 | 2004 House Committee Hearing! Get this out to ALL of America! Turn it viral people!!!!! This could sway the election! http://www.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071502827.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=30261 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302638.html?sub=AR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act |
 | BMA: Q&A on BMA FY1 accommodation campaign Dr Ram Moorthy, Chairman of the BMA`s Junior Doctor Committee, and Ian Noble, Chairman of the BMA`s Medical Students Committee, outline details of the BMA`s campaign against the removal of free accommodation for newly qualified doctors*. Ram and Ian also outline how medical students and junior doctors can take part in the campaign over the next few months (15th May 2008). *From August 2008, many junior doctors will not be able to apply for free accommodation in their first year of medical qualification (Foundation Year One). Go to the BMA website for more info:www.bma.org.uk/accommodationcampaign |
 | Committee Hearings Set-Up Committee Hearing Set-Up. This video provides a visual picture of how a high school library is transformed into a space that accommodates six committee meeting spaces. A T.V. studio adjacent to the library is used for a seventh committee meeting space and a classroom located next to the library is used for an eighth committee meeting space. Each of the eight committees meet simultaneously during a three and one half hour block of time. Over 200 students were involved. The video additionally demonstrates some of the props and procedures that assist in providing an authentic setting for the committee hearings. Details of the curriclum are available at legislativesemester.com |
 | CLO Fine Committee Tips 1 A video by the Fine Committee at CLO showcasing simple ways to avoid being fined. Shown at the House Meeting on 08/27/08. |
 | 6 Flags New England - Deaf Awareness Committee DAC hosts 6 Flags NE in Awagam, Ma on Aug 2. More detail show on vblog |
 | CLO Fine Committee Tips 2 The second installment in the Fine Committee Tips series. Simple ways to avoid silly fines. Presented at the house meeting on 10/01/08. |
 | Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt4 Part 4 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales takes the oath and makes a statement. 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: LEAHY: Thank you very much. And I might mention Senator Specter has requested a hearing on OxyContin. And I think he's absolutely right on that. We will have one, at your request. Mr. Attorney General, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give at this time will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? GONZALES: I do. LEAHY: Go ahead, Mr. Attorney General. GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LEAHY: I should note before you start that there will be a series of votes around 10:20 and I'll consult with Senator Specter how best to continue during that time. At most, we will try to limit the break. Go ahead. GONZALES: I understand, Mr. Chairman. I do have the great pleasure to work with over 100,000 dedicated public servants at the Department of Justice. I admire the dedication to pursue justice for all Americans. GONZALES: The department's many accomplishments are, in reality, their accomplishments. As attorney general, I have worked with these fine men and women to keep our country safe from terrorists, our neighborhoods safe from violent crime and our children safe from predators. As my written statement explains in more detail, when it comes to keeping our neighborhoods safe and protecting our children, the department has made great progress. In my brief remarks this morning, I want to focus on the department's number one priority, keeping our country safe from terrorists and the urgent need, quite frankly, for more help from Congress in this fight. As the recent National Intelligence Estimate has -- as well as the attempted car bombings in London and Scotland demonstrate, the threat posed to America and its allies by Al Qaida and other terrorist groups remains very strong. To respond effectively to this threat, it is imperative that Congress modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, known as FISA. Doing so is critically important to intelligence gathering, and it really just makes plain sense. When Congress drafted FISA in 1978, it defined the statute's key provisions in terms of telecommunications technologies that existed at that time. As we all know, there have been sweeping changes in the way that we communicate since FISA became law and these changes have had unintended consequences on FISA's operation. For example, without any change in FISA, technological advancements have actually made it more difficult to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and other subjects of foreign intelligence surveillance overseas. In April, at the request of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the director of national intelligence transmitted a comprehensive FISA modernization proposal to Congress. The proposal builds upon thoughtful (ph) bills introduced during the last Congress, and the bill would accomplish several key objectives. Most importantly, the administration's proposal restores FISA's original focus on protecting the privacy of U.S. persons in the United States. FISA generally should apply when conducting surveillance on those in the United States, but it should not apply when our intelligence community targets persons overseas. Indeed, it was advancements in technology and not any policy decision of Congress that resulted in wide-scale application of FISA and its requirement to go to court to overseas targets. This unintended consequence has clogged the FISA process and, quite frankly, hurts national security and civil liberties. GONZALES: As amended, FISA's scope would focus on the subject of the surveillance and the subject's location, rather than on the means by which the subject transmits a communication or the location where the government intercepts the communication. FISA would become technology-neutral. Its scope would no longer be affected by changes in communications technologies. The bill would also fill a gap in current law by permitting