resolved unless you reach out to the leadership; they are the food of the foot soldiers and where they are getting ideological and political incentives. If we only concentrate on the foot soldiers it will not be a sustainable program.” Karzai seeks $1 billion for his initiative from the London conference. But the question remains: why, absent a loss of momentum through military setback, would the Taliban leadership be interested in reconciliation?

Read the rest here:
In London, Karzai Dares Taliban to Join Peace Talks

I’ve just spoken to Andrew Breitbart, the proprietor of Big Government–the website which published and promoted James O’Keefe’s undercover sting of ACORN offices– about the arrest of James O’Keefe . “We have no knowledge about or connection to any alleged acts and events involving James O’Keefe at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office,” said Breitbart. “We only just learned about the alleged incident this afternoon. We have no information other than what has been reported publicly by the press. Accordingly, we simply are not in a position to make any further comment.”

View post:
Andrew Breitbart: ‘No Knowledge About or Connection to’ O’Keefe Scandal

As Dave just mentioned , the Supreme Court this morning freed corporations to make unlimited donations to candidates for the White House or Congress. The decision hinges largely on two theories: (1) That a corporation, legally, is a person as it pertains to free-speech rights, and (2) that money is a form of free speech. The first is the more controversial, in that a corporation doesn’t have a pulse, doesn’t vote, doesn’t die and never goes to jail for wrongdoing. But nevermind all that. Most conservatives love this line of thinking. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for example, just issue a statement hailing the “monumental decision.” “By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers,” McConnell said. “Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all.” He was referring to Humana, Citigroup and UST Inc . Others, though, aren’t so sure. Writing the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” And campaign finance watchdogs immediately cautioned that the ruling will only enhance the already enormous influence that corporations have over the legislative process. “This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy,” Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said in a statement. Consumer advocates are hoping Congress will take up a little-mentioned campaign finance reform proposal — the Fair Elections Now Act — that aims to level the election-year playing field by allowing candidates to tap public public funds if they disavow large contributions from individuals, and all contributions from lobbyists. The hope is that the public funds would attract candidates who otherwise might not have the resources to run for public office. And by limiting contributions to small sums from individuals, it would prevent candidates from relying too heavily on any one donor or interest group. Popular candidates would still raise more money than others, — the goal is not to give everyone equal funding, just  the opportunity for equal funding. The real aim, supporters say, is to prevent a minority of wealthy donors from holding excessive sway, perhaps at the expense of everyone else. They shouldn’t hold their breath. Campaign finance reform is never popular among lawmakers who have been elected under current financing rules, and even less so in an election year when everyone is scrambling for the very donations that the bill would ban.

The rest is here:
If You Thought Big Business Ran This Town Before …

Via The Hill , Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee later this month to testify on his role surrounding the $62 billion funneled through the AIG bailout to other Wall Street firms — payments that officials at the New York Federal Reserve, which Geithner used to head, reportedly tried to hide. Panel Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) issued the formal invite earlier today. The news that Geithner will accept came through an anonymous congressional aide, according to The Hill. The hearing is scheduled for Jan. 27.

Read more from the original source:
Geithner to Testify on AIG

We’ve been writing for months that a major hurdle facing Democratic leaders as they merge the House and Senate heath reform proposals is what to do with the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. The House has proposed to terminate CHIP at the end of 2013, citing the ease of enrollment if kids were covered in the same plan as their parents. The Senate, on the other hand,  funds CHIP through 2015. Supporters of the Senate provision warn that moving youngsters to exchange plans will increase costs to low-income families, many of which would respond by not buying coverage for their kids at all. Each side has been adamant in defense of its approach. Until now. CQ reported over the weekend that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee and a supporter of the House CHIP repeal, “may not insist” on the House provision. In a separate interview, Waxman signaled that while he strongly favors his approach, he may not insist on it. “I’m not drawing lines in the sand on anything,” he said. Lawmakers in both chambers “want to make sure we protect children’s access to health care.” It’s worth mentioning that advocates of keeping CHIP around aren’t entirely pleased with the current program, which has a funding cap and therefore threatens to drop kids during budget squeezes. They merely worry that the switch to the exchanges would reduce the number of insured kids in the name of expanding coverage. Also worth noting, the CHIP program, while funded by the government, is run through private insurance companies. That means that Waxman and other supporters of terminating CHIP are up against, not only children’s welfare advocates, but the insurance lobby as well. “Many analysts expect that some version of the Senate language will prevail in the final bill,” CQ writes. “Lobbyists for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, say that shifting people into different programs could be disruptive and confusing, which could lead to some children ending up uninsured.” And AHIP is a group that knows how to get what it wants from Congress.

Read the rest here:
Waxman Not Married to CHIP Repeal

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has invited Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to testify on his role in the New York Fed’s 2008 decision to hide massive AIG payments to other Wall Street firms. “More than one year after the first Federal bailout of AIG, the American people continue to question where their tax dollars were really sent when the government rescued this company,” Towns said Friday in a statement. Geithner was head of the New York Fed when that agency advised AIG not to disclose tens of billions of dollars in payments to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants in late 2008, even after the government had stepped in with $180 billion for AIG. The saga has caused some lawmakers to accuse Fed officials of staging a “ backdoor bailout ” to Wall Street’s major players through AIG. The hearing is tentatively scheduled for the week of Jan. 18. As we mentioned earlier , there are others who should get an invite to testify as well.

