PNN Show Notes 8/26/12

PNN   - 8/26

RWS                           7:00pm  - 7:10pm
Dr De Luca               7:10pm – 7:30pm
Trish Sheldon           7:31pm – 7:45pm
Matt Keating            7:46pm – 7:58pm
Gayle Faath              8:00pm – 8:15pm
Ray Seamans            8:16pm – 8:45pm
Meredith Ockman   8:46pm – 9:00pm

======================

Today we celebrate Women's Equality Day! 
92 years ago today, women in the United States were granted the right to vote, when the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was certified. Thanks to those women who struggled before us to provide us with this right and set forth a positive path for our future.

     •    Planned Parenthood's Big Pink Bus Rally at UCF: Set for August 28th, from 4-6pm, Planned Parenthood Action Fund's (PPAF) Big Pink Bus will be touring the nation and making a stop in Orlando, FL! The bus will be parked at UCF's Recreation & Wellness Center and will attract supporters from across the region. We have an excellent speaker line-up for the rally and will lead a volunteers out to canvas afterwards! If you are driving to the rally and do not have a UCF decal, the cost to park will be $5. Garage B will be the best garage to park in. Rain may interfere with this event, so stay tuned for updates from me and the PPAF team!

    •    Planned Parenthood's Rally in Tampa: Many of you have also signed up to join PPAF in Tampa for the Women are Watching Rally being held at the RNC Convention on Wednesday, August 29th! This is an incredibly exciting trip and is free to all attendees! We will be leaving Orlando at 12pm and should hopefully return by 6pm. The bus pick-up location from Orlando will be the UCF bus stations between Garage A and Garage I. Guests to the campus may park in either parking garage with the purchase of a $5 parking decal. Since it is going to be a long day, we would encourage everyone to bring snacks!

Peace Rally in Tampa - [PNN Listen Anytime]
Vigil for Peace - Tampa... as IVAW, VFP, MSFO and Code Pink!
Date: Wednesday August 29th, 2012
Time: 11AM - 12:30 PM --  for the lunchtime crowd!

Location:
CROSSTOWN MOBIL
3699 W GANDY BLVD
TAMPA, FL 33611

Ample parking available at the Publix/Target parking lot on Gandy. Vigil for Peace is on the corner of Dale Mabry Hwy and Gandy Blvd  just two kilometers North of the main gate of MacDill USAFB, the headquarters of US Central Command and US Special "Black" Operations.

August 30th
WAR vs HUMAN NEEDS - 6 p.m. Bring-a-Dish,  Eat, Socialize
7 p.m. - Legislative work for peace and human needs, Community Education on National Priorities, Discussions,
January session with Judith LeBlanc, national Peace Action Field  Coordinator, your initiatives.
At Benders in Deerfield Beach.
Please (re)confirm your attendance, preferably the end of the prior week, August 24.
If you’re bringing a dish (for 5?)– what is it? 
Will send out details – menu  and directions,  Monday, Aug 27.
MUST HAVE LIST OF ATTENDEES FOR ENTRANCE TO GATED COMMUNITY.

Democracy Now!
If you live in Sarasota, Florida, we invited you to join Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! for a special event to benefit WSLR 96.5-LPFM on Friday, August 31 at 12pm! Please share this event with friends and family you know in the area!

"Walk for Children of Syria"
Saturday September 8, 2012 (5:00 - 7:00 pm)
Bay-front Park - Downtown Miami (Torch of Freedom)
301 N. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33122

National call in day September 24
Call Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Jonas at 312-353-5300 x 68027
Tell him to "End the investigation of anti-war and international solidarity activists."

SCPA Progressive Fest, Communities in Action
Sunday, Oct. 21, 2012 from 11:00 to 5:00 pm
Eau Gallie Civic Center
1551 Highland Avenue, Melbourne

Live Sundays at 7PM or - [PNN Listen Anytime]
==========================================
http://tampa.nlg.org/wiki/doku.php

1. Facebook craazee
The former Marine who was detained in connection with Facebook posts critical of the government is being held in a psychiatric ward, Peter Bacqué of the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports.

"I'm currently in John Randolph in the psychiatric ward being held against my will," Brandon Raub, 26, said in a telephone interview with the Times-Dispatch. "They were concerned about me calling for the arrest of government officials."
Raub accused the government of lying about 9/11 and spoke of "starting a Revolution."
Lawyers from The Rutherford Institute represented Brandon Raub during the three-hour hearing today at the John Randolph Medical Center and released a statement, saying Raub has been sentenced to "up to 30 days’ further confinement in a VA psych ward" after "government officials again pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the sole reason for their concern and for his continued incarceration."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/former-marine-brandon-raub-is-being-held-in-a-psychiatric-ward-over-facebook-posts-about-911-2012-8#ixzz248xZsXI0

According to Raub's mother, authorities from the FBI, Secret Service and Chesterfield County PD came to their door on Thursday evening, questioned Raub about his Facebook posts, then handcuffed him and placed him in a Chesterfield PD squad car before taking him to John Randolph Psychiatric Hospital in Hopewell, Va.
Both the FBI and Secret Service said Raub was not arrested or charged, but the Rutherford Institute statement points out that "if the police have put handcuffs on you and you’re being held against your will, that qualifies as an arrest."
When asked about why Raub was placed in a psychiatric ward, FBI Richmond spokeswoman told us that the FBI "had nothing to do with that" and that the FBI typically doesn't "make determinations such as that."
"We went out to interview him because of complaints that our office had received about people coming across his posts and perceiving them as threatening so our office along with Chesterfield County Police Department on Thursday," Rybiski told us. "When we left we had not arrested him, we had not placed our hands on him, we did not detain him and we did not charge him."
Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said: "The Secret Service assisted the FBI with the interview. He was not arrested by the Secret Service. The Secret Service will continue to monitor the situation. We have no further comment at this time."
The Chesterfield PD – who had previously said the situation "was an FBI matter and we were just there to assist them" – released this statement (emphasis ours):
Chesterfield Police assisted federal authorities in their efforts to interview Brandon J. Raub on Thursday, Aug. 16. After speaking to Raub, officers believed him to be in need of further evaluation.
Chesterfield officers at the scene contacted Chesterfield Mental Health Crisis Intervention. Crisis workers recommended that police take Raub into custody and bring him in for evaluation.
Chesterfield police took Raub into custody for evaluation in accordance with Virginia State Code § 37.2-808 Emergency custody.
Raub was placed in handcuffs after he resisted officers’ attempts to take him into custody.
Raub was evaluated by a Chesterfield mental health official, who determined that he should be held under a temporary [detention] order and transported to John Randolph Medical Center for additional evaluation.
Raub was not arrested and he faces no criminal charges in Chesterfield.
The Virginia statute states that a mental health professional can decide to issue a temporary detention order if "it appears ... that the person (i) has a mental illness and that there exists a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (a) cause serious physical harm to himself or others as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening harm and other relevant information, if any, or (b) suffer serious harm due to his lack of capacity to protect himself from harm or to provide for his basic human needs, (ii) is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and (iii) is unwilling to volunteer or incapable of volunteering for hospitalization or treatment."
It should be noted that the authority on whether or not Raub displayed signs of mental illness lies with the trained Chesterfield mental health official or officials who evaluated him in person.
"I really love America, and I think that idea that you can be detained and sent somewhere without due process and a lawyer … is crazy," Raub said.
Raub said he served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2005 to 2011, was a combat engineer sergeant and does not own a gun. His mother said he returned from Afghanistan about a year ago and does not have PTSD or violent tendencies.
Raub wrote five articles about economics and the Richmond Liberty Movement for the website Don't Tread On Me and his Linked-In profile says he owns a small coin business through the Numis Network.
John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said the following: “For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon. This should be a wake-up call to Americans that the police state is here.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/former-marine-brandon-raub-is-being-held-in-a-psychiatric-ward-over-facebook-posts-about-911-2012-8#ixzz248xkGj6W


Live Sundays at 7PM or - [PNN Listen Anytime]

Ex-Marine ‘Detained’ For Facebook Posts [Updated]

First the establishment started going after current serving military men for their outspoken political views on Facebook and other web venues, men like Marine Sergeant Gary Stein.  Now, it seems the government is going after veterans as well.  This is the classic pattern of a burgeoning totalitarian state; attack a small group first (outspoken serving military) which the public ignores because it affects them little personally, then slowly expand out to eventually include everyone else.  To all those insipid bottom feeders out there who refused to defend Gary Stein's right to free speech, here is what you have wrought.  Because of your ignorance, the government has been able to set a social precedent which they now plan to apply to a whole new group of people, starting with former Marine Brandon Raub.  The common statist slave will give the typical coward's response, which would sound a little something like this:
"...When are people going to learn that Facebook isn't private?  You would have to be stupid to express such views where everyone can see..."

"They didn't arrest him, they just 'detained' him..."

"He's former military and should be 'ashamed' of his comments against the government., blah blah blah, etc..."

The bottom line is, the 1st Amendment is NOT conditional.  ALL speech must be protected, no matter who you are, or where you happen to be speaking.  Just because our current criminal government decides 1st Amendment protections do not apply to Facebook does not mean they have the authority to make such distinctions.  In fact, the Constitution explicitly outlines how they are restricted from making such distinctions.  If a government entity, ANY government entity, attempts to violate Constitutional restrictions, it must be removed by any means necessary.

Take note that the FBI used the accusation of "terrorist threats" by Brandon Raub as an excuse for the arrest even though there is no indication that any actual threats were present on his Facebook page..
(Brandon's comments included observations that 9-11 was done by the government (even going to such length, and an interestingly detailed thesis, of providing evidence to augment this), the War on Terror is a lie, Americans are killing innocent people in the ME, the current federal banking system is corrupt and unfeasible to Americans, and that the George Bush's family rapes little children)
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august192012/marine-fakcebook-arrest-t.php
I would say that all of these claims have enough circumstantial evidence behind them to warrant a serious independent investigation, and even if they didn't, there is no law against "conspiracy theory", at least not yet...
The police and FBI also failed to read Raub his Miranda Rights. Could this be one of the first public instances of the enforcement of NDAA detainment provisions against a U.S. citizen as a so called "domestic terrorist"?  You know, those detainment provisions that Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs alike claim "don't exist"?
My question for the statist slaves is, how soon will it be before they get to you?  Do you really believe your complacency and apathy will save you?  Has that kind of philosophy saved any slave under any other tyranny of the past?  This is NOT a free country anymore, and if we do not act to defend each individual who suffers under the weight of bureaucratic oppression, then everyone will lose everything.  It is time to pick a side.

update Raub 8/24

Facebook-posting Marine veteran released from hospital 24 Aug 2012 The shifting fortunes of Marine veteran Brandon J. Raub moved in his favor Thursday after a Hopewell judge criticized his forced relocation to a veterans hospital in western Virginia for mental treatment and then ordered him released. Hopewell Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett found that a document ordering Raub's transfer this week from a Hopewell hospital to the Salem VA Medical Center was faulty and "so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy." Raub, 26, was released from the Salem hospital shortly after 5 p.m.
Judge orders release of US Marine detained for Facebook posts --They detained him without charge and admitted him to a local hospital for 'evaluation.' 23 Aug 2012 On the basis that there was zero reason to detain a retired Marine and commit him to a medical facility for psychiatric evaluation, a Virginia judge has demanded that Brandon Raub be released from custody immediately. Raub, 26, had his home visited one week earlier by FBI, Secret Service and local law enforcement agents who expressed concern over a series of Facebook posts he had made on his public social networking profile.
Facebook posts land Marine vet in psychiatric ward 20 Aug 2012 US police reportedly detained a Marine Corps veteran in a mental hospital over Facebook posts, triggering outrage in the online community. Brandon J. Raub claimed the FBI was concerned about his "calling for the arrest of government officials." Raub, 26, is now being held in the John Randolph Behavioral Health psychiatric ward. Raub was confronted by FBI agents at his home on Thursday and taken away in handcuffs. He was then reportedly questioned over several incendiary Facebook posts he made. "They were concerned about me calling for the arrest of government officials," Raub said. [OMG! I call for same, like, daily! And, I'm not going to STOP asserting the FACT that 9/11 was an inside job, six ways to Sunday. --LRP]


