Human error? Computer error? Greece? Spain? China?

WHAT IN THE HELL IS GOING ON?!?!?!

Wall Street Journal tries to sort out the mess…

A bad day in the financial markets was made worse by an apparent trading glitch, leaving traders and investors nervous and scratching their heads over how a mistake could send the Dow Jones Industrial Average into a 1,000-point tailspin.

At its afternoon low, the Dow had plummeted 998.50 points, its biggest intraday point drop ever. The swing from its intraday high was 1,010.14 points.

The Dow eventually rebounded to close down 347.80 points, or 3.2%, at 10520.32, its worst percentage decline since April 2009. Stocks from Dow components Procter & Gamble and 3M suffered precipitous declines. At one point shares of P&G tumbled 37%.

Okay, but what happened?!?

Traders theorized that an initial trading error triggered a piling-on effect from computerized trading programs designed to sell when the market moves lower. At the same time, pre-set orders form individual traders and investors to sell on declines during market downturns were likely triggered.

The volatile moves in many stocks likely triggered a wave of additional trades as hedges such as limit orders and options strategies kicked in. That could have caused the market to plunge further.

Oh…I see…the market worked exactly how it was supposed to…and nothing stopped it.

Well…we’ve heard all about automated systems trading stock so fast that it’s virtually unstoppable…haven’t we Goldman Sachs?

And to that point…

Accelerating the declines, high-frequency hedge funds, which use computers to trade at super high speed, appeared to pull back from the market as prices collapsed. These hedge funds have grown to account for a significant amount of trading volume, and their absence likely created a void into which prices fell.

Scared yet folks? No? Then you can’t see the forest fire for the falling trees.

But let’s talk about Greece for a moment. The country recently secured some loans from the IMF and the European, but investors aren’t convinced…

It seemed to sneak up on us, the issue of Greece indebtedness. The problem isn’t complicated: the country borrowed way too much and now is struggling mightily to pay back what it owes. Now, its financiers in Germany and elsewhere in Europe are facing massive losses.

The danger had been percolating in Europe for a while. But only this week did it seem to sink in with U.S. investors how closely related Greek’s problems were to our own. Some on this side of the Atlantic believed the rest of Europe would step in and provide a bailout to protect the rest of the continent. Now some believe the package that was announced by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund won’t work or won’t be enough, raising questions about how the European Central Bank has handled the crisis.

And all of this hullabaloo has sent Asian stocks tumbling…

Investors continued to exit riskier assets—with many Asian markets now down heavily for the week—on escalating concerns that Greece’s debt problems could engulf the weaker European countries.

Regional currencies were sharply lower, including the Korean won, which fell to a three-month low against the U.S. dollar of 1,169.50 won. The euro, which plumbed 14-month lows of $1.2510 against the U.S. dollar Thursday, was steadier in Asian trade although analysts expect more pain ahead for the common currency.

Japan’s Nikkei 225 was down 3.8%, after a 3.3% fall Thursday, with Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 down 2.3% at 4468.70, briefly touching a low of 4427.30, South Korea’s Kospi off 3% and New Zealand’s NZX-50 lower by 1.9%. Taiwan’s Taiex index was off 2.4% and in China the Shanghai Composite Index lost 2.2%.

One thing’s for sure…if Wall Street was looking to minimize government intervention and thwart new regulations…the timing of this glitch couldn’t have been worse.

More as it develops…

Warning, this may bore some of you to tears. Others may find it absolutely fascinating. My hope is more of you fall into the latter camp since I’ve essentially been forced to give you a behind the scenes look at how contributors come on board.

Confused? Don’t be. All will be revealed soon enough.

Some backgrond…

In July I put out a call for bloggers and received a lot of replies. A good problem to have, and I added many more than I thought.

One of them was from David Anthony Hohol, a Canadian an American living in Dubai. Upon reading some (not all) of his editorials at his site Relativity Online, I thought he could provide a unique perspective. Unfortunately, one of his first editorials accused Israelis of ethnic cleansing and characterized them as “scheming thieves.” Needless to say, his content was deleted from the site and his posting privileges were taken away (although a cache of the post still remains).

Understandably, a rather heated email exchange began. We were both able to have our say and leave it at that. Or so I thought. Because today I’m reading my private correspondence on a public blog.

Even more unfortunate? Hohol has chosen to excerpt pieces of our emails instead of reprinting them in full.