More here:
Towns: Bring on Geithner

Tucker Carlson (ZUMA Press) The offices of the Daily Caller evoke a long-ago era of journalism, circa 2005 or 2006, before The Los Angeles Times closed its big-city bureaus, The Washington Times fired 60 percent of its staff, and magazines from Gourmet to Portfolio shuttered for lack of revenue. A staff of 21 reporters and editors sit in blindingly white offices and a wide-open center space, cranking out content for the site’s January 11 launch. Other possible hires walk in and out of Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson’s office, past a lounge inhabited by liquor bottles and a sleeping dog, and decorated by clocks that tell the time in far-flung and random locations: Pyongyang, Jackson Hole, Washington, Honolulu. “I just thought it was funny,” said Carlson, chewing on a piece of Nicorette. (He quit smoking last year, on his 40th birthday.) “We dispatched some intern to go and get those signs made. Actually, it was $150–I never would have done it if I’d thought it would be so expensive. But something about it amused me. They’re on velcro. We swap ‘em out–we’ve got a whole drawer full of ‘em.” Image by: Matt Mahurin Last February, Carlson–the conservative former host or co-host of shows on CNN and MSNBC, and still a Fox News contributor– gave a speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in which he urged activists on the right to “copy” the journalistic model of the New York Times. “They need to get out, find out what’s going on, and not just analyze things based on what the mainstream media has reported,” Carlson said. He was roundly booed. Four months later he officially announced plans to launch a news site “along the lines of the Huffington Post” with an ideology “not in sync with the current program.” When he talked with TWI on Wednesday, Carlson suggested that the desire for news like that, and the potential to break big stories, was greater than ever. “When was the last time you saw, on television, a straight explanation of what’s in the competing House and Senate health care bills?” Carlson asked. “What’s in them? People want to know that!” In the time between that announcement and next week’s debut, Carlson and his partner Neil Patel–a former aide to Dick Cheney–raised money, scouted out staff (”we didn’t ask about ideology,” said Carlson) and held poker games at their original, grimier office in Washington’s Dupont Circle. A June launch date was pushed into autumn, and then pushed back again. The reason, explained Patel, was that “our aspirations kept growing.” “The size of the staff is much bigger than we started with,” Patel said. “We were very lucky to get the amount of money we did based, basically, on a PowerPoint.” As they convinced funders and advertisers that the online journalism model was viable–”two years ago, who would have thought that the Huffington Post would get more traffic than the Washington Post?”–they expanded the scale of the enterprise. When they go live, it will be with more than $3 million in start-up capital, enough to run the site for at least a year. That site will bear as much of a resemblance to the Huffington Post–the juggernaut that now clocks around 17 million hits per month–as Carlson speculated that it would back last summer. According to Carlson, there will be at least one editor monitoring and posting stories “24 hours a day, around the clock, in the office.” The top story of the moment will run at the top of the page, with more content running beside it. Stories written by the magazine’s reporting team, which includes Washington Times veteran Jon Ward and Government Executive’s Gautham Nagesh, will be cycled in, marked as “DC Exclusives,” much the way that stories by Huffington Post reporters trade space with headlines that link to stories from other publications. A staff blog–possible names include “Caller ID” and “The Daily Trawler”–will indulge in more humor, some of it written by long-time conservative blogger Jim Treacher (real name Sean Medlock) who moved to Washington from Indianapolis after Carlson gave him a call. And an iPhone app is on the way. “Tucker is one of the most talented journalists I know,” said Ana Marie Cox, a host and reporter for Air America Radio who spars with Carlson in online chats hosted by the Washington Post. “Given free rein, he’ll definitely produce something interesting, compelling, and conversation-starting. Whether that thing can wind up being a financial success, I have no idea. If I could answer such questions I would not be a journalist.” Carlson and his staff are spending the final hours before the launch polishing off content that can break out of the gate–exclusive interviews, lists like the Top 15 Most Wasteful Stimulus Projects, and short features from think tankers and established politicos. Arianna Huffington will have one of the first pieces on the site. Carlson, who started his career as a magazine writer, is working on an investigative piece for later. When Carlson talked to TWI on Wednesday, he had a wallet full of business cards handed to him by excited political candidates, Tea Party activists and PR flacks who’d heard him speak at Grover Norquist’s weekly meetings of the conservative movement. It was the first time, said Carlson, that he’d ever gone to the meeting. He wanted as much news, and as many stories, as possible. Whether they came from ax-grinding researchers or established reporters didn’t much matter. “If there’s a story whose facts are verifiable, and it generates interest, and it comes from Satan himself, I will take it and I will pay him a reporting fee,” Carlson said. “But if we take a piece from Satan, that does not mean we’re on board with Satan’s agenda. It just means that the provenance of the piece, the origins of the piece, is not the most important thing. People don’t give you stuff because they love journalists. They give you that stuff because they’re pushing an agenda.” The New York Times-style investigative journalism that Carlson has told conservatives to cultivate will not largely come, as the Times’s investigations come, from inside the organization. The Daily Caller is taking one page from Andrew Breitbart, whose biggest story–a multi-city hidden-camera investigation of ACORN–came from two freelancing conservative conservative activists. The Daily Caller’s investigative pieces will come from outside; some will develop in-house, but most are being sought out from the ever-expanding population of journalists who need work. “Our view,” said Carlson, “is that there are enough seasoned freelance journalists out there that you can let them do it.” Veterans of other new media start-ups are sold on what they’ve heard about the “HuffPo of the Right.” Conor Friedersdorf, a freelance journalist who worked for the short-lived site Culture11, contrasted Carlson’s focus on journalism with the much-praised, quick-hitting tactics of Breitbart’s Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism. “I hope that The Daily Caller aspires to produce writing that is as well written and professionally edited as the stuff that the talented Tucker Carlson writes for Esquire,” said Friedersdorf. “The alternative — the Andrew Breitbart model — is to publish poorly reasoned, atrociously edited screeds on the cheap, on the assumption that ideologically friendly readers will keep clicking anyway.” Carlson’s full-time staff, still taking shape this week (Helen Rittelmeyer, slated to be a reporter, left Monday for a job at National Review), is skewed toward younger reporters who had, in his view, the “energy and temperament” for the job. They don’t have hard quotas for blog posts, articles, or pageviews. They seemed ready to work hard without that. “I keep reading all of these Nick Denton memos for Gawker,” said Carlson, “these ferocious memos to writers where it’s like ‘get a million pageviews this week or you’re fired!’ Maybe we’ll have to do that! But it’s not my personality at all.” Whenever he’s asked, Carlson will happily admit the lofty goals he’s set for the site. It’s got to fill the gap that the “pathetic” media has left in coverage of how government works. It’s got to generate buzz and drive the conversation, getting stories that other media have to chase and topping a million page-views a month, “although one word I’ll never use is ‘metric.’” It’s got to be fun. That’s the point of the foreign clocks and the random posters Carlson has placed around the office. But there’s the occasional strange found object that makes a greater point, like the photo of a joyful Korean businessman perched on top of his store during the L.A. riots, holding a rifle. “Because he’s taken the time to defend himself with a firearm,” explained Carlson, “he’s not going to be victimized by the racist mobs below. He is smiling. That’s a smile that reflects both his self-satisfaction and also the promise of America. The promise of America is ‘We’ll let you do what you want, as long as you defend yourself.’ I just love that. I’ve had that over every desk I’ve ever had as an adult.”