3. Record radiation found off Japan
Record levels of radioactive caesium were detected in fish caught within 20km of Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, news reports said yesterday.
The operator Tokyo Electric Power Co said Tuesday it had found 25,800 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive caesium in greenling, 258 times higher than the government safety standard.
Fishing in waters off the plant has been voluntarily restricted since the nuclear disaster at the plant, which went into meltdown after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
Less than a month after the start of the disaster, Tokyo Electric dumped more than 11,000 tons of wastewater containing radioactive substances into the Pacific.
The previous record of radioactive contamination in fish was 18,700 becquerels per kilogram detected in cherry salmon caught in March, according to the Fisheries Agency.
Wakao Hanaoka, a Greenpeace Japan official, said the government now needs to carry out a full investigation of radioactive contamination in a wide range of sea areas off Fukushima, which has not been done yet.
The organisation’s surveys show higher levels of radioactive contamination were found in fish and seaweed sampled in areas further from the Fukushima plant.
Factors that affect the spread of contamination include ocean currents and seabed configuration, Hanaoka added. DPA

4. More GM Food Data
Southern California remains the proverbial battlefield for GMO labeling, an increased interest is growing over ways to actually start avoiding GMOs in your daily life. By far the best tip, which may not be applicable at all times, is to stick to high quality organic sources. Preferably 100% organic or locally grown by organic-based farmers. This certainly is not always an option, so I've compiled a quick 'cheat sheet' of the top genetically modified crops and substances that you can remember when avoiding GMOs in your daily life.
Produce items like yellow squash and papaya are considered by many worldwide to be health foods, however chances are that these food items among about 8 others I will be discussing today are heavily modified. Keep in mind that Monsanto is continually on a mission to dominate virtually 100% of the food supply, having already conquered upwards of 90% conservatively of staple crops like soybeans and corn.
A number of non-organic food products actually do exist that are free of GMOs, but it is important to learn the deceptive marketing tricks used by fake 'health conscious' brands who wish only to trick you into purchasing their GMO-laden garbage. As it was revealed back in October of 2011, many 'eco-friendly' brands are actually sporting the presence of GMOs within their products. Even products that have a "Non-GMO" label on their package! That's right, it's vitally important that the Non-GMO product sticker states that it is "verified" by the Non-GMO project or another source. Otherwise, it has been found to be a worthless claim.
Is it any wonder then that many of these 'eco-friendly' and 'natural' producers like Kashi have actually dished out millions of dollars to fight against GMO labeling in California? It becomes increasingly more clear which companies simply do not care about your health when you examine who owns them at the highest level. Kashi, for example is owned by Kellogg. You can actually view the chart on our site that shows which mega corporations own many phony 'natural' entities.
Top List for Avoiding GMOs
Outside of avoiding these companies and doing your best to purchase organic produce that starts with the number 9 on the PLU code sticker (the sticker on fruits and vegetables), here are 10 foods that are the most likely to contain GMOs that you should avoid when not consuming an organic source:
    1.    Corn
    2.    Soy
    3.    Sugar
    4.    Papayas
    5.    Aspartame (yes, aspartame is genetically modified!
    6.    Canola  
 7. Zucchini
 8.    Yellow squash
 9.     Dairy (more than 1/3 of non-organic dairy products in the United States still contain Monsanto's genetically engineered hormone known as rBGH. Made from cloned DNA, the hormone is currently banned in over 27 countries).
10.Cotton (in the form of cotton oil).

Until proper legislation is enacted to label or ban GMOs entirely, it's important to protect yourself and your family on a daily basis from the effects of genetically altered food staples.



Live Sundays at 7PM or - [PNN Listen Anytime]

5. Tampa Authorities Empty Jail In Anticipation of Mass Arrests at GOP Convention

Thousands of Republicans from around the country will descend upon Tampa, Florida next week for the Republican National Convention, and if recent history is any guide, so too will hundreds of protesters.

To prepare, Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee has ordered the Orient Road Jail, a 1,700 bed prison in Tampa, emptied, relocating some inmates to another nearby prison and releasing others on bond. The entire facility has been transformed into a one-stop booking, detention, and bond-issuance center capable of handling large numbers of arrests, which begs the question: will Tampa police keep demonstrators on a short leash?

Sheriff Gee says no, but also indicated in a letter posted on a county website that his department would have very little tolerance for anything more than chanting and holding up signs:

    To the agitators and anarchists who want only to bring a dark cloud to this event, let me be clear: criminal activity and civil disturbances will not be tolerated and enforcement actions will be swift.

Four years ago, police in Minneapolis, Minnesota were criticized for their treatment of protesters and reporters covering the RNC, and were even forced to settle in an excessive force lawsuit. And in 2004, police in New York City were found to have been surveilling dozens of protest groups for months leading up to the RNC, even embedding undercover officers within several larger groups.

6. A poetic treatment - of the Adkins Axiom
you can get pregnant in a car
you can get pregnant in a bar
you can get pregnant on a hill
you can get pregnant on the pill

you can get pregnant near or far
it doesn't matter who you are

you can get pregnant  in a house
you can get pregnant by a louse

you can get pregnant here or there
you can get pregnant anywhere
in a plane or on a train
in a box or with a fox

standing up or sitting down
it matters not when sperms around

you can get pregnant if your raped
science truths you can't escape

I do not like the awful lies
that hurt the ones whom it implies
can control their conception
through "legitimate rape" sperm detection

You should not lead our sacred land
if anti-science is your plan
I do not like what you are saying
I do not like it, Mr. Akin
(Christy Caine)

Live Sundays at 7PM or - [PNN Listen Anytime]
7. The Pursuit of Julian Assange Is an Assault on Freedom and a Mockery of Journalism
The British government's threat to invade the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and seize Julian Assange is of historic significance. David Cameron, the former PR man to a television industry huckster and arms salesman to sheikdoms, is well placed to dishonor international conventions that have protected Britons in places of upheaval. Just as Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq led directly to the acts of terrorism in London on 7 July 2005, so Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague have compromised the safety of British representatives across the world.

Threatening to abuse a law designed to expel murderers from foreign embassies, while defaming an innocent man as an "alleged criminal," Hague has made a laughing stock of Britain across the world, though this view is mostly suppressed in Britain. The same brave newspapers and broadcasters that have supported Britain's part in epic bloody crimes, from the genocide in Indonesia to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, now attack the "human rights record" of Ecuador, whose real crime is to stand up to the bullies in London and Washington.

It is as if the Olympics happy-clappery has been subverted overnight by a revealing display of colonial thuggery. Witness the British army officer-cum-BBC reporter Mark Urban "interviewing" a braying Sir Christopher Meyer, Blair's former apologist in Washington, outside the Ecuadorean embassy, the pair of them erupting with Blimpish indignation that the unclubbable Assange and the uncowed Rafael Correa should expose the Western system of rapacious power. Similar affront is vivid in the pages of The Guardian UK, which has counseled Hague to be "patient" and that storming the embassy would be "more trouble than it is worth." Assange was not a political refugee, The Guardian UK declared, because "neither Sweden nor the UK would in any case deport someone who might face torture or the death penalty."

The irresponsibility of this statement matches The Guardian UK's perfidious role in the whole Assange affair. The paper knows full well that documents released by WikiLeaks indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters of civil rights. In December 2001, the Swedish government abruptly revoked the political refugee status of two Egyptians, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammedel-Zari, who were handed to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport and "rendered" to Egypt, where they were tortured. An investigation by the Swedish ombudsman for justice found that the government had "seriously violated" the two men's human rights. In a 2009 US embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks, entitled "WikiLeaks puts neutrality in the Dustbin of History," the Swedish elite's vaunted reputation for neutrality is exposed as a sham. Another US cable reveals that "the extent of [Sweden's military and intelligence] cooperation [with NATO] is not widely known" and unless kept secret "would open the government to domestic criticism."

The Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, played a notorious leading role in George W. Bush's Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and retains close ties to the Republican Party's extreme right. According to the former Swedish Director of public prosecutions Sven-Erik Alhem, Sweden's decision to seek the extradition of Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate." Having offered himself for questioning, Assange was given permission to leave Sweden for London where, again, he offered to be questioned. In May, in a final appeal judgment on the extradition, Britain's Supreme Court introduced more farce by referring to nonexistent "charges."

Accompanying this has been a vituperative personal campaign against Assange. Much of it has emanated from The Guardian UK, which, like a spurned lover, has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks' disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian UK book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous." They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. On 20 August, Harding was outside the Ecuadorean embassy, gloating on his blog, "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh." It is ironic, if entirely appropriate, that a Guardian UK editorial putting the paper's latest boot into Assange bears an uncanny likeness to the Murdoch press' predictable augmented bigotry on the same subject. How the glory of Leveson, Hackgate and honorable, independent journalism doth fade.

His tormentors make the point of Assange's persecution. Charged with no crime, he is not a fugitive from justice. Swedish case documents, including the text messages of the women involved, demonstrate to any fair-minded person the absurdity of the sex allegations - allegations almost entirely promptly dismissed by the senior prosecutor in Stockholm, Eva Finne, before the intervention of a politician, Claes Borgstr. At the pre-trial of Bradley Manning, a US Army investigator confirmed that the FBI was secretly targeting the "founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks" for espionage.

Four years ago, a barely noticed Pentagon document, leaked by WikiLeaks, described how WikiLeaks and Assange would be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to "criminal prosecution." On 18 August, the Sydney Morning Herald disclosed, in a Freedom of Information release of official files, that the Australian government had repeatedly received confirmation that the US was conducting an "unprecedented" pursuit of Assange and had raised no objections. Among Ecuador's reasons for granting asylum is Assange's abandonment "by the state of which he is a citizen." In 2010, an investigation by the Australian Federal Police found that Assange and WikiLeaks had committed no crime. His persecution is an assault on us all and on freedom.

8. GOP Approves ‘Most Conservative Platform In Modern History’
A week from the 2012 Republican National Convention, Republican committee members spent Tuesday articulating and affirming the principles they stand for in a draft of the official party platform. Led by Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and featuring other Tea Party stars like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the committee approved a draft of the platform McDonnell said “will reflect the heart and soul of the Republican Party” and one committee member called “the most conservative platform in modern history.”

    •    NO ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST. The proposal for a “human life amendment” passed without a hitch — and without any exceptions for rape or incest. The committee didn’t stop there; they also adopted language that would ban drugs that end pregnancy after conception, which could potentially include Plan B, the “morning after pill.”
    •    SALUTE TO MANDATORY ULTRASOUNDS. The GOP officially praises states’ “informed consent” laws that force women to undergo unnecessary procedures, require waiting periods and endure other measures meant to discourage them from getting an abortion. One such law receiving a “salute” was crafted by committee head McDonnell, who passed a notorious mandatory ultrasound requirement after he signed an unsuccessful bill to require an even more invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound during an abortion consultation.
    •    NO LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES. The committee embraced extreme anti-gay language, even rejecting a proposal to endorse civil unions for gay couples after vehement objections from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Romney adviser Jim Bopp, who called it a “counterfeit marriage.” The rejection of civil unions, along with the refusal to include a line affirming the legal equality of same-sex couples prompted the organization GOProud to declare, “Those who have engaged in this public platform fight have provided distraction from important issues and damaged Mitt Romney’s campaign.”
    •    REPLICATE ARIZONA-STYLE IMMIGRATION LAWS. Kris Kobach, who wrote the now mostly invalidated immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, pushed for language calling for a border fence, a national E-Verify system to make it harder for undocumented workers to find employment, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities. The committee overwhelmingly approved the proposals, as well as a line chastising the Department of Justice to halt the lawsuits against draconian immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah: “State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked.”
    •    AUDIT THE FED. The pet project of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to audit the Federal Reserve has now been embraced as an official Republican goal. For the first time, the platform calls for an annual audit of the Federal Reserve.
    •    NO WOMEN IN COMBAT. The platform condemns “social experimentation” in the military, which covers everything from the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to allowing officers to wear their uniforms in gay pride events to letting women serve on the front lines.
    •    NO STATEHOOD, MORE GUNS FOR WASHINGTON DC. FRC’s Perkins, who recently blamed President Obama and the Southern Poverty Law Center for the shooting at FRC’s Washington headquarters, requested and received a section specifically urging the DC Council to expand gun rights. The same section also opposes DC statehood, which would allow the District to govern itself and put an end to Congressional attempts to impose abortion bans on DC.
    •    NO NEW TAXES, EXCEPT FOR WAR. The platform calls for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority to approve any tax increase, “with exceptions for only war and national emergencies.” It would also deliberately hobble future Congresses through a cap limiting all government spending to historical average percentage of GDP — “so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes.”