So, what follows is the ENTIRE exchange, not just the emails and segments he chose to share. I haven’t edited any grammar or spelling so all errors remain, including my own. Yeah, it’s embarrassing, but at least it’s honest. The only thing I did take out was some log in information and video embed code. Both are noted as such below.

Please feel free to tell me what you think. I’m open to constructive criticism and am curious to hear your thoughts on how this process works. Do know that I’m unable to pay anybody (at least for right now) so I have to put a lot of trust in my contributors. Sometimes it works out. This time (and recently) it didn’t. But I’ve found it’s better to cut ties quickly to avoid any further confusion and/or damage to the site.

So here we go…the private emails of one Justin Patrick Gardner…

July 2, 2009, 1:27 AM: His initial email asking if he can join
Hello Justin,

I am interested in blogging for you, am ready to commit to 5 blogs per week. Please visit http://www.relativityonline.com/ and click on the “From the Editor” tab for a sample of my writing. Visit the staff page for my bio and qualifications.

Regards,
David Anthony Hohol

July 2, 2009, 4:27 PM: My response
David,

Do you still live in Dubai? If so, I think there’s the potential to not only lend a needed perspective from the Middle East and cover foreign affairs, but also do more blogging during the time when most Donklephant authors would be sleeping.

Drop me a line with a little bit more about yourself and what niche you think you could fill at the site.

Best,
Justin

July 3, 2009, 5:09 PM: His response
Hello Justin,

Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, I still live in Dubai. As far as a niche for Donklephant, yes, a Middle Eastern perspective is something I could offer. I’ve lived in Dubai for going on six years and spent time in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Sudan, with much of my outside the UAE time being spent in Jordan (my wife is Jordanian) Further still, with Dubai being the Disneyland-like Crossroads of the Middle East, I have access to endless variety of nationals from around the world. Finally, not only can I access the goings on of the Middle East, but also the perspective of America and the West as seen through the eyes of this region.

My own personal perspective of this region is genuine, informed and from the inside, all of which are often limited in terms of the Western Media. Standing outside the machine, and having passed through more than forty countries also gives me a better perspective of North American life than many of those living within in it…

Let me know what you think.

Regards,
D.

July 4, 2009, 12:00 PM: Having read some of his work, my response
David,

Okay, I’m sold, and it’s my pleasure to offer you a spot at Donklephant.

I’ll be in touch soon with more details, but my plan is to announce all of the new authors around July 13, which is the anniversary of the site launch in 2005.

Thanks so much for reaching out. Really looking forward to working with you.

Best,
Justin

July 5, 2009, 11:23 AM: His response
Hi Justin,

Thanks for the opportunity. I truly look forward to working with you. I’m currently in London adn will be arriving in Canada in a few days. I would be prepared to submit regularly by the end of the month. Let me know if yuo would need me sooner…

Regards,
D.

July 5, 2009, 12:41 PM: My response
Great!

By end of the month do you mean the week of the 20th? The reason I ask is so I can set expectations on the blog. Because I want to announce on the 13th, and if you’re going to start a week later I’d like to tell everybody that.

Thoughts?

July 5, 2009, 6:52 PM: His response
Hi Justin,

I’m on an 8 week break from work in Dubai and will be hopping around until July 25th. I’ll swing back into my routine after that, so starting on the 27th would be more suitable for me. By the way, let me know if you have any topic areas you would like me to hit on. . . Also, I would like to direct traffic back to RELATIVITY via links within the blogs I write for you. Are you cool with that?

D.

July 5, 2009, 11:14 PM: My response
Sounds good. I’ll be on vacation then anyway, so let’s just say Monday, August 3rd.

Yes, linking back to your own content is encouraged, not only because it sends you more traffic, but it also makes Google like Donklephant better, and vice versa. So, when you can, please link back to Donklephant from Relativity.

Also, I’m assuming you want to be know as David Hohol on the blog. If not, tell me what you want your author name to be. I prefer people to be themselves, but don’t require it.

Alright, many safe travels and I’ll be sending you an email with a bunch of info soon.

Best,
Justin

July 6, 2009, 6:29 AM: His response
Looking forward to the info… and yes I want to go by my full real name, including middle name: David Anthony Hohol

Enjoy your vacation and I look forward to hearing from you
D.