Read the rest here:
Carlson Launches Right’s Answer to HuffPost

All day, we’re re-running our favorite blog posts of the last year. This post was originally published on Nov. 4, 2009. During the summer, when swine flu was not yet a widespread reality in the United States, giant retailer Wal-Mart made the news for being in talks with the government about possibly distributing the swine flu vaccine through its extensive network of stores. But now the swine flu has Wal-Mart under scrutiny for a very different reason: Accusations that the retailer is leaving employees infected with swine flu little choice but to come to work, due to its punitive sick leave policies. Citing a report by the National Labor Committee , the Institute for Southern Studies’ argues on its blog Facing South that Wal-Mart is essentially contributing to the spread of swine flu by making it financially prohibitive for employees to miss work when they fall ill. Employees of the Arkansas-based retail giant — even its food handlers — feel they have no choice but to work when they’re sick. That’s because the company gives workers demerits and deducts pay for staying home when they’re sick or caring for sick children. It gets worse: The situation is particularly difficult for Wal-Mart workers who are single parents. The NLC reports on an instance in which an employee got a call from her four-year-old’s preschool telling her to pick up the child, who had a fever of 103 degrees F. Despite the fact that the employee had already worked for four hours that day, she got a demerit point for leaving and lost her wages for the rest of the day. The report says: “Parents have no choice but to load their children up with Motrin and Dimetap to mask their symptoms so they can go to school.” Which, of course, leads to a vicious circle of other children at school becoming sick, and spreading it in their families. Not to mention the misery of a sick child facing a full day of school. What’s particularly interesting is that Wal-Mart includes on its Website some information about swine flu, including frequently asked questions. Here’s the answer to “What should I do if I get sick?” Stay away from others as much as possible to keep from making others sick. Staying at home means that you should not leave your home except to seek medical care. This means avoiding normal activities, including work, school, travel, shopping, social events and public gatherings. Unless you work at Wal-Mart. Then, you’d better make it in for your shift if you don’t want your pay docked or possibly lose your job. From Facing South: Wal-Mart has a demerit system that punishes workers who cannot come to work due to illness. Employees who miss a day due to sickness receive a one-point demerit and lose eight hours of wages. Employees with more than three absences a six-month period face discipline, and a fifth absence — even for a sick day — will result in what the company calls “active coaching” by management. A sixth absence leads to what Wal-Mart calls “Decision Day,” when a worker can be either terminated or put on a year-long trial period during which time he or she can be fired for any infraction and cannot be promoted. The swine flu sometimes can cause people to miss an entire week or more of work. At Wal-Mart, that could get you fired. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what the Center for Disease Control was hoping for this flu season, as it tries to contain a life-threatening virus. Wal-Mart’s labor policies have long been contentious, but this one could actually create a public safety issue. If these allegations are true, it may be time for public health officials to step in somehow, perhaps with fines for the retailer for keeping flu-stricken employees on the job. And let’s not just pick on Wal-Mart; it’s very possible that other low-wage retailers and business are doing the same thing. Maybe the best option in the absence of any government action is for customers to walk away. Is a bargain really worth it if employees are forced to work while sick with the flu — and potentially help to spread an unusually dangerous virus?