Live Sundays at 7PM or - [PNN Listen Anytime]

9. citizen execs spend big on travel
The public hearing had grown heated. Board members of Citizens Property Insurance were pushing a controversial plan that would force hundreds of thousands of Florida homeowners to pay more for less coverage.
"It's not that we're unsympathetic to the people that might be adversely affected by this," board chairman Carlos Lacasa sought to assure the gathering in Tampa.
That feel-your-pain moment came April 26, just three weeks after Lacasa and two Citizens executives returned from a business trip to London. Total tab: nearly $9,200, including two nights in a boutique hotel and a $234.91 dinner for three at an award-winning French restaurant.
It is just one example of how executives at the state-run company have been living large at the same time they are asking hard-pressed Florida property owners to pay more for insurance.
A Times/Herald review of hundreds of expense reports filed over the past three years shows that Citizens executives spent lavishly on themselves even as they pleaded poverty and raised rates by unprecedented amounts.
Traveling executives often stayed in luxury hotels costing as much as $600 a night even when less expensive accommodations were available nearby.
Free of spending caps imposed on rank-and-file employees, executives dined at swank restaurants and repeatedly spent more than $50 per person on such fare as rack of venison, sea bass and Dungeness crab.
Citizens spent tens of thousands of dollars on travel just in Florida, including trips to board meetings held in four-star hotels.
Citizens' chief financial officer broke company rules at least five times by using corporate credit cards to pay for alcoholic beverages and personal expenses.
***
The governing board for Florida's state-backed Citizens Property Insurance Corp. will consider proposals to more than triple insurance rates for sinkhole coverage in some areas next year and boost premiums for new policyholders, drawing criticism from homeowners associations.
Homeowners in some parts of the state could see significant increases in high risk areas if the sinkhole rate hike is approved, jumping premiums from $1,382 to $4,179 a year on average in Pasco County. By comparison, Alachua County would only see a small increase from $55 to $62 a year. The insurer had a net loss of $968 million in sinkhole claims between 2007 and 2011.
Citizens also said it needs a 15.2 percent increase for homeowners policies statewide and new residents, but will only ask for 7.5 percent because of the 10 percent cap currently in place. A Citizens spokeswoman said she thought the board would consider capping the rate and gradually phasing in the increase.


Live Sundays at 7PM or - [PNN Listen Anytime]

Show Notes 8/19/12

PNN 8/19
7:00 - 7:10pm - RWS
7:10 - 7:30pm - Eric Martinez / Leanne Jennison 
7:32-7:47pm -   Ellis Robinson
7:48 - 8:20pm - Dr. Jill Stein Green Party Candidate 30min
====================================
Peace Rally in Tampa - Wed the 29th to do a vigil for peace at
                                dale mabry and gandy from 11-12:30

Aug 18th Women's March on DC

August 24, 2012 (9:30am-11:30am) -
Women's Equality Day Celebration!  Florida Atlantic University
will host the 92nd Anniversary of Women's Right to Vote
with several organizations who will be your hosts!  Join us!

August 30th
WAR vs HUMAN NEEDS - 6 p.m. Bring-a-Dish,  Eat, Socialize
7 p.m. - Legislative work for peace and human needs, Community Education on National Priorities, Discussions,
January session with Judith LeBlanc, national Peace Action Field  Coordinator, your initiatives.
At Benders in Deerfield Beach.
Please (re)confirm your attendance, preferably the end of the prior week, August 24.
If you’re bringing a dish (for 5?)– what is it? 
Will send out details – menu  and directions,  Monday, Aug 27.
MUST HAVE LIST OF ATTENDEES FOR ENTRANCE TO GATED COMMUNITY.

Sunday, Oct. 21, 2012 from 11:00 to 5:00 pm -
Register Now- Progressive Fest in Melbourne
Progressive Fest: Communities in Action
Eau Gallie Civic Center
1551 Highland Avenue
Melbourne, FL 32935
====================================
1. Smell of cronyism in the wetlands
Every Floridian has a vested interest in wetlands — a primary means for recharging the aquifer and drinking water supply — and so should the state Department of Environmental Protection. But the more that is learned about how top officials have handled the wetland mitigation credit application of a well-connected landowner, the more it appears Gov. Rick Scott's administration is more interested in currying favor than following the law.
As Tampa Bay Times staff writer Craig Pittman has reported, nothing about the way the DEP has handled the application from Highlands Ranch Mitigation Bank has been routine. The company is a joint venture of an influential private equity firm, the Carlyle Group, and a Jacksonville company, Hassan & Lear Acquisitions. They spent $15 million buying a 1,575-acre pine plantation in Clay County and hoped to win nearly 700 wetland mitigation credits to sell to developers who want to destroy swamps or marshes elsewhere. A single credit can sell for as much as $100,000, and the growth-friendly scheme is supposed to ensure the aquifer and its drinking water supply remain protected — though earlier Times reporting has raised serious questions about the effectiveness of such mitigation.
After Highlands Ranch's initial effort to play by the rules netted it just 193 of the 688 mitigation credits it sought from the St. Johns River Water Management District, the firm has been betting on political clout to get its way. First it tried to get the Legislature to change the mitigation law. After that failed, it filed an application for 425 credits with the DEP and took the unprecedented step of hiring a high-profile lobbyist to shepherd it. Jacksonville lobbyist Edward "Ward" Blakely Jr. has longtime political connections to DEP Secretary Herschel Vinyard.
DEP's wetlands expert, Connie Bersok, wasn't impressed. She said the application still failed to meet legal requirements because it didn't spell out how the firm planned to restore wetlands. Bersok was put on leave, with agency leaders alleging she may have leaked information in the file to the media (all of which was public record). A subsequent investigation cleared her.
Vinyard has refused to be interviewed on the issue, sending Deputy Secretary Jeff Littlejohn to make the case that nothing untoward has occurred; the DEP is simply interested in using the Highlands Ranch application as a pilot project for examining new ways to regulate wetlands mitigation credits. But Bersok has contended the law doesn't allow what the bankers wanted, and the 2011 Legislature wouldn't sign off on the changes Highlands Ranch wanted, either.
The question is why Scott, generally critical of government regulation, has ignored that his own regulators appear to be engaging in such favoritism. The renegade bureaucrat has never been Bersok but a DEP administrative team that acts as though it can change the rules as it pleases. That's not better regulation, it's special interest cronyism. Why has Scott not stopped it?


==============================
2.  Why Don’t American Students Strike?
Zachary A. Bell on August 13, 2012 - 5:14 PM ET
The 2010 British student demonstrations awoke the austerity generation. The 2011 Chilean Winter frightened tight-belted administrators the world-round. And now, Quebec’s 2012 Maple Spring is showing neoliberals that if they’re going to hike tuition, it’ll be over striking student bodies.
As the spirit of youth protest winds westward, one wonders: Why don’t American students strike? And more broadly, what can US student activists learn from Montreal about making a movement mass?
As a recent graduate and student organizer, I headed north last month to compare notes with my Canadian counterparts.
Average annual tuition in Quebec stands at $2,500, dwarfed by America’s average tuition of $12,800 at public institutions and $32,000 at private ones. The average Quebec student debt is a mere $13,000 compared with America’s $25,000. And in 2012, 7.2 percent of US college grads were unemployed, beating out Quebec’s 6.3 percent.
According to the Associated Press, 53.6 percent of Americans under 26 with a Bachelor’s are jobless or underemployed. That’s 1.5 million people. That could fill a lot of streets.
So why are they empty?
Some point to uniquely American challenges. Simeon Talley explains in Campus Progress that the transformation to a bottom-line society, which is what students are protesting abroad, “has long taken hold in the US,” and retro-activism is too damn discouraging. In The American Prospect, Courtney Martin points to American class divisions, which make elite do-gooders look to developing countries rather than their own classrooms to score charity points.
Others argue that American student mobilizations do flare up, like Liz Dwyer of Good magazine. Dwyer admires UC Berkeley students’ protests against tuition increases, but notes that maintaining a movement for months “is unheard of in the 21st century United States.”
City University of New York students Biola Jeje and Isabelle Nastasia, who are fighting a five-year $1,500 tuition bump, argue that a mass movement could be sustained if the right infrastructure were in place. Specifically, if students “establish radical, federated student unions,” modeled after Montreal, to replace the “currently weak systems of student participation.”
But American students can’t just mail-order unions from Quebec. No manual can explain the student union culture that’s necessary to make them effective. However, a case study of an Anglophone university in Montreal might help.
“We always say French schools, they are so mobilized. We always look up to them,” said Rushdia Mehreen, a master’s student in Geography Planning and Environment at the primarily English-speaking Concordia University in Montreal.
Francophone schools have a tradition of activism in Quebec, Mehreen explained, but at Anglophone universities like Concordia, the customs are far less understood and practiced.
Although English activists like Mehreen have been vocal since tuition hikes were announced in April 2010, their schools remained largely quiet. In the winter of 2011, Concordia began taking steps to join its French counterparts.
Mehreen, along with other activists from Free Education Montreal and Concordia Mob Squad, initiated an information campaign, which included the seminal “23 Answers for Students,” addressing the history, justifications, and concerns about an unlimited general strike in a step-by-step manner. “We had to cater…to people not coming from Quebec,” Mehreen admitted.
They also engaged students through dialogue, hosting town hall meetings for “everyone to argue their point of view,” and holding debates to discuss common ideological barriers like, “if you want your education to be of high quality, then you have to pay for it.”
The campaign culminated in a massive November 10 march, with two hundred thousand Montreal students striking (including Concordia’s graduate and Arts & Sciences students) and thirty thousand stomping in the streets. This served as an ultimatum before an unlimited general strike.
In preparation for a possible strike, Concordia stepped up its cultural makeover through an intensive immersion experience. Francophone and Anglophone universities formally linked up, which was transformative for many English organizers. “They were ten times ahead of us,” Mehreen said.
Over the winter holidays, Mehreen co-organized a two-day training camp (a Francophone activist tradition) with this inter-cultural group. Her review: It provided the Anglophone activists in the “A to Z of what we needed to know as mobilizers.”
The relationship led to joint actions, including a bilingual demo called “Don’t Fuck with Notre [Our] Éducation.” Mehreen felt that “these encounters helped us immerse more in the movement because before that it was like Anglophone students were not really taking part in it.”
Come springtime at Concordia, “The atmosphere…was totally changed,” said Mehreen. The organizing core grew, and many students were asking how to hold General Assemblies in their own departments. “It was contagious, basically.”
On March 5, Concordia embarked on its first ever unlimited general strike in several departments. Later that month, Concordia struck university-wide for one week.
The neophyte strikers quickly ran into problems. The inexperienced administrators threatened activists or barred them from campus, and called for all faculty, staff, and students to report anyone participating in strike activities. This led some disgruntled students to break through picket lines, while some departments simply didn’t hold a General Assembly to continue the strike.
Still, Mehreen believed that the school gained some activist muscle that’s not going to atrophy. “These departmental associations are politicized now.” Mehreen’s story demonstrates how building infrastructure for each department and faculty to hold assemblies can be instrumental in sustaining a movement.
Concordia’s narrative also identifies culture as a crucial complement to infrastructure — it wasn’t until the organizing core shared Francophone activist culture that Concordia students used the unions to mobilize en masse and join the movement.
What about Francophone organizing culture sparked the mobilization?
At the demonstrations and assemblies I attended, there was a noticeable lack of infighting. In my experience with American college and Occupy organizing, conflict over issues of process (everyone feeling like their voice is heard) and goals (radical or reformist political visions) are often prevalent.
In searching for an explanation to Montreals’ relative harmony and success in building a mass movement, I returned to Mehreen’s description of the culture of L'Université du Québec à Montréal, which she tried to emulate: “combative syndicalism...to fight for our rights.”
Syndicalism is a principle many of my interviewees repeated. It refers to a sort of union-based collectivism. Academically, it’s defined as an alternative to capitalism and state socialism, relying on federations of multiple non-competitive units to manage the economy. In practice in Montreal, it amounted to a strong respect for autonomous decision-making, genuine trust within groups, and an intense sense of solidarity and collective purpose.
Mehreen asserted that this syndicalism was in the DNA of Quebecois organizing. Naturally, it was expressed in the movement’s foundational political body: the General Assembly.
The General Assembly at L'Université du Québec à Montréal was rather mundane. A group of biology students wanted an exception to the strike. They would lose a semester’s worth of lab work if they didn’t complete it by the fall, and only needed two weeks to finish.
A student brought up the implications of making exceptions. Someone raised that summer session wasn’t official. Another slipped “if the strike ever ends” into his statement and got laughs. An amendment was offered: the biology students do the lab work over the summer, but don’t submit them for grades until later so that their transcript doesn’t report classes taken during the strike. The resolution squeaked by with the necessary two-thirds majority. I checked my watch. It’d been forty-five minutes.
Coming from Occupy Philly — which is deciding whether to continue to have General Assemblies at all, and is working on a consensus-based process partially because some consider voting to be violent — the contrast was stark.
Occupy’s “step up, step back” anti-oppression policy and radical horizontalism calls for participants to favor underrepresented voices by taking into account how privilege embedded in their identities affects their language, manner, and ideas. The assembly at L'Université du Québec à Montréal, which was governed by principles similar to Robert’s Rules, simply asked that no one speak twice before everyone got a chance to speak once, that speakers alternate in gender, and that nominated facilitators be approved by a vote.
The structure is designed for efficiency and accountability all the way down. Students belong to unions in their faculties and departments, which send delegates to a congress, where any decision made must be ratified by each departmental assembly. Occupy exerts great effort to ensure that all participants feel like their concerns have been heard, while Montrealers focus more on productivity and yet few seem to feel hurt or excluded.
Quebec’s particular culture of solidarity, or syndicalism, engenders the trust necessary for a union structure to function well. The culture also fosters a sense of inclusivity and understanding that makes the movement more inviting to all students.
“It’s not about tuition for me, and it never was,” said Mehreen. Both Mehreen and Noemi Stern, an activist at McGill University in Montreal, have political visions that extend far beyond a tuition freeze. Stern hopes for small, autonomous, democratic communities, while Mehreen wants an end to privatization of public services.
But the manifencours (a name for the protests meaning “manifestations in the streets”) are not about dismantling the system, and these radical-leaning activists are okay with that. “We went on strike on those demands, so we want a resolution,” Mehreen declared. Even if a tuition freeze feels inadequate or social change based in the political system seems reformist, they remain committed to their classmates.
Mehreen personally convinced students that striking works, and that the 75 percent tuition hike was the reason to strike now. Mehreen’s sense of obligation and respect for the student union’s decisions makes her want to include students with a range of political views, including those counter to her own.
“We just want to go to school,” cried Zupa Semitego, a protester without particularly radical aspirations who has been shocked by police repression. She claimed, “[The police] made this into a bigger thing than it is.” According to Mehreen, once involved, many like Semitego have become radicalized through the experience of participatory democracy or the sting of pepper spray.
On American campuses, most students are not attracted to activist groups, and some feel alienated or even attacked by them. Is such solidarity even possible in America, particularly with its plurality of identities?
According to Wall Street Occupier David Murphy, it’s not. “Shared identity. We don’t have that in America,” said Murphy, who came to Canada for the protests.
“There are so many different cultures in the US that they fractionalize,” Murphy claimed, pointing to splits in Chicago. “Occupy Chicago is now the college students which are mostly white. Occupy El Barrio…is mostly Latin American, and Occupy the Hood…is predominately African American.”
I went to Montreal’s culturally mixed Côte-des-Neiges for a neighborhood assembly, to see how Quebecois solidarity dealt with diversity. Despite a few instances of interruptions and overbearing speeches, the meeting was marked by smiles and excited conversation. This included an international student’s declaration that he identified as “a part of Quebec society until [his] last day in Canada.”
Stateside solidarity and student consciousness may be possible, but the activist culture must address the multitude of distinctly American issues.
“You cannot evict an idea whose time has come.”
This statement, put out on occupywallst.org after the encampments were shut down, is reiterated in activist circles nation-wide.
But a movement forged in the fire of pre-figurative politics, where the means are the ends, cannot just wield an idea.
An idea can be inhabited by an individual. A culture is inherently based on interactions between people. Culture is not convincing, but demonstrative. A culture is a manifencours, a manifestation, of a society that encompasses many ideas and principles, best articulated through practice.
John Dewey, the philosopher who pioneered “learning by doing,” wrote, “Education is a social process…education is not preparation for life but is life itself.” Spreading ideas helps people understand Occupy, but sharing culture helps people become Occupiers. A reorientation toward crafting a culture of accessible activism may allow students to learn by doing.
American students need to create their own organizing culture, perhaps incorporating Quebecois syndicalism but without ignoring the principles of radical horizontalism employed by Occupy to address the uniquely American inequalities engraved into our identities — or else suffer terminal fractures like movements past.
As the Occupy Student Debt Campaign takes off, and college dissidents congregate at the Student Power Convergence in August, let the project be creating an accessible activist culture to support a mass movement.