July 12, 2009, 6:28 PM: My standard “intro” email
Hi David,

I’ll be announcing that you’re part of the team on Monday. After that feel free to begin posting any time you want. I think you said you’d begin posting at the end of July, and if that’s the case that’s fine by me.

In any event, the following are some dos and don’ts and tips about pictures, videos, etc. Please drop me a line if you have any questions.

INTRO POST
For your first post, please provide a brief intro of yourself and then just launch into the actual post. There’s no “right” way to do this, just “your” way of doing it.

CODE FOR POSTS
Please only use the code provided in the WordPress options. That means you shouldn’t used tags or font tags or

tags. The most important thing I can stress is that you shouldn’t simply copy and paste code from Blogpost into WordPress because it’ll cause problems with the look and feel of. I know it’s a pain, but please make sure that this code is clean. It’s essential to making sure your post looks good on Donklephant.

Also, if you ever want to code a table into a post for whatever reason, create a blog post on your Blogpost site, take a screen capture of it and embed a picture of it in your post. I recommend a desktop app called Skitch, but you can obviously use whatever you deem fit.

For photos, the maximum width is 430. You can use the following code with the width set and the height will work itself out: . Seriously. You don’t have to adjust the height and width. Just set the width and the height will set itself.

For videos, the maximum width is also 430. I would suggest embedding only YouTube videos, but I don’t want to limit you, so if you want to use one that has a bigger width, please recalculate what the height would be at a 430 width and plug the new numbers into the code. For instance, BrightCove videos nearly ALWAYS at least 480 width, but the following is even bigger…

(Boring embed code deleted)

In this code, I would have to replace numbers in two places, the top and bottom. I know I want my width to be 430, but I need the multiplier. That means I’ll take the smaller number into the larger number and come out with 0.98. Take that times 430 and you get 421. Those are my two new width and height numbers, and the code will now look like this…

(More boring embed code deleted)

As expected, the above would be the appropriate code to include in the Donklephant template to make the site look good. Anything else would look out of place.

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS CHECK YOUR WORK
Yes, ALWAYS check your posts after they’re posted on the site. If something looks messed up, please try to fix it. If you can’t fix it, unpublish the post and email me and I’ll fix it as soon as I can. I’d rather have something post late then post wrong. I’m sure you understand.

EDITING
After you post your work, I may come in and rework some things just in case you miss something. Usually all I do is add a photo, but that’s only if I can find something appropriate for the subject and tone of your post. If I can’t, I simply leave it alone.

LOG IN INFO
(Deleted for privacy)

Again, please drop me a line with any questions. I’m here to help with anything and everything.

Welcome aboard!
Justin

August 2, 2009, 10:18 PM: Notifying me he was ready to post
Hey Justin,

As promised I have submiited my first slew of articles by August 3rd. I am currently on my family’s farm in Alberta and will be heading back to Dubai in a couple of weeks.

I wasnt sure if I should directly publish my work or not. That being the case I posted them all as drafts, so you can make any changes, edits or additions that you see fit. Is this how I should always do things? Or do you want me to post them publish straight away?

I also have a confession to make… all that code shit is greek to me. I dont know how to post videos. I’m just a redneck with a laptop. I did try to upload some pics but it would not allow me to….

Best Regards,
D.

August 2, 2009, 10:22 PM: Notifying me he had posted them all

Check that… I accidentally posed one, so I figured i’d just post them all’ Let me know if thats what I should be doing anyway…

D

August 3, 2009, 10:28 AM: Shorter response from me “WTF?”
David,

I’m not sure what was unclear from my invitation to the site, but your post on Zionism is COMPLETELY inappropriate. Donklephant is about balanced coverage, not blatant advocacy. There were so many different ways you could have approached that post about the settlers, but you chose the one way that forces my hand.

Given that, I think it’s best we just called it a day on this partnership and left it at that. I simply can’t risk the integrity of the site.

Take care,
Justin

August 3, 2009, 8:15 PM: His response
Hello Justin,

I must say that I am quite surprised by your reaction to the article about Zionism. You wanted me to write about the Arab perspective (review your own description of me as an upcoming writer) and that was what I did.

My words in the article were “many in the region” (ie. the Middle East) look at Israeli as “scheming thieves”. “Many in the Region” is not Donklephant, not you, but just that – the Arabs. That, my friend is the Arab perspective. Full stop. That is the side, the perspective, the opinion, that offers the balanced coverage you say you want.