the government to direct communications companies to assist in the conduct of lawful communications intelligence activities that do not constitute, quote, "electronic surveillance" under FISA. This is a critical provision that is a necessary companion to any change in FISA's scope. Importantly, the administration's proposal would provide a robust process of judicial review for companies that wish to challenge these directives. The administration's proposal would also provide protections from liability to companies that are alleged to have assisted the government in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The bill also streamlines the FISA application process to make FISA more efficient, while at the same time ensuring that the FISA Court has the information it needs to make the probable cause findings required. Finally, the administration's proposal would amend the statutory definition of an agent of a foreign power to ensure that it includes groups who are engaged in international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or who possess or who are expected to transmit or receive foreign intelligence information while in the United States. FISA modernization is critically important and we urge the Senate to reform this critical statute as soon as possible. I am hopeful that this is an area that we can work together with the Congress and this committee. I think we can find common ground on the central principles underpinning the administration's proposal and in particular on the fact that we should not extent FISA's protections to terrorist suspects located overseas. We already have had several helpful sessions with the Intelligence Committees in the Senate and House on this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with the Senate and this committee on this important endeavor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. And your full statement, of course, will be made part of the record. |
 | Senate Judiciary Committee w/Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt20 Part 20 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Dick Durbin's questions to Alberto Gonzales. 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. There are many controversial issues that have been raised in this hearing: warrantless wiretapping, the political dismissal of U.S. attorneys and the like. I think that this administration and your tenure as attorney general will be haunted in history by another issue, and that's the issue of torture. DURBIN: It is the reason I couldn't vote for your confirmation, the role that you played as counsel to the president in saying that we as a nation did not have to follow the torture statute and the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Now, last Friday, President Bush signed an executive order interpreting Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for the purposes of CIA secret detention and interrogation techniques. The executive order rejected your earlier position and acknowledges that the CIA must follow applicable law, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the torture statute and the McCain torture amendment, which I was happy to cosponsor. Do you now agree that Common Article 3 applies to all detainees held by the United States? GONZALES: What I can say is is that certainly Common Article 3 applies to all detainees held by the United States in our conflict with Al Qaida. DURBIN: In -- I'm sorry, what's... GONZALES: In our conflict with Al Qaida, yes. DURBIN: Well, I'm worried about the qualification at the end. Are you suggesting that other terrorist conflicts are not covered by Common Article 3 in terms of the treatment of detainees? GONZALES: Sir, you know, we have to look at the words of Common Article 3. The Supreme Court rendered a decision about the application of Common Article 3 with respect to our conflict with Al Qaida only. And so -- I believe, if I recall correctly. If that were the case, if there were a different kind of conflict that on its face isn't covered by Common Article 3, then obviously we would not be legally bound by Common Article 3, although I think the president has said we're going to treat people humanely, nonetheless. DURBIN: So let me get into a specific here. Last year, the highest-ranking attorneys in each of the four military services -- Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines -- the judge advocates general, testified before this committee. And I sent them follow-up questions asking their opinion about specific abusive interrogation techniques that this administration has reportedly authorized. I received their responses this morning. And, Mr. Chairman, I ask consent that those responses be made a part of the record. LEAHY: They will be made part of the record. DURBIN: Mr. Attorney General, the opinion of the judge advocates general was unanimous. They all agreed that the following interrogation techniques violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions -- and there are five -- painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, waterboarding and mock execution. Do you agree? GONZALES: Senator, I'm not going to get in a public discussion here about possible techniques that may be used by the CIA to protect our country. What I can say is the executive order lays out a very careful framework to ensure that those agents working for the CIA trying to get information about the next attack do so in a way that is consistent with our legal obligations. And so, again, without commenting on specific techniques, we understand what the rules of the road are. DURBIN: Mr. Attorney General, do you know what you are saying to the world about the United States when you refuse to acknowledge that these techniques are beyond the law, beyond the tradition of America? DURBIN: These judge advocates general have a responsibility as well. They have been explicit and unanimous. The problem with your statement, Mr. Attorney General, is that you are leaving room for the possibility that you disagree with them. GONZALES: And, of course, those in the military are subject to the Army Field Manual. It's a standard of conduct that is way above Common Article 3. And so they come at it from a different perspective, quite frankly, Senator. And, again, I