3. Gary Kasparov (Chess Champion) roughed up and arrested outside the PUSSY RIOT trial
    band sentenced to 2 yrs - Protest against PUTIN, asking the Virgin Mary expell Putin
     formerly atheistic Russia - punished for Blasphemy - Coming soon to a town square near you.

4. Napoleonville, LA
For many weeks, Corne and Grand Bayou residents warily noticed strange bubblings from the watery depths, and they reported smelling burnt diesel fuel and sulfur. Then overnight, a sinkhole the size of three football fields appeared, swallowing scores of 100-foot tall cypress trees.
The beginning of a Grade B monster flick? No: real life in Assumption Parish, Louisiana
The 372-foot diameter, 422-foot deep sinkhole is just 1200 feet from Highway 70. Quantities of diesel and oil appeared on the surface of the slurry, creating a stink. The mysterious bubbles in the bayou continue. A butane-filled well is located just 1500 feet from the sinkhole.  A breach could trigger an explosion. Scientists in an Examiner investigation, estimate that an explosion like this could be in the range of one-and-a-half B83 thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs. The Department of Natural Resources issued a Declaration of Emergency on Aug 6. Daily briefings were held, 150 families were evacuated. Acadian Ambulance Services have been staged at the site for emergency purposes. During cleanup operations on the morning of Aug. 16, an additional 50' feet of property on the southwest side of the site suddenly fell into the sinkhole. Two cleanup workers in a boat, which was tied to a tree in that area, were rescued via airboat. Shortly thereafter, their boat sunk into the sinkhole, pulled down by the descent of the tree it was tied to.

All workers have been accounted for and no injuries have been reported. However, clean up operations at the site have been suspended.

This is the video of the flyover on Aug 16, after the additional 50' of property fell into the sinkhole. (24 seconds)
I interviewed Wilma Subra, a scientist and Pres. of the Subra Company, and past Vice-Chair of the Environmental Protection Agency National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). Her company provides technical assistance to citizens concerned with environmental issues, by combining technical research and evaluation.

Ms. Subra explained that the Napoleonville Salt Dome area, in which the sinkhole is located, is about 3 miles long and a mile wide. A salt dome is a naturally occurring formation of hard mineral.

Some portions of a salt dome are used for solution mining in which a well is excavated, leading to a cavern below.  Then, water is pumped in, and the resulting salt water is pumped out, creating brine, a salable product used in various manufacturing processes.

Some caverns may be used for storing natural gas or butane.

Subra said that on Aug. 3, something caved in somewhere, creating the sinkhole. It is not possible to determine exactly what happened until investigation by drilling. In order to do that, Subra explained that a rig available for rent had to be located, and then shipped to the site in pieces. A rig is currently being assembled 950 feet from the sinkhole. It will be used to dig an exploratory well into the cavern in order to assess its condition. Digging this well is expected to take 40 days.

It has been determined that Oxy Geismar Well No. 3 (serial number: 180708) is the cause of the sink hole. The well was first permitted in April 15, 1982 for the mining of salt water brine from the Napoleonville Salt Dome. In 1995 Texas Brine received permission from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources to pump soil contaminated with Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) into the well.

In early September 2010, Texas Brine began reworking the cavern well, milling a section of salt higher than the existing cavern roof, at 3,400 feet deep, to see if the upper strata could be mined. A DNR permit for that work was issued in May 2010. In 2011 the well failed a pressure test showing that the integrity of the well had been lost. Texas Brine Company sent a letter to Louisiana Department of Natural Resources reporting the failed test and expressing concern over the possibility that "a breach out of the salt dome appears possible."

On June 6, 2011, the well bore above the cavern was plugged with cement.

Bubbling and odors were reported in the nearby bayous, and the sinkhole appeared on Aug. 3.

(ADDITIONAL INFO, ADDED ON FRIDAY MORNING:
At 10:40 EDT on Aug 17, I got another email from Wilma Subra:
"An additional 20 feet on the east side of the sink hole were noted sloughed off this morning.")


5. ANTI WAR VETS - OCCUPY OBAMA Campaign HQ Oakland

the news story:
OAKLAND, Calif. — Six protesters were arrested Thursday night for holding a sit-in inside President Obama’s campaign headquarters in Oakland and refusing to leave.
The protesters marched to the headquarters after a 5 p.m. rally in Frank Ogawa Plaza in support of Bradley Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.
The march of several dozen protesters arrived at the campaign headquarters about an hour later.
Police said that initial reports were that three protesters had entered the building, followed by reports that 60 protesters were inside. By 6:30 p.m., seven protesters were seated just beyond the front doors and refused to leave.
Several of the protesters sitting inside were wearing t-shirts reading “Iraq Veterans Against the War,” including Scott Olsen, an Iraq War veteran seriously injured by a police projectile during an Occupy Oakland protest on Oct. 25.
Police later closed the doors to the building, leaving the larger crowd of protesters outside. Officers negotiated with the seven for several hours, and eventually arrested six of them for trespassing at the request for building management, according to police. – KGO TV San Francisco


their statement:

President Obama: As U.S. veterans, we demand justice for human rights whistle-blower Private First Class Bradley Manning

Today, August 16, 2012, we occupy the President’s campaign office to raise awareness about the injustices facing military whistle-blower and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Bradley Manning.  We do not plan to leave until our demands, regarding the illegal treatment of our fellow soldier, have been met.  As those who have spent years serving our country, we have faith that as Commander-in-Chief, President Obama will do the right thing in answering our request.
Our demands are as follows:

1.     First, that President Obama apologize for the comment he made at a fundraiser in April 2011, regarding PFC Manning’s guilt.  Commander-in-Chief Obama stated, “He broke the law,” a sentiment that was later echoed by General Dempsey.  This constitutes Unlawful Command Influence, illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which precludes PFC Manning from receiving a fair trial.

2.     Second, that President Obama ensures soldiers are free from illegal pretrial punishment.  For the first eleven months of his detention, PFC Manning was held in solitary isolation.  He was not allowed regular exercise or sunlight, and was even forced to stand at attention naked.  UN Chief Investigator on Torture Juan Mendez has declared these conditions “cruel, inhuman and degrading.”  Just this last week PFC Manning’s defense revealed they have discovered e-mails which show orders to hold him in these inhuman conditions came from a three-star general who ignored the warnings of brig psychologists, and was likely acting with political motive.  Though he’s yet to be convicted of any crime, PFC Manning has already been severely punished.  We ask that President Obama pardon him of the remaining charges and seek to ensure the international human rights of other service men and women will be respected.
While we would defend the rights outlined above for any member of the armed services, we support PFC Manning especially due to the patriotic motivations behind the actions attributed to him, and the positive impacts that have come from them.  For example, we believe it would be appropriate for President Obama to acknowledge the role that those actions have played in ending the Iraq War.  During the 2008 campaign, a majority of Americans, as well as a majority of those enlisted, believed that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Iraq.  Many people voted for President Obama because they believed that he would end the war.

Despite the wishes of the American people, President Obama sought to keep troops in Iraq past the originally planned 2011 deadline.  Documents allegedly released by PFC Manning helped American citizens understand why the war had not ended sooner.  These reasons included a failure of the command to adequately discipline soldiers who would discredit the U.S. military in the eyes of the world by wrongfully killing civilians.  The release of improperly classified documents via WikiLeaks provided an opportunity for President Obama to grant the new Iraqi government more independence as planned, and to bring American taxpayer dollars home and use them to treat traumatized veterans.

Bradley Manning served with conscience.  Words attributed to him in May 2010 show he acted because he wanted “people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.“  President Obama made a similar statement in May 2011, when he stated, “In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.”  We now ask that President Obama honor those words by freeing American truth-teller Bradley Manning.