Balance is about both sides, not one side being free to say what they want and the other being forced to be politically correct. And when you then say, “Okay, I don’t want you to write anything at all anymore,” it makes me wonder why you even invited someone to offer you the Arab perspective in the first place. By telling me, a secular Canadian , that you don’t want me or my stories about the REAL Arab perspective on your site after asking me to do so, is COMPLETELY inappropriate and that, Justin, is where the integrity you say are trying to protect is lost.

Best of luck,
David Anthony Hohol

August 3, 2009, 9:21 PM: My response back
David,

Actually, I said you’d be giving us an insider’s perspective, not a one-sided Arab perspective that accuses “Zionist Israel” of ethic cleansing. I mean COME ON. How would you ever think that’s appropriate to post given what you know about the site and its goals?

What’s more, and forgive me for being so blunt, but when you say that the words in the article aren’t Donklephant’s…are you serious? If you, as a writer for this site, use the words “scheming thieves” and then link those words back to an editorial written by you where you call the state of Israel a terrorist state, well, guess what…that makes it seems as if Donklephant is endorsing that view.

And yes, balance is about both sides. That’s why I invited you. Because I thought you were going to offer a perspective that took a look at the situation colored by more of the realities of a foreigner living in the Middle East. If you feel that viewpoint has integrity, I can’t dispute that, but as somebody who has defended Palenstine on Donklephant I can tell you that it has absolutely no integrity on the site. Think of that what you will.

August 7, 2009, 2:27 PM: He responds back 5 days later
Hello Justin,

I recently posted an article about the Burka and was thinking of your last email. In the end, I guess I couldnt resist replying to you.

It may be a rhetorical question, but when I asked you to read over my editorials so as to get a better perspective on my writing style… did you even read one article form beginning to end? If you had you would have seen where I come from what transpired could have been avoided. You would not have wasted my time… or yours for that matter. It was unprofessional on your part not to know who it is you invite to write for you. Perhaps now you’ve learned your lesson and will be more thorough in the future.

Saying you wanted an “insider’s perspective” as opposed to a “perspective of the region” is just semantics, by the way. That phrase could be defined any number of ways. At NO TIME did you ask me for a foreigner’s viewpoint, as opposed to the Arab perspective.

Further still, calling what I wrote a “one-sided Arab perspective” is flat out wrong and prejudiced. There are many in the international community, not Arab, and not even Muslim, who hold these views. I mean COME ON, you must know this.

I must say I found it interesting that in your first email you cited the phrase “scheming thieves” (which is what 99% of Arabs think of Israelis) as the problem in my article and now in your last email you have left this phrase behind and moved onto to new words like “ethnic cleansing” and “Zionism” as issues of concern. It leads me to think you are trying hard to convince yourself you are right…

Justin, ethnic cleansing is defined as when a single group of people are being eradicated or forced to disperse from their native land, through military action and illegal land grabs to create an ethnic homegeneity. In other words… this IS what’s happening in Palestine . Case in point, a recent Time Magazine article stated:

“And yet to much of the world, the Katzes (a family of West Bank Israeli settlers) are participating in illegal land grabs forbidden by the Geneva conventions, which do not allow an occupying power (like Israel ) from settling its own civilians on militarily controlled land.”

Did you know there are many Jewish groups around the world, growing by numbers and influence everyday that refer to Israeli as a Zionist Warring State ? In an open letter to the people of Palestine , Rabbi Ahron Cohen wrote:

The world stands aghast as the atrocities being committed by the Zionist regime in Gaza, becomes known in ever greater and shocking detail. Mere words are insufficient to express the pain that all mankind feels at the plight of the Gaza and Palestinian people.

Throughout their history, the Zionists have resorted to intimidation, war, ethnic cleansing and state—sponsored terrorism to achieve their goals. This is, has been and continues to be, the criminal agenda of the Zionist movement.
source: http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm

But I guess these words, the words of a Jewish Rabbi, would not be acceptable on the pages of your magazine.

60 minutes reports, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7XtT91yO6g , Pullizter prize winning American authors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjBttx6Gd2c , or mainstream online magazine writers http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein01012009.html represent the fact that the media’s viewpoint of Israel is changing. Simply put, Israel ’s is cold-blooded in its dealing with the Palestinians and the world media as a whole is shifting. You can join the fearful herd and be a follower Justin, some are better suited to do so than others. But I will join the others in the distance and lead. Being against Israeli actions in Palestine , calling them bullies and thieves, or any other number is names, is NOT anti-Judaism. This is a manipulative lie whose shelf life is finally and thankfully reading its end. Think of that what you will.