See more here:
Best of 2009: Stay Home if You Have Swine Flu, Unless You Work at Wal-Mart

It’s tough for the minority party to pass legislation. The first time the GOP tried to prohibit ACORN from federal funding, the measure failed on a party-line vote. Then twentysomething conservative activists O’Keefe and Giles took the stage. The two posed as a pimp and a prostitute, entered an ACORN office and secretly taped ACORN employees offering advice. It didn’t matter that the videos were edited to look especially embarrassing (O’Keefe was filmed wearing a ridiculous pimp costume that he didn’t wear into the interviews). Guided by Breitbart, who launched his Big Government website with the tapes, the footage exploded in the conservative media and made ACORN so toxic that most Democrats in Congress later voted to defund it. It was a watershed moment for conservatives who found they could get Congress to act on a “scandal” even if the traditional mainstream media weren’t involved. Next — 2. Glenn Beck

Continued here:
3. Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles

Finally, some explanation for the State Department’s role in not invalidating Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s visa. Recall that after CBS reported State had two opportunities last month to revoke the visa , after Abdulmutallab’s father told officials in the U.S. embassy in Abuja that he was alarmingly radicalized, Newsweek’s Mark Hosenball explained that State passed along the warning to the rest of the government through what’s called the Visa VIPER process. Today, in a press briefing, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed that the information acquired about Abdulmutallab from his father was insufficient to revoke his visa to enter the U.S., which the department issued in June 2008, long before it had any basis for considering him a threat. Kelly all but implored reporters not to blame State for the security lapse: MR. KELLY: Once we issue the visa, and there comes – there is information subsequent to that issuance, the State Department role is to pass that information on, which is what we did after this November 19 visit. So we sent in what’s called a VISAS VIPER cable. This is a system that was set up after November – September 11, 2001, and under this system, when we receive information that could cause the – cause us concern, we send it in to the counterterrorism community for their review. There was also set up, as you all know, the National Counterterrorism Center. And this is the interagency process that reviews the information as this information comes in. QUESTION: Can I stop you – MR. KELLY: And the information in this VISAS VIPER cable was insufficient for this interagency review process to make a determination that this individual’s visa should be revoked. It wasn’t – it’s not – it’s insufficient, and it is not a State Department determination per se in these kinds of issues under – let me give you the name of the act of Congress – under the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the State Department is mandated to utilize this VISAS VIPER system when we get information, like we did on November 19. Kelly clarified later in the briefing that the interagency process for reviewing the revocation of visas after the VIPER process falls under the aegis of the National Counterterrorism Center.”I think it’s incumbent upon the NCTC, as I understand it, for them to come to us and ask us to revoke the visa,” he said. So expect next month’s congressional hearings on Abdulmutallab to focus on why that process determined that the alleged would-be bomber could keep his visa.

The rest is here:
State Department: Don’t Blame Us for Not Pulling Abdulmutallab’s Visa, Blame NCTC

CBS News (blog) Rachel Yould Story: Is Former Beauty Queen a Sex Crime Victim or Big Money … CBS News (blog) Or is she a schemer who fabricated a horrifying past in order to scam hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government? Photo: Rachel Yould, left, … and more

The Department of Justice this morning announced that twelve detainees have been transferred from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan, Yemen and the Somaliland region. Here’s the announcement, with the names of the detainees, which had previously been withheld : As directed by the President’s Jan. 22, 2009 Executive Order, the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of each of these cases. As a result of that review, which examined a number of factors, including potential threat, mitigation measures and the likelihood of success in habeas litigation, the detainees were approved for transfer. In accordance with Congressionally-mandated reporting requirements, the Administration informed Congress of its intent to transfer the detainees at least 15 days before their transfer. Over the weekend, four Afghan detainees, Abdul Hafiz, Sharifullah, Mohamed Rahim and Mohammed Hashim, were transferred to the Government of Afghanistan. In addition, two Somali detainees, Mohammed Soliman Barre and Ismael Arale, were transferred to regional authorities in Somaliland. Finally, six Yemeni detainees, Jamal Muhammad Alawi Mari, Farouq Ali Ahmed, Ayman Saeed Abdullah Batarfi, Muhammaed Yasir Ahmed Taher, Fayad Yahya Ahmed al Rami and Riyad Atiq Ali Abdu al Haf, were transferred to the Government of Yemen. These transfers were carried out under individual arrangements between the United States and relevant foreign authorities to ensure the transfers took place under appropriate security measures. Consultations with foreign authorities regarding these individuals will continue. Since 2002, more than 560 detainees have departed Guantanamo Bay for other destinations, including Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Bermuda, Chad, Denmark, Egypt, France, Hungary Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Palau, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom and Yemen.