6.   Federal judge blocks National Defense Authorization Act provision

In a stunning turnaround for an act of Congress, a judge ruled Wednesday that a counterterrorism provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, an annual defense appropriations bill, is unconstitutional. Federal district Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued an injunction against use of the provision on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who had filed suit in March, claiming it would chill free speech.
In her decision published Wednesday, Forrest, in the Southern District of New York, ruled that Section 1021 of NDAA was facially unconstitutional — a rare finding — because of the potential that it could violate the 1st Amendment.
“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment,” she wrote, addressing the constitutional challenge.
Seven individuals, including Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges, MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and “Pentagon Papers” activist Daniel Ellsberg, had sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and a host of other government officials, stating they were forced to curtail some of their reporting and activist activities for fear of violating Section 1021. That section prohibits providing substantial support for terrorist groups, but gives little definition of what that means. Environmental activists were also poised to join the suit if it expanded.
Judge Forrest also found that the language of Section 1021 was too vague, meaning it was too hard to know when one may or may not be subject to detention.
“It was really unusual for a judge to declare unconstitutional a major provision of an act of Congress. I can’t remember the last time that ever happened,” said Carl Mayer, co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “The judge recognized that, but felt it was necessary to protect our constitution and to protect our democracy. There’s a lot of activists who understand how serious this is, but it’s less well known to the general public.”
The suit demands that Congress cut or reform this section of the law, which allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain without charges anyone — including U.S. citizens — who may have “substantially supported” terrorists or their “associated forces,” without defining what those terms mean. President Obama signed the bill on Dec 31, 2011, with a signing statement saying that the law was redundant of powers already provided to the government under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (passed after 9/11), and that these powers would not be used against U.S. citizens. The next administration may decide differently, however.
The plaintiffs made their cases very clear. Hedges had said that he could no longer interview some of his contacts in the Middle East because associating with these individuals might subject him to indefinite detention. Similarly, one of the founders of Occupy London, Kai Wargalla, discovered that the city of London Police Department had categorized her organization as “domestic terrorism/extremism” — among a list of groups that included Al Qaeda. Along with her work supporting Wikileaks, she said she felt primed for a visit from the rendition patrol.
Government attorneys had challenged the issue that any of these people had standing, but Forrest ruled that they did.

7. US TRYING TO GET ASSAUGE  -EXCLUSIVE
AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is still gunning for Julian Assange, according to Foreign Affairs Department documents obtained by The Saturday Age.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.
This view is at odds with Foreign Minister Bob Carr's repeated dismissal of such a prospect.
Australia's ambassador to the US, former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high-level representations to the American government, asking for warning of any moves to prosecute Assange. However, briefings for Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Senator Carr suggest the Australian Government has no in-principle objection to Assange's extradition.

8. RUSSIA WARNS BRITAIN
AFP - Russia on Friday warned Britain against violating fundamental diplomatic principles after London suggested it could arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside Ecuador's embassy.
"What is happening gives grounds to contemplate the observance of the spirit and the letter of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and in particular the Article 22 spelling out the inviolability of diplomatic premises," the Russian foreign ministry said.
Ecuador on Thursday granted asylum to Assange -- whose website enraged the United States by publishing a vast cache of confidential government files -- but Britain has vowed not to grant him safe passage out of the country.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague has said his government was obliged under its own law to extradite the Australian national to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over alleged sex crimes.
Britain has angered Ecuador by suggesting it could invoke a domestic law allowing it to breach the usual rules and go in to arrest Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador's London mission since June.
This would challenge a fundamental principle of the diplomatic system, and the threat has left Britain in unchartered legal waters.
At the same time, Moscow warned Britain against interpreting the law selectively, stressing that London has given refuge to "dozens of people suspected of committing grave crimes" who are wanted in other countries.
"What to do with a right to refuge for Julian Assange when London turns the observance of this right for this category of people into an absolute principle?" the Russian foreign ministry asked, referring to a number of high-profile figures granted asylum in Britain.
Russia has for years sought the extradition of top Kremlin critic Boris Berezovsky as well as several other figures.

9. the end of diplomatic immunity
Britain’s implying that diplomatic or political asylum is a matter of belief or convenience has instantly put every embassy in the world on that basis, as convenience may require. The damage is already done.
How effortlessly the powers that be throw away the foundation stones of Western civilization, from habeus corpus to the laws of war to diplomatic immunity!
Ecuador is fortunate to have President Corrente already aware of this lawless approach to international law, and not disposed to back down.

10. Presto! The DISCLOSE Act Disappears
By Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers & Company
19 July 12

sk any magician and they’ll tell you that the secret to a successful magic trick is misdirection - distracting the crowd so they don’t realize how they’re being fooled. Get them watching your left hand while your right hand palms the silver dollar: “Now you see it, now you don’t.” The purloined coin now belongs to the magician.
Just like democracy. Once upon a time conservatives supported the full disclosure of campaign contributors. Now they oppose it with their might - and magic, especially when it comes to unlimited cash from corporations. My goodness, they say, with a semantic wave of the wand, what’s the big deal?: nary a single Fortune 500 company had given a dime to the super PACs. (Even that’s not entirely true, by the way.)
Meanwhile the other hand is poking around for loopholes, stuffing millions of secret corporate dollars into non-profit, tax-exempt organizations called 501(c)s that funnel the money into advertising on behalf of candidates or causes. Legally, in part because the Federal Election Commission does not consider them political committees, they can keep it all nice and anonymous, never revealing who’s really behind the donations or the political ads they buy. This is especially handy for corporations - why risk offending customers by revealing your politics or letting them know how much you’re willing to shell out for a permanent piece of an obliging politician?
That’s why passing a piece of legislation called the DISCLOSE Act is so important and that’s why on Monday, Republicans in the Senate killed it. Again.
Why? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “Perhaps Republicans want to shield the handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election.” The election, he said, may be bought by “17 angry, old, white men.”
The DISCLOSE Act is meant to pull back the curtain and reveal who’s donating $10,000 or more not only to super PACs but also to trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and these so-called “social welfare” non-profits that can spend limitless cash on campaigns as long as it’s less than half the organization’s total budget.
The New York Times recently cited a report by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity finding that “during the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups outspent super PACs by a 3-to-2 margin with most of that money devoted to attacking Democrats or defending Republicans.” We’re talking in excess of $130 million. What’s more, the Times reported, “such groups have accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle ... with close to $100 million in issue ads.”
We know a few of the corporations that are contributing, but just a few, and that’s only by accident or via scattered governance reports, regulatory filings and tax returns. The insurance monolith Aetna, for example, gave more than $3 million to a pro-Republican non-profit called American Action Network, which spent millions on ads attacking Obama’s health care plan - even though, publicly Aetna supported the president. The Chamber of Commerce has pledged to spend at least $50 million on this election. Its contributors include Dow Chemical, Prudential Financial and MetLife.
But they’re just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Without disclosure we have little idea of all the big businesses that are buying our democracy - and doing their best to drown it at the bottom of the sea.
All of this, of course, is more blowback from the horrible Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which unleashed this corporate cash monster. Just this week, Justice Richard Posner of U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals - a Republican and until recently, no judicial liberal - said that Citizens United had created a political system that is “pervasively corrupt” in which “wealthy people essentially bribe legislators.”
Nonetheless, at the time of the ruling two and a half years ago, eight of the nine justices also made it clear that key to the decision was the importance of transparency. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The First Amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.”
One of the DISCLOSE Act’s biggest opponents isn’t buying that argument. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who used to say, “We need to have real disclosure,” has changed his tune. Now that conservatives and the GOP are able to haul in the big bucks, he claims that divulging the identity of corporate donors would be the equivalent of creating an “enemies list,” like the one Richard Nixon kept to punish his foes and settle political scores. Here’s what McConnell said in a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute last month:
“This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third party allies… That’s why it’s a mistake to view the attacks we’ve seen on ‘millionaires and billionaires’ as outside our concern. Because it always starts somewhere; and the moment we stop caring about who’s being targeted is the moment we’re all at risk.”
McConnell’s not the only one - every Republican voted to kill the DISCLOSE Act, including fourteen who just a couple of years ago supported it. Groups like Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty smell an un-American conspiracy lurking behind the demands for disclosure. So do the National Rifle Association and FreedomWorks - the Tea Party organizers originally funded by David Koch - each of which warned senators that their votes on the DISCLOSE Act will be included in the scorecards they keep, recording each ballot they don’t approve like pins in a voodoo doll.
Their outrage is ridiculous and hypocritical. These non-profits are just another magic trick, an illusion intended to obscure the fact that these are monumental slush funds, plain and simple. As The Washington Post noted in an editorial this week:
“We seem to have created the political equivalent of secret Swiss bank accounts… In their lust for contributions, in cozying up to the moneybags of this era, candidates and political operatives in both parties seem to be forgetting that they put their own credibility at risk.”
Contrary to Senator McConnell’s view, this is more corrupt and covert than anything that happened during Watergate. The public has a right to know who’s behind the hundreds of political ads with which we’re being bombarded this year, who’s giving what to whom - not to mention our right to try to connect the dots and figure out what their motives are.
The good news is that people are fighting back. On July 5th, California joined state legislatures in Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings July 24th and the state of Montana, which recently had its law barring corporate spending in elections struck down by the Supreme Court, has put a voter initiative on its November ballot, also calling for a constitutional amendment.
Lee Drutman at the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation quotes the father of our Constitution, James Madison, who warned, “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both.” Drutman goes on to point out that, “The Declaration of Independence wasn’t signed by Anonymous. Those who sign the big checks should have the very same courage in their convictions.”
Amen.

PNN - Show Notes for 8/12 w/ Progressive Journalists

PNN 8-12-12 - Our Guests and some of the stories we'll be discussing

Luis Cuevas - 7:10pm

Gwen Barry - 7:20pm

Susan Nilon - 7:30pm

Brian Stettan -7:40pm

Emine Dilek - 7:50pm

==============

Aug 18th Women's March on DC

August 24^th at 10:00am - Women’s Equality Day Event is going to be at FAU  

 Any activist organization interested contact me (Meredith Ockman) at President@pbcnow.org.  

Sunday August 26^th - Defend Women’s Rights - in LA, SF, NYC, Chicago & elsewhere

August 30^th 

WAR vs HUMAN NEEDS - 6 p.m. Bring-a-Dish,  Eat, Socialize

7 p.m. - Legislative work for peace and human needs, Community Education on National Priorities, Discussions, 

January session with Judith LeBlanc, national Peace Action Field  Coordinator, your initiatives.

At Benders in Deerfield Beach. 

Please (re)confirm your attendance, preferably the end of the prior week, August 24. 

If you’re bringing a dish (for 5?)– what is it?  

Will send out details – menu  and directions,  Monday, Aug 27. 

MUST HAVE LIST OF ATTENDEES FOR ENTRANCE TO GATED COMMUNITY.

Sunday, Oct. 21, 2012   -   from 11:00 to 5:00 pm - 

Register Now- Progressive Fest in Melbourne

Progressive Fest: Communities in Action

Eau Gallie Civic Center 

1551 Highland Avenue

Melbourne, FL 32935

==============

0. racial impact republican voter suppression

Suppression of black voters in Florida:  Former Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer admitted that the party had meetings about “keeping blacks from voting,” in other words, voter suppression. Salon has an in-depth commentary on the alleged black voter suppression:

1. (11) state constitutional amendments struggle for voter attention

The Republican-dominated Legislature put a total of 11 constitutional amendments on the Nov. 8 ballot. If approved by 60 percent of those voting, they would scale back abortions; allow state aid to religious and parochial schools; and attempt to ban implementation of President Barack Obama's health-care law in Florida.

Five — Amendments 2, 4, 9, 10 and 11 — would give bigger tax breaks to first-time homebuyers, seniors living in a home for 25 years or more, surviving spouses of military veterans or first responders, and companies purchasing equipment.

But with the airwaves dominated by presidential and U.S. Senate races, congressional and legislative contests, and Super PACs, everyone from Planned Parenthood to the Roman Catholic Church to Realtors and even mighty corporations such as Florida Power & Light are struggling to compete.

So far, nearly a dozen political committees formed to advocate for or against particular amendments have amassed more than $1.8 million to be spent persuading voters.

But to put that total in perspective, Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, along with their Super-PAC surrogates, have spent more than $6.5 million on ads in Central Florida alone since May — with more millions planned. And a group called Defend Justice From Politics — supporting the merit-retention elections of Florida Supreme Court Justices Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince — has reserved more than $528,000 in Orlando airtime this fall. That alone is likely more than any of the ballot initiative campaigns would be able to buy.