Best Regards,
David Anthony Hohol

August 7, 2009, 5:09 PM: My response back
David,

I wasted your time? Respectfully, are you forgetting the part where you contacted me? And yes, of course I read some of your work, but I obviously didn’t read all of your work. Otherwise you never would have received an invite.

Also, you’re pulling the “prejudiced” card on me? You brought up the notion of “Arab” in your response to my initial email, and I was using that term to describe what I thought your perspective was, not to characterize the entire Arab world as sharing that perspective. And I’m sorry, but who called Israeli settlers “scheming thieves” and then linked back to his own editorial?

Moving on…you found it interesting I moved on to other terms beyond “scheming thieves?” Well, I find it interesting that you don’t understand that when you attack somebody, they’re going to defend themselves by providing more detail. Yes, I was justifying my position. It’s called debating.

As far as your definition of ethnic cleansing and then citing the activities of one family as proof? Also, a Rabbi who doesn’t even think that the state of Israel should exist? David, seriously, I’m not trying to be a dick here, but if you brought that into any serious forum for debate you’d get laughed out of the room. As I’ve said before on Donklephant, I think the Israelis have obviously overreached and need to stop building settlements. But you’re going far, far, far, far beyond that and assigning some nefarious “ethic homogeneity” plot to them. That’s just the type of conspiratorial nonsense that instantly discredits you nearly in every forum except ones that still believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are valid. Not good company.

Listen, we obviously don’t agree and that’s fine. I wish you and yours the best and let’s just leave it at.

Best,
Justin

December 8, 2009: The email that sparked this post
Hello Justin,

Thought you might enjoy this article. It’s about our chance online meeting this past summer.

http://www.relativityonline.com/from-the-editor/battle-lines/

D.
+++++++++

And so here we are…

One additional note…after I revoked Hohol’s privileges and took his post down, he posted a comment on a site called Newstin that this article was the one taken down.

His post…

I was fired from donlkephant for posting this story. Told it is a “one-sided Arab perspective” and any site that would carry it had “abosultely no integrity.” RELATIVTY OnLine thankfully offers its writers the freedom to reveal their own individual perspecvtive. To read the full version of the above story click here

Note that Hohol not only linked to the wrong article, but he also claims that I said any site that would run his editorial would have no integrity. But, as you’ll remember, I actually said…

If you feel that viewpoint has integrity, I can’t dispute that, but as somebody who has defended Palenstine on Donklephant I can tell you that it has absolutely no integrity on the site.

So there you have it.

Please share your thoughts below.

I hadn’t, but when I did…wow.

First, right there on the front page you have a map that details the total dollars announced, available and spent on the both the national and state levels (when you mouse over each graph or state).

But the most impressive feature by far is when you enter in your zip code and find out where the recovery dollars are going in your area.

Upon doing so, this prompt pops up and tells you where the data is coming from…

Then, the dollars spent are geolocated to specific businesses, not for profits, etc., and they’re clickable so you can see see how money is being given out and what it’s going for.

Here, the part circled in red details the amount in contracts, grants and loans that has been spent in the 64105 area code. The part circled in blue is the information that pops up after you click on a dot on the map.

And if you want even more info about how the money was spent, you can click on another link to pop open a new window that will give you all the details.

This is really unprecedented access to see how our tax dollars are being spent and I hope that we mandate that all big spending bills carry this level of transparency in the future.

Thoughts?

Regardless of what you think about the current health care legislation being debated on Capitol Hill, being able to read it before it goes to the floor for a vote is the right thing to do and I’m glad to see a Senator from Missouri calling for it.

But will the Dems listen?

From Politico:

As the health care reform bill moves to the Senate floor, a key bloc of moderate Senate Democrats and an independent called on Senate Majority Leader Reid to increase the process’ transparency.

Specifically, the senators called on Reid to post legislative text and CBO scores online 72 hours before the first floor vote. They asked that all amendments be posted before debate begins. And the amended bill and CBO score should be posted three days before a final Senate vote and before the Senate votes on a conference committee report.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman signed the letter.

“As their democratically-elected representatives in Washington, D.C., it is our duty to listen to their concerns and to provide them with the chance to respond to proposals that will impact their lives,” the senators wrote. “At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people’s faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process.”