wish I could talk in more detail about specific actions, but I cannot do that in an open setting. DURBIN: But let me just ask you to consider this for a moment. Aside from the impact of what you've just said on America's reputation in the world, aside from the fact that we have ample record that you have disagreed with the use of Geneva Convention standards and have pushed the torture issue beyond where the courts and the congress would take it, would it be legal for a foreign government to subject a United States citizen to these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques which I just read? GONZALES: Would it be legal for the United States government to subject... DURBIN: No, for a foreign government... GONZALES: For a foreign government. DURBIN: ... to subject a United States citizen to the five -- any of the five interrogation techniques which I read to you? GONZALES: Well, again, Senator, we would take the position if you're talking about an American soldier who fights pursuant to the rules of the Geneva Convention... DURBIN: No, no, no. That's a different story. That's a uniformed person. I'm talking about a U.S. citizen. GONZALES: Would it be legal under their laws? Would it be legal under international standards? What do you mean by, "Would it be legal?" We obviously would demand humane treatment and treatment for our U.S. citizens consistent with international legal obligations. DURBIN: And would you put... GONZALES: And that's what this president expects of those of us who work in this government. DURBIN: And do you believe these techniques which I have read to you would be beyond the laws and the international standards if they were used against an American citizen? GONZALES: Senator, you're asking me to answer a question which, I think, may provide insight into activities that the CIA may be involved with in the future. DURBIN: No, I'm asking you a hypothetical question. Any time we get close to a specific issue, an investigation, you recuse yourself. GONZALES: Every time you... DURBIN: Now, I'm asking you for a general observation. Mr. Attorney General, the point I'm making to you is if you cannot be explicit about the standards of conduct and the values of this country when it comes to the use of torture, you create an ambiguity which, unfortunately, reflects badly on America around the world, and invites those who would take American citizens as captives and detainees to also suggest, "Well, there's an ambiguity. We can go a little forth than perhaps international law allows." GONZALES: Well, what's prohibited would be grave breaches which are set forth... DURBIN: What about these five specifics? GONZALES: ... in the Military Commissions Act. There's also violations of the DTA, which would be violation of the cruel, inhumane, degrading standard, which is tied to our constitutional standards of shocking the conscience. And then there are prohibited actions which would be covered by the president's executive order. And, again, it would depend on circumstances, quite frankly. DURBIN: Well, that's the kind of ambiguity which allows many people to conclude that you personally and this administration, whether by signing statements or Bybee memos, are really trying to leave a little opening in a door for the United States to engage in conduct which we condemn around the world. |
 | Senate Judiciary Committee w/Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt28 Part 28 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Ben Cardin's second round of questions to Alberto Gonzales. 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: WHITEHOUSE: Senator Cardin? CARDIN: Thank you. I want to just raise one -- come back to the concerns I have about selective release of information. Our responsibility is to do the oversight to make sure that things are done according to law, that you're held accountable, and that we carry our responsibilities as a legislative branch of government. We need a complete record in order to do that. And my concern is we get selective release of information. And today you released some information concerning the congressional advice to you in regards to an intelligence briefing at the White House. My understanding is that the details of those types of briefings are classified information that can be released by the president. You released information concerning the advice given to you by the congressmen who are there, the senators who were there. We don't know who was there, we don't have those details. We're not entitled to the details if I understand correctly the ground rules for these types of briefings. So can you just -- first of all was a conscientious decision made to release that information by the White House? GONZALES: I had -- no, there was no approval by the White House. Listen. People make statements about my conduct in connection with the hospital visit. GONZALES: And I think it's important for the American people and for this committee to understand the context of that visit. CARDIN: I agree with you completely. But we should have all the information. We should have all the information with the White House. We should be able to have independent review of all the information. For example, can we get the details of that briefing supplied to this committee? GONZALES: Senator, you're asking me questions that really touch upon White House equities, and that will be a decision made at the White House, a decision that I won't -- in most cases, will not be able to control. CARDIN: This committee has gotten selective information. The same thing happened with Sara Taylor when she was here. She told us information. She said, "I can't tell you anything about my conversations with the White House because we have executive presidential privilege, but however, I can tell you things that I think make us look good." GONZALES: Senator, I don't know if that's to be the case or not. My understanding appeared to have been... CARDIN: review the testimony. GONZALES: ... that Ms. Taylor was trying to be as helpful to the committee as she could, but there were certain lines which she was... CARDIN: The problem is, she sees it helpful when she can advance the cause of the White House. She doesn't think it's helpful giving us objective information to make