"That's a real problem. The air is going to be sucked out by the presidential and senatorial elections. These amendments could affect Florida for generations," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which is recruiting teachers, unions and religious groups to oppose Amendment 8. They've raised $80,000 through a Vote No Committee.

That amendment strikes a constitutional ban on funding for "sectarian" schools and adds new language prohibiting the government from denying "benefits of any program, funding, or other support" because of religious identity or belief.

Although it's called the "Religious Freedom" amendment, the ACLU and others say it would open the floodgates for taxpayer funding of religious social programs and schools.

The amendment's backers have raised $105,000 so far through a political committee called Citizens for Religious Freedom & Non-Discrimination; the money has come from Orlando-based Florida Family Action, the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic dioceses in Miami, St. Petersburg, Pensacola and Orlando.

Critics say the amendment was carefully crafted by lawmakers and lobbyists to be an easy sell with voters.

"Well-meaning people will go to the polls and say 'Well, religious freedom. Who doesn't support that?' " Simon said. "It's an uphill battle because the Legislature did such a good job in trying to trick people."

2. FISA

In the wake of the program's exposure, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely made the practices legal. Telecoms that had agreed to participate in the illegal activity were granted immunity from prosecution and lawsuits. What wasn't revealed until now, however, was the enormity of this ongoing domestic spying program.

For the first time, a former NSA official has gone on the record to describe the program, codenamed Stellar Wind, in detail...

As chief and one of the two cofounders of the agency's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, [William] Binney and his team designed much of the infrastructure that's still likely used to intercept international and foreign communications. He explains that the agency could have installed its tapping gear at the nation's cable landing stations—the more than two dozen sites on the periphery of the US where fiber-optic cables come ashore.

If it had taken that route, the NSA would have been able to limit its eavesdropping to just international communications, which at the time was all that was allowed under US law.

Instead it chose to put the wiretapping rooms at key junction points throughout the country... thus gaining access to not just international communications but also to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the US. The network of intercept stations goes far beyond the single room in an AT&T building in San Francisco exposed by a whistle-blower in 2006. "I think there's 10 to 20 of them," Binney says... The eavesdropping on Americans doesn't stop at the telecom switches. To capture satellite communications in and out of the US, the agency also monitors AT&T's powerful earth stations...

... Binney suggested a system for monitoring people's communications according to how closely they are connected to an initial target. The further away from the target—say you're just an acquaintance of a friend of the target—the less the surveillance. But the agency rejected the idea, and, given the massive new storage facility in Utah, Binney suspects that it now simply collects everything..."

To learn more, I highly recommend reading the featured Wired article5 in its entirety. It's a fascinating read, but it will not likely make you sleep better at night. The full article is available on their website and is free to view. 

Google Also in the Privacy News

Beginning the first week of June, Google will warn you every time it picks up activity on your computer account that looks suspiciously like someone trying to monitor your computer activities. Google won't say how it figured out that state-sponsored attackers may be attempting to compromise your account or computer. But it's promised to let you know if it thinks Big Brother is tuned in to what you're doing.

As recently reported on the New York Times' blog6, the warning will pop up at the top of your Gmail inbox, Google home page, or Chrome browser, stating:

 "Warning: We believe state-sponsored attackers may be attempting to compromise your account or computer."

According to a Google blog post by Eric Grosse, VP of Security Engineering at Google7:

"If you see this warning it does not necessarily mean that your account has been hijacked. It just means that we believe you may be a target, of phishing or malware for example, and that you should take immediate steps to secure your account.

3. Anxiety of the TEPCO Variety

from the Laramie Boomarang

A growing number of Japanese workers who are risking their health to shut down the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant are suffering from depression, anxiety about the future and a loss of motivation, say two doctors who visit them regularly.

But their psychological problems are driven less by fears about developing cancer from radiation exposure and more by something immediate and personal: Discrimination from the very community they tried to protect, says Jun Shigemura, who heads a volunteer team of about ten psychiatrists and psychologists from the National Defense Medical College who meet with Tokyo Electric Power Co. nuclear plant employees.

They tell therapists they have been harangued by residents displaced in Japan's nuclear disaster and threatened with signs on their doors telling them to leave. Some of their children have been taunted at school, and prospective landlords have turned them away.

"They have become targets of people's anger," Shigemura told The Associated Press.

TEPCO workers _ in their readily identifiable blue uniforms _ were once considered to be among the elite in this rural area 230 kilometers (140 kilometers) north of Tokyo. But after the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami set off meltdowns at the Fukushima plant, residents came to view them as "perpetrators," Shigemura said.

Many TEPCO families in the area now hide their link to the company for fear of criticism, local doctors and psychiatrists say.

Shigemura likens the workers' experience to that of U.S. Vietnam veterans returning home to hostility in the 1960s and early `70s.

"They both worked for (the good of) their countries, but they got a backlash," he said.

About a dozen nuclear workers approached by the AP declined to be interviewed for this report. Except in rare cases, TEPCO has repeatedly declined requests to interview workers, and the workers themselves have shunned virtually all media attention, so these doctors' accounts provide an unusual glimpse into their lives.

One former TEPCO employee who lived in the town of Tomioka, inside the 20-kilometer (15-mile) exclusion zone around the plant, told journalists during a rare visit to the Fukushima plant in February that she was frequently harassed by evacuees among the 100,000 displaced by the disaster.

"Many people who want to go home are getting frustrated and they often yell at me, `How are you going to make it up to us?'" said Saori Kanesaki, a former visitor guide at the Fukushima plant.

More than a half-century ago, many Japanese survivors of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were stigmatized due to fears about their exposure to radiation. But the Fukushima disaster has thrown up a completely new kind of discrimination because of the workers' links to TEPCO, a company widely despised throughout Japan for its mishandling of the disaster.

Some 3,000 TEPCO employees and other contractors continue to labor daily at the plant in one of the world's riskiest jobs _ keeping three melted-down reactor cores as well as spent fuel pools cool through a makeshift system of water pipes.

They face a long haul: Removing the fuel and completely shutting down the plant could take 40 years.

Worries about radiation exposure aren't overwhelmingly prevalent among the TEPCO workers, both doctors say, although some workers are concerned, especially those with higher exposure counts. During the crisis, authorities raised the maximum radiation exposure limit to 250 millisieverts from 100 millisieverts. Six TEPCO workers surpassed that level, and were removed from work at the plant. That exposure level was lowered again in December to 50 millisieverts, with an exception allowing up to 100 millisieverts in emergencies.

In addition to the discrimination, the TEPCO nuclear workers, who are specially trained, are anxious that they will be transferred to a completely different kind of job, such as clerical work, if they should surpass the exposure limit, the doctors say.

"More than health risk, they are worried about social risk and employment risk," said Takeshi Tanigawa, an epidemiologist with Ehime University's medical school who visited the plant after the disaster and was the one of the first to report its harsh working conditions, which have since improved. He has been back 15 times since, and Shigemura later volunteered to join him.

The two doctors report that they are not aware of any case of radiation sickness or radiation burns among the workers, who undergo regular checks for radiation levels in their bodies.

A brief report on their experience visiting the Fukushima plant soon after the disaster that highlights the discrimination workers faced was published in Wednesday's issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry.

The Japanese public and press, meanwhile, has offered the workers little praise, unlike the Western media, which during the height of the crisis portrayed the remaining band of workers at the plant as the heroic "Fukushima 50." The domestic press instead emphasized how the dangers faced by the workers reflected the risks of nuclear power.

Culture helps explain some of these dynamics, including the strong Japanese sense of duty and group responsibility.

"People believe the workers share in the responsibility" for the disaster even though they didn't cause it, Tanigawa said.

Disaster psychiatry is not well-developed in Japan. The 1995 Kobe earthquake brought growing awareness of the psychological trauma of disasters, but specialists in the field remain rare.

Research from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster suggests that mental health problems will persist for years.

Eighteen years after that crisis, Chernobyl clean-up workers experienced higher rates of depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, headaches and suicidal thoughts than the general population, according to a 2008 study in the journal Psychological Medicine.

Many TEPCO workers now live in a temporary barracks at a soccer stadium called J-Village, several kilometers (miles) south of the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. Workers at J-Village approached by a journalist refused to talk, and other contractors said they would get in trouble with the utility if they did.

Environment Minister Goshi Hosono, who is also in charge of nuclear crisis management, has made a point of thanking the workers during visits to the Fukushima plant, and children from around Japan have sent drawings and words of encouragement. But the workers have told the doctors that in restricted areas around the plant, former neighbors have shouted, thrown bottles and shoved them during their brief visits home to retrieve belongings.

Such discrimination weighs heavily on the workers, said Shigemura.

"Showing appreciation to the workers is an urgent need. It's totally lacking," Shigemura said, adding that he believes stigmatization is a key factor in influencing the workers' psychological distress.

A growing number of the workers tell the visiting psychiatrists of sagging motivation and hopelessness, and Shigemura warned that such attitudes could lead to `'misconduct or human error or sabotage." He also said the workers are drinking more alcohol and smoking more.

His team started to receive some research funding from the Health Ministry in April.

Shigemura predicts that the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among Fukushima workers 2-3 years after the disaster will surpass the rate among 9/11 rescue and recovery workers, which a 2007 study in The American Journal of Psychiatry said was 12.4 percent.

TEPCO says it is considering hiring a full-time psychiatrist to help meet the mental health needs of workers at the plant, but that there are a shortage of such experts, particularly in the Fukushima region.

"The public's trust in TEPCO has declined, so we will work to improve that," said Yuji Ohya, an official with the company's health and safety department. "Hopefully as that improves, it will boost the workers' spirits."

Associated Press Writer Mari Yamaguchi contributed to this report.

4. Food Not Bombs volunteers are really busy. We are organizing a World Gathering in Tampa, plan to provide food to those protesting at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions while seeking to improve our skills and knowledge so we can be as effective as possible in our daily organizing. We hare witnessing a huge increase in hunger and poverty as the political and economic system continue to collapse. Instead of seeking lasting solutions to these crisis leaders continue to wage war while our environment is under increase threats from the very institutions responsible for causing so much suffering. 

We invite you to participate in these three projects. The Food Not Bombs World Gathering in Tampa, Florida on  August 20 - 26, 2012, The Elect To End Hunger and Poverty Tour and The Food Not Bombs Free Skool in Taos, New Mexico. If you are not able to help organize these projects maybe you can donate some of the items we list here. We are also in urgent need for funds and maybe you can make a finical contribution or organize a benefit concert or other event.

Thanks so much for your support. 

Keith McHenry

cofounder of the Food Not Bombs Movement

1-800-884-1136

keith@foodnotbombs.net

We know many of you are struggling to make your bills but if you can please contribute to today

http://www.foodnotbombs.net/dollar_for_peace.html

The World is Closer to a Food Crisis Than Most People Realize

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/26-5

5. Obama Files to Overturn Stay of NDAA's Indefinite Detention of Americans! 

By Brett Redmayne-Titley (about the author) 

Note: This piece was published today, 8/7/12, on RT.com 

The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge's ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge. 

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to "pass constitutional muster" and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban. 

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," Obama's attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn't be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it. 

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest's injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. 

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president's authority to hold a terrorism suspect "without trial, until the end of the hostilities" is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Just Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later. 

"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote in her 68-page ruling. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention." 

At the time Just Forrest made her injunction, attorney Carl Mayer told RT on behalf of the plaintiffs that, although he expected the White House to appeal, "It may not be in their best interest." 

"[T]here are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law that they ought to just say, 'We're not going to appeal,' " Mayer said . "The NDAA cannot be used to pick up Americans in a proverbial black van or in any other way that the administration might decide to try to get people into the military justice system. It means that the government is foreclosed now from engaging in this type of action against the civil liberties of Americans." 

The original plaintiffs, who include Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges, have asked Just Forrest to make her injunction permanent. Oral arguments in the case are expected to begin this week. 

6. Media, Civil Rights Groups Challenge Gitmo Trial Secrecy

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II

The Army colonel presiding over the trial of five men accused of participating in the attacks of September 11, 2001 has ruled that attorneys for a consortium of media and civil liberties organizations may argue for increased transparency in the proceedings.