Originally posted here:
U.S. Transfers 12 Detainees Out of Gitmo

With fears of a new wave of domestic terrorism rising (even though those fears are statistically way out of proportion to the millions of American Muslims), The New York Times takes a look at something that really could contribute to it: fraying relations between American Muslim community leaders and the FBI . As much as certain members of Congress enjoy the politically cost-free demonization of the American Muslim community, FBI leaders don’t have that luxury, since they depend on close community relations in order to distinguish between real threats and overblown fears. Much like how the best counterinsurgency practices in Iraq and Afghanistan depend on enabling a community to basically police itself, American Muslim leaders will either be partners in the effort — or, if treated as a bunch of targets of suspicion themselves , through intensified surveillance and arm-twisting to inform, they could withhold cooperation to everyone’s detriment. The Times: The Queens imam arrested in September as investigators pursued the coffee vendor [Najibullah Zazi] was an informer who had helped authorities. Last month, federal prosecutors moved to seize several buildings across the country that house mosques, saying they were owned by a nonprofit group with links to Iran. As a rare federal investigation that has ensnared houses of worship, the case stoked apprehensions that the government sees Arab-Americans and Muslims as a people apart. Treat entire communities like an undifferentiated threat and they’ll react accordingly. Michael Rolince, a former FBI counterterrorism official who gets it, tells The Times: “There are some people in the bureau who believe, as I do, that the relationship with the Muslim community is crucial and must be developed with consistency,” Mr. Rolince said. “And there are those who don’t.” If the FBI really believes that this is a moment of heightened domestic-terrorism dangers, then this destructive behavior comes when the bureau can least afford it.

Read more here:
Are You a Source or a Target?

The New York Times editorial board weighs in today in defense of Col. Morris Davis, the Air Force officer fired from the Congressional Research Service after he publicly criticized the government’s handling of Guantanamo detainee cases. That’s sure to ratchet up the pressure on CRS to reinstate Davis. Davis is the former chief military prosecutor for the Bush administration’s military commissions who resigned in October 2007 rather than use evidence acquired through torture in commission cases. For months afterward, he publicly criticized the commissions — in articles, speeches and testimony to Congress, becoming something of a hero to civil rights advocates and others who believed the commissions were fundamentally flawed. In December 2008 he went to work for the Congressional Research Service. But when he spoke out in November of this year against the continued use of the commissions in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal and a letter to The Washington Post , Davis was promptly fired. His writing violated CRS policy, he was told, and interfered with the agency’s duty to remain nonpartisan. Davis had expressed the criticisms as his own, however, rather than on behalf of the agency. The American Civil Liberties Union has threatened to sue on Morris’s behalf. So when does a government agency’s requirement that its employees not speak publicly on political issues violate the First Amendment? The government does have the right to restrict what its employees say when they’re speaking in their official capacity, as part of their job. But when they’re speaking as private citizens, public employees have more room to maneuver, particularly when they’re speaking about things unrelated to their jobs duties. CRS, however, prides itself on both objectivity and secrecy , and apparently claimed that Morris’s public statements compromised both. Still, those values may well run up against the right to free speech in this conflict.

Read more here:
Conflict Heats Up Over Government’s Firing of Former Military Commission Prosecutor

Since the Supreme Court ruled last year that detainees at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus — that is, the right to challenge their detention in court — hundreds of detainees have taken advantage, filing petitions in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. Today, The Washington Independent unveils a new feature that will track the outcomes of habeas corpus cases filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees who have challenged their indefinite detentions in the federal court system. The Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard is broken up into two sections: cases won by detainees — further divided between detainees who have been released and those still in custody — and cases won by the U.S. government. Using information compiled by Pro Publica and David Remes, legal director of Appeal for Justice, the accompanying charts feature background information on all 41 detainees whose cases have been decided to date, including the allegations against each detainee, the court’s reasoning in each decision, and the status of any appeals. As more cases are resolved, we’ll keep updating the chart. Of the 41 cases heard so far, detainees have won 32 of them. That means that in 32 out of 41 cases, the government was unable to present enough evidence, including classified evidence, to convince a federal court judge that it’s more likely than not that the detainee was a member or substantial supporter of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. ( Habeas cases are civil proceedings, where there is no need to establish guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as in criminal trials.) Of the 32 cases the government has lost, it has appealed only two. Eight detainees who have lost their cases have appealed so far. Meanwhile, many of the prisoners who have won their petitions for habeas corpus are still imprisoned at Gitmo. Although the court in each case ordered the government to arrange for the detainee’s expeditious release, in some cases the government can’t or won’t send the prisoner back to where he came from. In some cases, that’s either because the detainee legitimately fears persecution at home, as in the case of the Uighurs. In others, it’s because, as with the prisoners from Yemen, the U.S. government doesn’t trust the detainee’s home government to keep him from joining up with local terror groups upon his return. As a result, of the 32 detainees who have won an order of release in a U.S. federal court, 11 remain in prison. For a full breakdown of all the cases, see the Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard here .

See original here:
Introducing TWI’s Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard

Detainees U.S. Government 32 9 Below is a list of the Guantanamo habeas corpus cases in which the detainee won. Information compiled by Pro Publica and David Remes, legal director of Appeal for Justice. Click here to see the 21 detainees who have been released. Click here to see the 11 detainees who are still in custody. Released Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Rahman released Oct. 8, 2008. The government appealed, and judge’s release order was blocked by D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Status Report Court Transcript Dawut Abdurehim Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for$5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Abdurehim released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Status Report Court Transcript Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Janko Nationality: Syrian Circumstances of Capture: Captured by U.S. forces in January 2002 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that, in early 2000, Janko spent five days at a Taliban guesthouse and trained for 18 days at a Qaeda military camp. Status: Judge found Janko eligible for release June 22, 2009. He has since been transferred to a foreign nation, but the government will not specify which nation or reveal the date of transfer. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge found Janko eligible for release June 22, 2009, but the government continues to hold him at Guantanamo. Janko was eligible for release, the judge said, because by the time of his arrest in 2002 he should not have been considered to be part of the Taliban or al-Qaeda. The evidence showed that he’d been tortured by al-Qaeda and imprisoned for 18 months by the Taliban in an infamously “horrific” prison. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Khalid Abdullah Mishal Al Mutairi Nationality: Kuwaiti Circumstances of Capture: Captured near Pakistan-Afghanistan border in November 2001 Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that Al Mutairi was a part of al-Qaeda or of a force associated with al-Qaeda, because, among other claims, he’d attended a training camp believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. Status: On July 29, 2009, judge ordered the government to “take all necessary and appropriate steps to facilitate Al Mutairi’s release forthwith.” He was transferred to Kuwait on Oct. 13, 2009. Reason for Court’s Decision: The judge concluded that “there is nothing in the record beyond speculation” to prove the government’s allegations. Intelligence reports were too impreciseand needed corroborating proof, she said. For instance, “one reference, in a portion of one sentence, in one interrogation report,” was not enough to prove Al Mutairi had attended a terrorist training camp, because the report didn’t clearly identify him. She rejected one self-incriminating statement from an interrogation of Al Mutairi because “he appears to have been goaded into making these statements.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Alla Bin Ali Ahmed Nationality: Yemeni Circumstances of Capture: Captured March 2002 at a guesthouse for Yemenis in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that Ali Ahmed had traveled and stayed with al-Qaeda and/or Taliban members in Afghanistan, and that he’d fought and trained in Afghanistan. Status: Judge found Ali Ahmed eligible for release May 11, 2009. He was transferred to Yemen on September 26, 2009. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge concluded that the government had failed to present reliable evidence proving its allegations, and that certain alleged conduct — such as traveling in the company of terrorists and staying at a suspect guesthouse — wouldn’t be enough to detain Ali Ahmed even if proved. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Court Transcript Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah Nationality: Kuwaiti Circumstances of Capture: Captured near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in Dec. 2001. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that Rabiah “provided material support to the Taliban and al Qaida,” meeting with bin Laden four times in July 2001 and delivering money to him. Status: Judge ordered release Sept. 17, 2009. Rabiah was transferred to Kuwait on Dec. 9, 2009. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge ordered release Sept. 17, 2009. The judge found that the evidence against Rabiah consisted “almost exclusively on Rabiah’s ‘confessions,’” which even Rabiah’s interrogators concluded were “not believable.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegationst Hadj Boudella Nationality: Algerian Circumstances of Capture: Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of U.S. military. Summary of Allegations: The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists. Status: Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Boudella was transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina Dec. 16, 2008. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Detainee response Lakhdar Boumediene Nationality: Algerian Circumstances of Capture: Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military. Summary of Allegations: The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists. Status: Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Boumediene was transferred to France May 15, 2009. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Detainee response Mohammed El Gharani Nationality: Born in Saudi Arabia, citizen of Chad Circumstances of Capture: Arrested by Pakistani authorities and turned over to the United States in early 2002. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he’d stayed at a Qaeda-affiliated guesthouse in Afghanistan, received military training at a Qaeda camp, served as a courier for al-Qaeda members, fought the U.S. and allies at the battle of Tora Bora, and belonged to a Qaeda cell based in London. Status: Judge found El Gharani eligible for release Jan. 13, 2009. He was transferred to Chad on June 11, 2009. Reason for Court’s Decision: The government’s evidence was unreliable, the judge said, because it consisted chiefly of statements by two other detainees — sometimes contradicting each other — whose believability was questioned by the government itself. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Anwar Hassan Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release June 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Hassan released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Status Report Government allegations Court Transcript Mustafa Ait Idir Nationality: Algerian Circumstances of Capture: Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military. Summary of Allegations: The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists. Status: Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Ait Idir was transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina Dec. 16, 2008. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Jalal Jalaldin (aka Abdullah Abdulqadir) Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Parhat released Oct. 8, 2008. The government appealed, and judge’s release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Jalaldin nevertheless was transferred to Bermuda, June 11, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Mohammed Jawad Nationality: Afghan Circumstances of Capture: Arrested by local officials in Afghanistan in December 2002. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that on Dec. 17, 2002, Jawad tossed a grenade in Afghanistan that seriously injured two U.S. soldiers and their local interpreter. Status: On July 30, 2009, judge ordered that “beginning on August 21″ the government “shall promptly release petitioner Jawad.” He was transferred to Afghanistan on Aug. 24, 2009. Reason for Court’s Decision: Technically the judge ordered Jawad released because the government said it would no longer detain him as a wartime enemy. But the government’s decision followed a scathing reprimand from the judge for continuing to detain Jawad and prosecute him in a military commission based mostly on a confession obtained by Afghan officials under death threats. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Court Transcript Saber Lahmar Nationality: Algerian Circumstances of Capture: Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military. Summary of Allegations: The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists. Status: Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Lahmar was transferred to France on Nov. 30, 2009. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Edham Mamet Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Mamet released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Status Report Court Transcript Abdul Nasser (aka Khaleel Mamut) Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for transfer November 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Nassar released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Nasser nevertheless was transferred to Bermuda on June 11, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Mohamed Nechla Nationality: Algerian Circumstances of Capture: Arrested by Bosnian authorities in October 2001 on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Cleared for release January 2002, but transported to Guantanamo at request of US military. Summary of Allegations: The government mainly alleged that he’d planned to travel to Afghanistan in late 2001 to fight the U.S. and allied forces.Also that he associated with al-Qaeda and other suspected terrorists and that he’d worked for a Qaeda-affiliated organization that provided material support to terrorists. Status: Judge ordered release Nov. 20, 2008. Nechla was transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina Dec. 16, 2008. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge decided the government failed to prove its allegations by a preponderance (majority) of the evidence. “[T]he Government relies exclusively on the information contained in a classified document from an unnamed source,” wrote the judge. This single piece of evidence “is not sufficient” to prove the legality of detention, he said. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Detainee Response Adel Noori Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for transfer October 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Noori released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S. — and that Parhat could not be held as an enemy combatant on “bare assertions.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Huzaifa Parhat Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured December 2001 in Pakistan by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, then transferred to U.S. military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Parhat released Oct. 8, 2008. The government appealed, and judge’s release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Parhat nevertheless was transferred to Bermuda, June 11, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S. – and that Parhat could not be held as an enemy combatant on “bare assertions.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Abdul Semet (aka Salahadin Abdulahat) Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Rahman released Oct. 8, 2008. The government appealed, and judge’s release order was blocked by D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Ahmad Tourson Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release December 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Tourson released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. He was transferred to Palau on Oct. 31, 2009. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Still in Custody Mohammed Al Adahi Nationality: Yemeni Circumstances of Capture: Captured by Pakistani authorities near the Afghanistan border in December 2001. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that Adahi once helped tend to wounded Taliban soldiers during a bus trip; was present in Kabul during the U.S. air campaign there; and was in possession of the model of a watch that has been used in bombings linked to al-Qaeda. Status: Judge ordered release Aug. 17, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge ordered release Aug. 17, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo. The judge found “no reliable evidence” that Adahi supported, trained or fought for, or was a member of al-Qaeda, and that while Adahi acknowledged meeting Osama Bin Laden, that did not justify his detention. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government Allegations Detainee response Khalid Ali (aka Saidullah Khalik) Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Ali released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Ali has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S. — and that Khalid could not be held as an enemy combatant on “bare assertions.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Status Report Yasin Muhammed Basardh Nationality: Yemeni Circumstances of Capture: Captured near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in early 2002. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that Basardh trained at a Qaeda military camp and fought for the Taliban, hiding with Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001. Status: Judge found Basardh eligible for release April 15, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo, while the government appeals the decision. Reason for Court’s Decision: Judge found Basardh eligible for release. However, he remains at Guantanamo, while the government appeals the decision. The judge said the admitted Taliban fighter could no longer be properly detained, because news reports showed that Basardh gave U.S. authorities information about numerous other suspected terrorists. “[A]ny ties with the enemy have been severed, and any realistic risk that he could rejoin the enemy has been foreclosed,” the judge wrote. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed Nationality: Algerian Circumstances of Capture: Captured by Pakistani authorities in late 2001 while attempting to cross the border from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that Mohammed received weapons training in Afghanistan, and that he saw Osama bin Laden at a funeral in Kabul shortly after 9/11. Status: Judge ordered release Nov. 19, 2009. Mohammed remains at Guantanamo. Reason for Court’s Decision: The court has not yet released a declassified version of the judge’s opinion. Saeed Hatim Nationality: Yemeni Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: He went to Afghanistan in 2001 , where he attended the al-Farouq training camp and joined Arab soldiers near Kabul. Status: A judge granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on Dec. 16, 2009. He remains at Guantanamo. Arkin Mahmud Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Reason for Court’s Decision: Determined by government to be eligible for transfer January 2006. Federal trial judge ordered Mahmud released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Mahmud has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighursʼ appeal of their case. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Status report (September 2008) Court transcript) Bahtiyar Mahnut Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for transfer December 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Mahnut released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Mahnut has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Status report (September 2008) Court transcript Hammad Memet (aka Ahmed Mohamed) Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for transfer May 2008. Federal trial judge ordered Memet released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Memet has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Status report (September 2008) Court transcript Sabir Osman (aka Hajiakbar Abdulghupur) Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for release August 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Osman released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Osman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Status report (September 2008) Court transcript) Abdul Razakah Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Determined by government to be eligible for transfer December 2005. Federal trial judge ordered Razakah released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Razakah has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighurs’ appeal of their case. Reason for Court’s Decision: The D.C. federal appeals court decided on June 20, 2008, that the government had failed to present enough reliable evidence to prove key allegations — that ETIM was linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and that ETIM was hostile to the U.S.” Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Status Report Court Transcript Abdul Sabour (aka Yusef Abbas) Nationality: Chinese (Uighur) Circumstances of Capture: Captured in December 2001 by Pakistani civilians, handed over to Pakistani authorities, transferred to US military for $5,000. Summary of Allegations: The government alleged that he was affiliated with a Uighur (Chinese ethnic minority) independence group know as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, from which he received weapons training. ETIM was alleged to be associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban and engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and allies. Status: Ordered released, remains at Gitmo. Reason for Court’s Decision: Determined by government to be eligible for transfer November 2003. Federal trial judge ordered Sabour released Oct. 8, 2008, but the government appealed, and the release order was blocked by the D.C. federal appeals court. Sabour has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s decision. He remains at Guantanamo. In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Uighursʼ appeal of their case. Court Documents: Trial Court Decision Government allegations Status Report Court Transcript