our own judgments. GONZALES: Senator... CARDIN: Same thing about your -- we need to get a complete record, and we're going to get a complete record and courts will ultimately make these judgments. But I just question -- we're trying to find out the details of what happened at the hospital, and you give us some information about a briefing. And we don't have the rest of it. I just think it puts us in a very difficult position. You may not have intended that to be the case but I would certainly think that the attorney general of the United States would want to make sure that this committee had a complete record and that we don't have to take just selective information in making judgments. GONZALES: It was certainly my intent to make sure the committee had a more complete record than the testimony that's been provided, in terms of what happened during that period in... CARDIN: But you didn't clear your testimony about that briefing with anyone in the White House? That was your judgment, to talk about the briefing? GONZALES: The White House was advised that this was what I was going to be talking about. I did not seek their approval, and nor did I get guidance in terms of what to say. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you. I don't believe that -- let me just find out whether the chairman wants the hearing to continue or we are all right to recess. Oh, the committee will stand in brief recess. My understanding is other senators will be returning. |
 | John McCain on Iraq in Detail Senator John McCain talks about the size of the military, recruitment, and private contractors in Iraq. This interview took place on October 12, 2007, at Iowa Public Television. http://www.iptv.org/campaign08 Henderson: Let's veer back to Iraq. There are concerns being raised about Blackwater, a private firm that's providing security in Iraq. Do you share the concerns that Iraqi government officials have raised? McCain: I share the concern and I think it needs to be reviewed as to what their rules of engagement are, what their behavior is, who controls them, et cetera. But I would think it's important to point out that the reason why they are there is because we never had enough troops. We never had enough boots on the ground, so they're carrying out responsibilities that normally American military would be carrying out. So I have to lay part of the responsibility for the situation, or significant part of it, back on the previous failed strategy of the President's and Rumsfeld's. Henderson: So what should be done? Do you think more troops? McCain: We're not going to have more troops. I'd love to see -- I wish we had the size of army and marine corps and guard that we could send more troops, although I rely on General Petraeus's estimate and judgment that we now not only have enough but we're able to get back down to previous numbers. He's much more expert to make that judgment than I am. But I think that we have to now tighten up on the rules, regulations, accountability, et cetera. You know, many of these "Blackwater" -- there are many contractors -- are guarding Iraqi government officials. If you want to remove them, who's going to provide for their security? But it's sad and it's tragic that these things are happening. Borg: I want to go back and pick up something you just said: I wish we had enough army, marines, air force and so on, navy, to do what we need to do; I think that's to finish without your words. You said you want to rebuild trust. Whether or not you get the nomination and move on to the presidency or whether you're on the armed services committee, do you think that the American people have the trust now that will be necessary that you've alluded to, to rebuild the military? McCain: Yeah, and I think it's important to appreciate. This is the best, most professional, best-trained, bravest military, in my view, we've ever had in history. They're doing things that are remarkable. A couple of months ago and even now, they're going out in 130-, 135-degree heat, putting on 40 pounds of body armor, another 40 pounds of equipment, and they're doing magnificently. The problem is there's not enough of them. Borg: How will you get more? McCain: Recruit them. The Marine Corps and Army is one-third smaller than they were at the time of the first gulf war, and it was an all-volunteer force. And if you accept the military's estimate and my estimate that they're the best most professional, best equipped, et cetera, then you don't want to destroy that. You just want to expand it. Borg: But the Air Force is cutting 40,000 now just to save payroll to buy new tankers. They're going the other way. McCain: We're going to have to spend more money. And by the way, I fought against those tankers and saved the taxpayers two billion dollars when we exposed the corruption that was going on between the Air Force and the Pentagon and Boeing on that. We need a lot better oversight, and we can save a whole lot of money by procurement reform. We just had a small ship that was supposed to cost $160 million. They spent $400 million on it and then scrapped it. And that's a, guess what, a cost plus contract. In the days of Ronald Reagan, we had fixed cost contracts. Now it's completely out of control. But in final answer to your question, it's a marketplace out there. We can recruit enough young men and women who will serve in an all-volunteer force, and we don't need to go back to a draft, in my view. Henderson: Do you think that troop levels should be pre-Gulf War again? McCain: I do. I think that we are facing a long war in Afghanistan. I think Iraq will require our attention for quite some period of time. When I look at the flashpoints around the world, whether it be in our own hemisphere or other parts of the world, I think we need an Army, Marine Corps roughly that size. But now, is exactly that mission? No. We've got to have the kind of people who are trained in civil affairs, intelligence, Special Forces, those kinds of things. We have to refocus the army and reorganize it and the Marine Corps to meet the new kinds of warfare we're in. |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
![Daily flights from NYC to Mont Tremblant\](images/articles/thumbs/nytremblantthumb.jpg "Daily flights from NYC to Mont Tremblant\")