The lawyers for the 14 media groups (including the American Civil Liberties Union) filed motions with the military tribunal challenging a previously entered order that prevented publication of testimony considered “secret.”

Per the terms of the new one-page order issued by Judge James Pohl the lawyers will present their case for increased openness on August 22, the day on which a week of hearings on several pre-trial motions is set to begin.

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) lawyer representing the Pentagon, Army Brigadier General Mark Martins, also agreed to allow the hearing without objection.

Attorneys for the so-called “Gitmo 5” did not object to the hearing of oral arguments on the motions against the protective order. In fact, an attorney for one of the alleged 9/11 co-conspirators welcomed the ruling.

“Oral argument from the media and ACLU will emphasize the critical public interest in open proceedings at Guantánamo,” said James Connell, the attorney representing Ammar al Baluchi, also known as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

In a motion for challenging the government’s clamp-down on the flow of information filed May 2, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that such a restriction was overly broad and that the government has “no legal authority to classify defendants’ statements containing their personal knowledge of the detention and treatment, including torture, to which they were subjected in U.S. custody — information that defendants acquired by virtue of the government forcing it upon them.”

At issue in the ACLU’s motion is first, the government’s request that the public be denied access to the defendants’ statements regarding abuse and torture suffered while in the custody of the CIA or other American agents; and second, the 40-second delay in the audio feed of the commission’s proceedings.

Under the guidelines suggested by the prosecution, an intelligence officer present at the trial may hit a “white noise” button whenever defendants “describe their detention and interrogation in U.S. custody.”

Later in its motion, the ACLU outlined the constitutional issues at the center of the government’s request to censor the trial:

Both the Constitution and the Military Commissions Act of 2009 recognize the public’s presumptive right of access to all proceedings and records of this historic military commission.  That right of access may only be overcome if there is a countervailing interest of “transcendent” importance, a standard that the government’s extraordinary and draconian proposed restrictions cannot meet.  The government asks this Commission to suppress as presumptively classified the defendants’ every utterance concerning their personal knowledge of their detention and abuse in CIA custody....

The eyes of the world are on this Military Commission, and the public has a substantial interest in and concern about the fairness and transparency of these proceedings.  This Commission should reject — and not become complicit with — the government’s improper proposals to suppress the defendants’ personal accounts of government misconduct.

The legal proceedings began on May 5, 2012 when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man accused by the U.S. government of masterminding the attacks of September 11, 2001, was arraigned along with four alleged co-conspirators before a military tribunal at the Naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The five defendants were presented with an 87-page indictment that took nearly three hours to read. The indictment charges the men with 2,976 counts of murder, as well as acts of terrorism, hijacking, conspiracy, and destruction of property. If convicted by the military court, they will be eligible for the death penalty.

As The New American has previously reported, the Department of Defense referred the case against the “Gitmo Five” to a military commission last April, and a month later the Defense Department announced that charges had been formally filed against the men accusing them of participating in the planning of the attacks on the Trade Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

Originally, President Obama promised to hold civilian trials for those suspected of terrorism. In fact, in that statement he specifically mentioned the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Last April, however, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Mohammed and the other four detainees classified as 9/11 co-conspirators would be arraigned before military tribunals.

Mohammed, a Kuwaiti national, is accused by the U.S. government of being a member of al-Qaeda, including running the group’s propaganda machine since 1999.

According to the report issued by the 9/11 Commission, Mohammed was the “principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.” His alleged terrorist activities also include playing a major role in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombings of nightclubs in Bali, and personally beheading American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.

He was captured on March 1, 2003 in Pakistan and has been detained at the Guantánamo Bay facility in Cuba since September of 2006.

Mohammed, 46, was charged in 2008 by an American military commission with war crimes and murder and faces the death penalty if convicted.

The other four detainees have also been in custody at the Guantánamo facility since 2006 after having been detained (and allegedly tortured) by the Central Intelligence Agency at secret “black site” prisons located throughout the world.

A separate though related motion was filed by a group of newspapers calling themselves “the press objectors.” The Miami Herald, ABC Inc., the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, CBS Broadcasting Inc., Fox News Network, National Public Radio, the New York Times, The New Yorker, Reuters, Tribune Company, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post are participating in the group.

“The First Amendment allows commission proceedings to be closed only upon a specific finding of a "substantial probability" of harm to national security or some equally compelling governmental interest,” argued a lawyer representing “the press objectors” in its motion filed on May 16.

Evidence of why the government would want to keep a tight lid on the tribunal is found in the atmosphere surrounding the arraignment in May. There is no debate that the legal proceedings against the five “high value detainees” got off to a rocky — and, for the military and the Obama administration, embarrassing — start. Initially scheduled to last less than an hour, the event dragged on for 13 hours before being adjourned by Colonel James Pohl, the presiding officer.

A survey of reports from eyewitnesses reveals an almost circus-like atmosphere at the arraignment.

For example, take the description of the arraignment published by the Guardian:

KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] is refusing to address judge and has taken his headphones out in an apparent bid to ignore what he is being told.

Then there is this account from the Associated Press:

At one point, Mohammed cast off his earphones providing Arabic translations of the proceeding and refused to answer Army Col. James Pohl's questions or acknowledge he understood them. All five men refused to participate in the hearing; two passed around a copy of The Economist magazine and leafed through the articles.

Finally, this was the scene as reported by CBS News:

"All five of them were defiant. They were dismissive. They refused to answer repeated questions from the judge," [CBS News correspondent Jan] Crawford said. "They wouldn't even look at the judge when he asked them questions. They looked down, flipped through magazines or even read the Koran."

At the conclusion of the arraignment, Colonel Pohl announced that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three of his co-defendants is preliminarily scheduled to begin in May 2013, but he also indicated that the date was fluid and could be delayed

7. Cellphone exposure limits should be reassessed, GAO recommends

By Hayley Tsukayama 

Mobile phone exposure limits and testing requirements should be reassessed, according to a Government Accountability Office study released Tuesday.

The study, the culmination of a year-long review done at the urging of lawmakers, comes at a time of heightened concern about the possible impact of cellphone radiation on human health. Its findings may prompt the Federal Communications Commission to update its standards to more accurately reflect how people use their cellphones.

While the report did not suggest that cellphone use causes cancer, the agency did say that FCC’s current energy exposure limit for mobile phones, established in 1996, “may not reflect the latest evidence on the the effects” of cellphones. The study recommends that the FCC reassess two things: the current exposure limit and the way it tests exposure.

In its conclusions, the report says that the FCC has not formally coordinated with the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency on the exposure limits. The report also raised questions about the FCC’s decision to only test exposure at a distance from a body while using an earpiece, simulating, for example, someone setting their phone on a nearby table rather than in their pocket while speaking.

The FCC, the report said, “may not be identifying the maximum exposure, since some users may hold a mobile phone directly against the body while in use.” 

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who called for the GAO to conduct the report said that the study highlights that the FCC is behind the curve when it comes to evaluating the effects cellphones have on the human body.

“With mobile phones in the pockets and purses of millions of Americans, we need a full understanding of the long-term impact of mobile phone use on the human body, particularly in children whose brains and nervous systems are still developing,” Markey said.

Ahead of the study’s release, there’s been renewed interest in the area of cellphone radiation. The FCC has already said that it will investigate whether it should take a new look at the issue.

Last year, a World Health Organization report found that cellphone radiation might possibly be carcinogenic — a point that the GAO study does not raise.

On Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a bill that would put warning labels on cellphones and tap the Environmental Protection Agency — not the FCC — to lead the way in examining the effects that radiation has on the human body.

In a statement, Kucinich said that cellphone users have a right to know how much radiation their phones give off, particularly as people spend more time with them, and not wait for scientists to prove whether there are harmful effects behind cellphone radiation or not.

“It took decades for scientists to be able to say for sure that smoking caused cancer,” Kucinich said. “While we wait for scientists to sort out the health effects of cell phone radiation, we must allow consumers to have enough information to choose a phone with less radiation.”

The city of San Francisco is looking at a labeling measure similar to the one proposed by Kucinich. CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade group, has filed a lawsuit against the proposed ordinance.

In response to the report, the FCC said that it will ask multiple stakeholders — including federal health agencies — for input as it assesses its standards.

"The U.S. has among the most conservative standards in the world,” said FCC spokesman Neil Grace in a statement. “As part of our routine review of these standards, which we began earlier this summer, we will solicit input from multiple stakeholder experts, including federal health agencies and others, to guide our assessment. We look forward to reviewing today's GAO report as part of that consideration."

By Hayley Tsukayama  |  02:30 PM ET, 08/07/2012 

8. Coca to be Expelled from Bolivia

Coca-Cola, one of the planet’s giant corporations, is to be unceremoniously booted out of Bolivia. The announcement was made by Bolivian Minister of External Affairs, David Choquehuanca, who stated that the date chosen, December 21, coincides with the end of the cycle in the Mayan Calendar, the end of capitalism and the start of a culture of life.

Coca Cola will be expelled from Bolivia on the date that the Mayan calendar enters a new cycle – December 21. According to the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Choquehuanca, the decision was taken to expel Coca Cola on the date of the end of the Mayan calendar so as to create a pretext for celebrating the end of capitalism and the beginning of “the culture of life” in community-based societies. The celebration will take place at the Southern Hemisphere’s Summer Solstice on La Isla del Sol (Sun Isle) in Lake Titicaca.

9. Copyright Limitations and Exceptions: What does the secret TPPA text say?

• View
• What links here

Submitted by James Love on 3. July 2012 - 15:21

[update: See: Leak of TPP text on copyright Limitations and Exceptions]

This week, trade negotiators for the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) are meeting in San Diego, where one are of focus concerns copyright policy. KEI earlier wrote to USTR with our concerns about the US proposals for copyright (see: http://www.keionline.org/node/1444). Today USTR published a blog, saying the "USTR Introduces New Copyright Exceptions and Limitations Provision at San Diego TPP Talks." USTR said:

For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test," that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.

The United States is proposing this at the current round of TPP talks in San Diego. The proposal has benefited from the input of a wide range of stakeholders, and we look forward to discussing it further and sharing more information as the TPP negotiations progress.

I have not seen the USTR proposal, and have had some bad experiences in the past speaking about text I had not actually read. KEI’s concern is that if the 3-step test is introduced, at a minimum it just gives right holders two chances to knock something out (once at WTO, and once at TPPA). But it could be worse, if this is designed to apply to the many areas of the Berne and Rome conventions that are not now subject to the three step test.

Not all Berne exceptions are subject to 3-step test: Articles: 2(4,7), 2.bis, 10, 11, 11.bis(2-3), 13(1-2) and the Appendix are not subject to the 3-step test, and neither are the first sale doctrine (Article 6 of the TRIPS) or the control of anticompetitive practices in contracts (Article 40 of the TRIPS). Article 15(1) of the Rome Convention is also not subject to the three step test. Will the secret TPPA text change this?

Given the fact that the WTO rules already provide for its own version of the 3-step test, there is no reason for the USTR to propose additional text within the TPPA, unless it wants to extend the jurisdiction of the 3-step to areas not covered by the WTO, or to provide right holders two opportunities to claim a particular exception is too favorable to users.

KEI has not seen the USTR proposal, which USTR claims "benefited from the input of a wide range of stakeholders." We intend to ask USTR for the text, and also the names of the stakeholders who were consulted on the text.

UPDATE. USTR is reportedly claiming it had previously shown the TPPA text on copyright exceptions to people outside of the USTR advisory board system. We are asking USTR for details on this.

More on the 3-step agreement.

This is an elaboration on the 3-step test in multilateral agreements. The 1996 WCT Copyright treaty has bad language on the 3-step test, but the WCT is not now part of the TRIPS agreement, and is only subject to dispute resolution via trade agreements outside of the WTO, like the TPPA.

If the WCT is referenced under the general provisions to the TPPA, you also get the 3-step test in the TPPA, subject, however, to the agreed upon statement regarding Article 10, which is helpful.

Note also that both Article 10 and the agreed upon statement regarding Article 10 the WCT were written in 1996, before the 2000 WTO decision on Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act. (See: World Trade Organisation Dispute Resolution Panel Report on Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/1234da.pdf). The 2000 WTO panel decision presented a restrictive view of the WTO's version of the 3-step test (Article 13 of TRIPS), motivating a number of academics to argue for a new interpretation of the 3-step test that is more liberal. One influential expression of this view is the Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the "Three-Step Test" in Copyright Law. (http://www.ip.mpg.de/de/pub/aktuelles/declaration-threesteptest.cfm).