View original post here:
Gitmo Habeas Scoreboard — Detainee Wins

Here’s the text of an ad that the Republican National Committee is running on health care, with Chairman Michael Steele doing the voiceover. The Democrats are accusing us Republicans of trying to delay and stonewall their government takeover of health care. You know what? They’re finally right. Republicans are trying to stop this disastrous health care takeover. Republicans are trying to keep the liberals from creating yet another entitlement program, spending yet another trillion dollars. America’s already seen the results of this year’s “binge spending” by the Democrats: our economy’s in deep trouble and our jobs are evaporating. Now Democrats want a health care bill that will raise taxes, cut Medicare, and increase premiums. Democrats know America doesn’t want this health care takeover, but they’re arrogantly trying to jam it down our throats. This is our last chance to stop them. Contact your Senators. Make Washington listen to you. Log on to GOP.com. Make Washington listen, before it is too late. The “party of no” label, as an attack, is always conditional on the popularity of the issue that’s being said “no” to. With opinion running roughly three to two against a health care reform bill, the RNC’s going all in on “no.”

Link:
RNC: Yeah, We’re Obstructing

Jamaica Gleaner Cyber crime law expected by January Jamaica Gleaner … a trustworthy environment as the Government embarks on activities to attract foreign investment . The 'lotto scam ', which has its genesis in Montego Bay, … Senate to pass cyber crime law early 2010, says Samuda Jamaica Observer all 3 news articles

In a highly unusual move, a federal court in New York issued a preliminary injunction late Friday afternoon to stop the government from enforcing a new law Congress passed that defunded the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The court found that the law likely violates the Constitutional prohibition on a Bill of Attainder — a law targeting a specific person or group for punishment. As the court notes in its order, the Bill of Attainder clause has only been successfully invoked five times in the Supreme Court since the Constitution was signed. Still, Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York ruled that this case may wind up being the sixth. ACORN and its affiliates, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, “have raised a fundamental issue of separation of powers,” she wrote. “They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or administrative, process adjudicating guilt. … The public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies.” ACORN and its lawyers claim that Congress voted to cut off funding for the organization, which supports the development of low-income housing and voter registration, as the result of a right-wing public relations campaign against ACORN and others for their efforts to register low-income and largely Democratic voters.

More:
ACORN Wins Rare Injunction Against Defunding Law

Here, via Jim Newell , is a striking example of the Tea Party movement grabbing and appropriating a tactic of the anti-war movement: On Tuesday, December 15 at 8:45 AM thousands of us will meet in Washington, DC at the fountain in Upper Senate Park. From there we will march to the Senate offices, go inside, and demonstrate our opposition to the government takeover of health care. We call this plan “Government Waiting Rooms”. The intention is to go inside the Senate offices and hallways, and play out the role of patients waiting for treatment in government controlled medical facilities. As the day goes on some of us will pretend to die from our untreated illnesses and collapse on the floor.

Read this article:
‘Some Of Us Will Pretend to Die From Our Untreated Illnesses’

The United States today released Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah to his native Kuwait after holding him for nearly eight years at Guantanamo Bay. According to the Department of Justice , Al Rabiah had been cleared for transfer by the government’s Guantanamo Review Task Force. On Sept. 17, a federal court also ruled he can no longer be legally detained, and ordered the government to release him. When the government still did not release him, Al Rabiah’s lawyers asked the judge to hold U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Rear Admiral Tom Copeman in contempt for failing to comply with the court order. In her order granting Al Rabiah’s petition for habeas corpus, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly called the government’s evidence against Al Rabiah “surprisingly bare.” “Far from providing the Court with credible and reliable evidence as the basis for Al Rabiah’s continued detention, the Government asks the Court to simply accept the same confessions that the Government’s own interrogators did not credit,” the judge wrote. The U.S. government had claimed that Al Rabiah provided “material support” to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and met several times with Osama bin Laden. Al Rabiah denied this, but apparently “confessed” under abusive interrogations to having run a supply depot for al-Qaeda fighters. Al Rabiah’s lawyers argued that the confessions were all coerced, and that it was a case of mistaken identity: the government had confused Al Rabiah with another man with the same nickname. That man was killed by American air strikes. The government did not appeal the judge’s decision.

See the original post here:
Gitmo Detainee Is Returned to Kuwait

There’s good reason to be confused about the Labor Department’s latest unemployment figures , which showed that the nation’s jobless numbers rose by 11,000 last month while the jobless rate fell 0.2 percent. Peter Morici, business professor at the University of Maryland, explains why the news of that rate decrease isn’t as good as it appears on the surface. “Job losses at only 11,000 was good news but unemployment fell to 10 percent as much because folks left the labor force — throwing up their arms in frustration — as folks finding new work,” he wrote today . “In the household survey used to calculate the unemployment rate, 227,000 adults were added to the rolls of the employed or self-employed but the number choosing not to look for work increased 291,000.” So those newly giving up hope of finding a job outnumbered those newly employed by roughly 64,000 last month. With that in mind, the pronounced decrease in the jobless rate is somewhat meaningless. What the government really needs is a new method of calculating unemployment.

Read more here:
Quick Note on Those Jobless Numbers

“Creditors need to take part of the responsibility for their decision to lend to the companies. They think Dubai World is part of the government, which is not correct,” said Abdulrahman Saleh, director general of Dubai’s department of finance

See original here:
Govt refuses to take responsibility for Dubai World’s debt problems