Simply put, this administration promised transparency and they should push the Congress to deliver…especially with legislation this contentious. Because it’ll expose anything truly controversial and save a lot of headaches in the long run.

Anybody disagree?

This was one of those inexplicable policy hold overs from the Bush administration that many Obama supporters shook their heads at.

But now, well, looks like they’ve found their way out of the woods.

From USA Today:

The new policy would begin in mid-September. Electronic visitor logs maintained by the Secret Service would be released three to four months after visits are made. The disclosure would include who set up the meeting, where it was held and for how long. Specific requests for visits before Sept. 15 would be dealt with individually.

Exceptions would be made in cases of national security, extreme confidentiality — such as a visit by a future Supreme Court nominee — and strictly personal visits to the first family, including daughters Malia and Sasha.

Do know that, although there have been some missteps, Obama’s has still been the most transparent administration in American history. But promises are a bitch, and supporters will hold you to each and every one of them.

Glad to see that this is one that the White House will ultimately keep.

But they promise that detainees won’t be abused. More on why I think that’s nonsense later on in the post.

But first, more from NY Times:

The announcement, by President Obama’s Interrogation and Transfer Policy Task Force, seemed intended in part to offset the impact of the release on Monday of a long-withheld report by the C.I.A. inspector general, written in 2004, that offered new details about the brutal tactics used by the C.I.A. in interrogating terrorism detainees.

Though the Obama administration previously signaled that it would continue the use of renditions, some civil liberties groups were disappointed because, as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama had strongly suggested he might end the practice. In an article in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 2007, Mr. Obama wrote, “To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people.”

Mr. Obama continued, “This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.” In January, the president ordered secret prisons run by the C.I.A. to be shut down.

And here are the changes proposed so people aren’t tortured…

The administration officials, who discussed the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would operate more openly and give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.

“The emphasis will be on ensuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees would be sent to countries known to conduct abusive interrogations.

While these are at least movements in the right direction, we’ve seen how people have been kidnapped from their homes, detained for years and then released because they shouldn’t have been picked up in the first place.

Here’s the thing…stealing people from their lives still constitutes abuse in my book. Perhaps not the classic definition of torture, but think of the mental torment those folks went through. So if it happens again, well, shame on the Obama administration.

Truly disappointing…

Not that it’s a surprise, but are we at the point now where we start talking seriously about prosecutions? Because it’s apparent that Cheney directed the C.I.A. to break the law by concealing information and if the guy can get away with anything as long as it was done for national security reasons, well, what kind of precedent does that set?

And I do believe this is different than warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, etc. Because while many people were uncomfortable with those programs, at least our elected officials knew about them.

In any event, here’s the story from NY Times:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

And here’s the kicker…apparently the program wasn’t that important…

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

“Because this program never went fully operational and hadn’t been briefed as Panetta thought it should have been, his decision to kill it was neither difficult nor controversial,” one intelligence official, who would speak about the classified program only on condition of anonymity. “That’s worth remembering amid all the drama.”

Why did Cheney want to keep it so hush hush? Maybe to simply see if he could? A test case to see if the C.I.A. would keep its mouth shut?

Hopefully we’ll find out soon enough.

Contrary to popular belief, Stewart takes it to both sides…

I’ve said it before that I think all of these moves are a big mistake, but that’s what happens when you overpromise and underdeliver. You end up looking like you’ve broken promises…which you have.

*sigh*

While the Obama administration has been the most transparent of any so far, he has still broken some pretty specific promises, much to the consternation of those who voted for him.

From New York Times:

“When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing,” Mr. Obama said as a candidate, telling voters he would make government more transparent and accountable.

When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would “allow the public to review and comment” before Mr. Obama signed them.

Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two.

Seriously, how tough is it to wait a few more days? If you’re going to talk the talk, you’ve gotta walk the walk.

This lack of transparency is also display when discussing his pledge of making the White House visitor logs public:

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding “secret energy meetings” with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s “clean coal” policies.

One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged “presidential communications.” The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig’s office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure.

Listen, there is time to turn this around. A few missteps don’t have to turn into a chronic habit. And while I realize that some campaign promises will be broken, this doesn’t have to be one of them.

The sooner they realize this, the better.