The initial 3-step test was connected to Article 9 of the Berne Convention.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

Article 9

Right of Reproduction:

1. Generally; 2. Possible exceptions; 3. Sound and visual recordings

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

(3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.

A modified version appeared in the 1994 WTO TRIPS Agreement. Among other things, the TRIPS 3-step test was not specifically related to the reproduction right in the Berne Convention, and it replaced author with right holder, reflecting the more corporate focus of the TRIPS. It is also interesting to note that the provisions in the TRIPS concerning both patents and trademarks have different three-step tests, that give status to third parties.

1994 WTO Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

SECTION 1: COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
Article 13 Limitations and Exceptions

Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

SECTION 2: TRADEMARKS
Article 17 Exceptions

Members may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties.

SECTION 5: PATENTS
Article 30 Exceptions to Rights Conferred

Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.

Yet another version was included as Article 10 of the 1996 WCT.

WIPO Copyright Treaty

(adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)

Article 10 Limitations and Exceptions

(1) Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for limitations of or exceptions to the rights granted to authors of literary and artistic works under this Treaty in certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

(2) Contracting Parties shall, when applying the Berne Convention, confine any limitations of or exceptions to rights provided for therein to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.10

/10/ Agreed statement concerning Article 10: It is understood that the provisions of Article 10 permit Contracting Parties to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in their national laws which have been considered acceptable under the Berne Convention. Similarly, these provisions should be understood to permit Contracting Parties to devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital network environment.

It is also understood that Article 10(2) neither reduces nor extends the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions permitted by the Berne Convention.

The 3-Step test in FTA agreements

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico (NAFTA) entered into force.

NAFTA

Article 1705: Copyright

5. Each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to the rights provided for in this Article to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

The United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on December 17, 2001. Note the NAFTA language referring to limitation and exceptions "to the rights provided for in this Article" became limitations and exceptions "to exclusive rights" in the US/Jordan FTA.

United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

ARTICLE 4: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Copyright and Related Rights

16. Each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holders.

The United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 1, 2004. The US/Chile FTA brought back the reference to "limitations and exceptions to rights" language from NAFTA, and added a footnote 17 which provided a common understanding of how the 3-step test would be interpreted on certain issues.

United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

Article 17.5: Copyright

3. Each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.17

/17/ Article 17.7(3) permits a Party to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in its domestic laws which have been considered acceptable under the Berne Convention. Similarly, these provisions permit a Party to devise new exceptions and limitations that are appropriate in the digital network environment. For works, other than computer software, and other subject- matter, such exceptions and limitations may include temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a lawful transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made; and which have no independent economic significance.

Article 17.7(3) neither reduces nor extends the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions permitted by the Berne Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996), and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996).

The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 1, 2004.

United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

ARTICLE 16.4 : OBLIGATIONS COMMON TO COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

2. (a) Without prejudice to Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii), and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971) (“Berne Convention”), each Party shall provide to authors, performers, producers of phonograms and their successors in interest the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication to the public of their works, performances, or phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works, performances, and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. Notwithstanding paragraph 10, a Party may provide limitations or exceptions to this right in the case of performers and producers of phonograms for analog or digital free over-the-air terrestrial broadcasting and, further, a Party may provide limitations with respect to other non-interactive transmissions, in certain special cases provided that such limitations do not conflict with a normal exploitation of performances or phonograms and do not unreasonably prejudice the interests of such right holders.

[...]

10. Each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights in Articles 16.4 and 16.5 to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

ARTICLE 17.5 : COPYRIGHT WORKS

ARTICLE 17.6 : PERFORMERS AND PRODUCERS OF PHONOGRAMS

3. (c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other non-interactive transmissions in accordance with Article 17.4.10, provided that the limitations do not prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

The United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 1, 2005.

United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

ARTICLE 17.4 : COPYRIGHT

10. With respect to Articles 17.4, 17.5, and 17.6:

(a) each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder;

(b) notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) and Article 17.6.3(b), neither Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorisation of the right holder or right holders, if any, of the content of the signal and of the signal;

(c) unless otherwise specifically provided in this Chapter, nothing in this Article shall be construed as reducing or extending the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions permitted under the agreements referred to in Articles 17.1.2 and 17.1.4 and the TRIPS Agreement.

ARTICLE 17.6 : PERFORMERS AND PRODUCERS OF PHONOGRAMS

3. (a) Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the right to authorise or prohibit the broadcasting or any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those performances and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

(b) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) and Article 17.4.10, the application of this right to traditional free over-the-air (i.e., non-interactive) broadcasting, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such broadcasting activity, shall be a matter of each Party’s law.

(c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other non-interactive transmissions in accordance with Article 17.4.10, provided that the limitations do not prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

The United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 1, 2006.

United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

ARTICLE 15.5: COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

11. (a) With respect to this Article and Articles 15.6, and 15.7, each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article 15.7.3(b), neither Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal, if any, and of the signal.

ARTICLE 15.6: COPYRIGHT

ARTICLE 15.7: RELATED RIGHTS

3. (a) Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the broadcasting or any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those performances and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article 15.5.11, the application of this right to traditional free over-the-air (i.e., noninteractive) broadcasting, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such activity, shall be a matter of each Party’s law.

(c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions in accordance with Article 15.5.11, provided that the limitations do not prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

The United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on January 11, 2006

United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

ARTICLE 14.4: OBLIGATIONS PERTAINING TO COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

10. (a) With respect to this Article and Articles 14.5 and 14.6, each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article 6.3(b), neither Party shall permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal and, if any, of the signal.

ARTICLE 14.5: OBLIGATIONS PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO COPYRIGHT

ARTICLE 14.6: OBLIGATIONS PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO RELATED RIGHTS
3. (a) Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the broadcasting or any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those performances and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article 14.5.10, the application of this right to analog transmissions and free over-the-air broadcasts, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such activity, shall be a matter of domestic law.

(c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions in accordance with Article 4.4.10, which shall not be prejudicial to the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

The CAFTA-DR (Dominican Republic-Central America FTA) entered into force for the United States and El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua during 2006, for the Dominican Republic on March 1, 2007, and for Costa Rica on January 1, 2009. With the addition of Costa Rica, the CAFTA-DR is in force for all seven countries that signed the agreement.

CAFTA-DR (Dominican Republic-Central America FTA)

Article 15.5: Obligations Pertaining to Copyright and Related Rights

10 (a): With respect to Articles 15.5, 15.6, and 15.7, each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Article 15.7: Obligations Pertaining Specifically to Related Rights

3. (a) Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the broadcasting or any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those performances and phonograms in such a way that

(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article 15.5.10, the application of this right to traditional free over-the-air noninteractive broadcasting, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such broadcasting, shall be a matter of domestic law.

(c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions in accordance with Article 15.5.10, provided that the limitations do not prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

The United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on February 1, 2009.

United States-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

Article 16.6: Related Rights

6. (a) Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the broadcasting or any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those performances and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

(b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article 16.7.8, the application of this right to analog transmissions and free over-the-air broadcasts, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such activity, shall be a matter of each Party’s law.

(c) Any limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions shall be in accordance with Article 16.7.8 and shall not prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

Article 16.7: Obligations Common to Copyright and Related Rights

8. With respect to Articles 16.5 through 16.7, each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

9. Notwithstanding Articles 16.7.8 and 16.6.6(b), no Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal and, if any, of the signal.

The U.S.-Korea trade agreement entered into force on March 15, 2012.

U.S.-Korea trade agreement

ARTICLE 18.4: COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

Footnote 11 to Article 18.4.1.

/11/ Each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to the rights described in paragraph 1 to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. For greater certainty, each Party may adopt or maintain limitations or exceptions to the rights described in paragraph 1 for fair use, as long as any such limitation or exception is confined as stated in the previous sentence.

10. (a) With respect to this Article and Articles 18.5 and 18.6, each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

ARTICLE 18.5: COPYRIGHT
ARTICLE 18.6: RELATED RIGHTS

ARTICLE 18.6: RELATED RIGHTS

3. (c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions in accordance with Article 18.4.10, provided that the limitations do not prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration.

Beijing treaty on audiovisual performances, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on June 24, 2012

Beijing treaty on audiovisual performances

Article 1 Relation to Other Conventions and Treaties

(3) This Treaty shall not have any connection with treaties other than the WPPT, nor shall it prejudice any rights and obligations under any other treaties1,2.

/fn 1/ Agreed statement concerning Article 1: It is understood that nothing in this Treaty affects any rights or obligations under the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) or their interpretation and it is further understood that paragraph 3 does not create any obligations for a Contracting Party to this Treaty to ratify or accede to the WPPT or to comply with any of its provisions.

/fn 2/ Agreed statement concerning Article 1(3): It is understood that Contracting Parties who are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) acknowledge all the principles and objectives of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and understand that nothing in this Treaty affects the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, including, but not limited to, the provisions relating to anti-competitive practices.

Article 13 Limitations and Exceptions

(1) Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for the same kinds of limitations or exceptions with regard to the protection of performers as they provide for, in their national legislation, in connection with the protection of copyright in literary and artistic works.

(2) Contracting Parties shall confine any limitations of or exceptions to rights provided for in this Treaty to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the performance and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the performer /9/.

/fn 9/ Agreed statement concerning Article 13: The Agreed statement concerning Article 10 (on Limitations and Exceptions) of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) is applicable mutatis mutandis also to Article 13 (on Limitations and Exceptions) of the Treaty.

/fn 10/ Agreed statement concerning Article 15 as it relates to Article 13: It is understood that nothing in this Article prevents a Contracting Party from adopting effective and necessary measures to ensure that a beneficiary may enjoy limitations and exceptions provided in that Contracting Party’s national law, in accordance with Article 13, where technological measures have been applied to an audiovisual performance and the beneficiary has legal access to that performance, in circumstances such as where appropriate and effective measures have not been taken by rights holders in relation to that performance to enable the beneficiary to enjoy the limitations and exceptions under that Contracting Party’s national law. Without prejudice to the legal protection of an audiovisual work in which a performance is fixed, it is further understood that the obligations under Article 15 are not applicable to performances unprotected or no longer protected under the national law giving effect to this Treaty.

9. the most vulnerable components of a nuclear power plant -- its spent fuel pools

As the photo I've attached shows, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7675 the spent fuel pools at Units 3&4 are exposed to the open sky and might be draining. The dose rates coming off the pools appear to be life threatening. Lead shielded helicopters trying to dump water over the pools/reactors could not get close enough to make much difference because of the radiation dose-rates.

If the spent fuel is exposed, the zirconium cladding encasing the spent fuel can catch fire -- releasing potentially catastrophic amounts of radiation -- particularly Cs-137. Here's an article I wrote in January 2002 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists about spent fuel pool dangers. http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreactorstorage/alvarezarticle2002.pdf

In October 2002, then Washington Attorney General Chris Gregoire organized a group letter signed by her and 26 of her colleagues to the U.S. Congress requesting greater safeguards for reactor spent fuel pools. The letter urged "enhanced protections for one of the most vulnerable components of a nuclear power plant -- its spent fuel pools." It was met with silence. I've attached the letter to this message

In January 2003 my colleagues and I warned that a drained spent fuel pool in the U.S. could lead to a catastrophic fire -- resulting in long-term land contamination substantially greater than that created by the Chernobyl (roughly half the size of the State of New Jersey). http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/11_1Alvarez.pdf

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear industry strongly disagreed. Congress then asked the National Academy of Sciences to referee this dispute.

In 2004, after the NRC tried unsuccessfully to suppress its report, the NAS panel agreed with our findings. The Academy panel stated "...[a] partially or completely drained pool could lead to a propagating zirconium cladding fire and release large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment." http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11263#toc

U.S. reactors are each holding as at least four times times by weight than in the individual pools at Fukushima. According to DOE about 63,000 metric tons of spent fuel has been generated as of this year containing approximately 12.4 billion curies. These pools contains some the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet. Only 14% of U.S. spent fuel is in dry storage.

At this stage it is critical that::

Efforts to extend the operating license at CGS by the NRC be suspended, given that it sits in an earthquake/volcano zone that could experience greater destruction than previously assumed.
The NRC should promptly require CGS to end the dense compaction of spent fuel and ensure that at least 75 percent of the spent fuel in that pool be removed and placed into dry, hardened storage containers on site, which are capable to withstanding greater than expected seizmic events.