2008 Senator Lindsey Graham seems to disagree with 2009 Lindsey Graham.

This is Mike Fritz and David Murdock from ANP.

Senator Lindsey Graham was a passionate critic of the Bush Justice attorneys during this past summer’s Armed Services Committee hearings on interrogation.

Lately, however, Graham seems to have had second thoughts on the matter. At a recent Judiciary subcommittee hearing investigating the torture memos, Graham mounted a feisty defense of Jay Bybee, John Yoo and the lawyers who provided legal cover for detainee abuse.

This performance sent producer Mike Fritz back to the ANP archives to confirm that this was indeed the same Lindsey Graham we remembered from the summer, and sure enough, it was. As this video reveals, same guy – different message.

Click to view the whole story at Huffington Post.

A surprising reversal and one I obviously disagree with. This also seriously undermines Obama’s message of transparency and openness…at least in the eyes of Dems.

From Wash Post:

President Obama has decided to oppose the release of several dozen photos depicting abuse of detainees held in U.S. military custody abroad, reversing his previous position on the grounds that the pictures could inflame anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops.

In a brief statement to reporters before flying to Arizona for a speech late this afternoon, Obama said he believes “that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

He also suggested that the publication could lead “a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse.”

Is it just me or does this reasoning make no sense?

Because having these photos be undefined means people fill in the blanks with even more horrific stuff than what’s possibly contained in them. And that means al Qaeda can say whatever they want about them to their recruits and we’re powerless to stop them. And that’s what puts Americans in greater danger.

Also, the idea that this would have a chilling effect on future investigations? How exactly? Actually, by making these public it would put a chilling effect on the behavior, not the investigations.

The only thing I can think of is he’s finally seen the photos and some of them contain pictures of CIA personnel he promised to protect. So if these pictures get out, he’d be obligated to prosecute them the way the other personnel were or face a massive backlash by the military brass and the American public.

Still, I’m confused by this move and I’m sure many other Americans are too. So the administration owes us more explanation…and soon.

Just for future reference, what you’re seeing above is considered a “pour.” You’ll need that information to weave your way through the mine field presented here by Fox News.

Let the apologizing begin…

A U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation program told FOX News that the much-cited figure represents the number of times water was poured onto Mohammed’s face — not the number of times the CIA applied the simulated-drowning technique on the terror suspect. According to a 2007 Red Cross report, he was subjected a total of “five sessions of ill-treatment.”

“The water was poured 183 times — there were 183 pours,” the official explained, adding that “each pour was a matter of seconds.”

The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times.

The confusion stems from language in the Justice Department legal memos that President Obama released on April 16. They contain the numbers, but they fail to explain exactly what they represent.

So Fox doesn’t believe that a pour is considered being waterboarded.

Does it really matter?

We tried to induce the feeling of drowning in somebody 183 times. Whether or not it was 1 attempt during 183 separate sessions or 10 attempts during 18 sessions is irrelevant.

Torture is torture is torture.

Still, these last two sentences of the story tell you pretty much all you need to know about where Fox is coming at this from…

And the precise number of waterboarding sessions is still not known. What is known is that Mohammed was not waterboarded 183 times.

Ugh.

Moving on…

When I read the following I have to ask, “Who’s lying here?”

Because haven’t we heard from some pretty high profile folks that these techniques worked, most notably former VP Cheney?

I guess maybe Hillary was right.

First, from NY Times, what traditional interrogation tactics gave us:

Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned [Abu Zubaydah] from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

And now, what torture brought us…

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

I have a feeling we’ll never know the whole truth, but I still contend that the loss of credibility around the world isn’t worth finding out about a few operational ties with tactics that we simply didn’t need to use.

That means he was made to feel as if he were drowning an average of 6 times and day for 30 straight days.

Kind of puts that whole ticking clock scenario to rest.

From Emptywheel:

I’ve put this detail in a series of posts, but it really deserves a full post. According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.
On page 37 of the OLC memo, in a passage discussing the differences between SERE techniques and the torture used with detainees, the memo explains:

The CIA used the waterboard “at least 83 times during August 2002” in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.

Note, the information comes from the CIA IG report which, in the case of Abu Zubaydah, is based on having viewed the torture tapes as well as other materials. So this is presumably a number that was once backed up by video evidence.

Again, the point isn’t whether or not Mohammed is a bad man. There’s no doubt he is. The point is that we can’t allow ourselves to act just as despicable as him. I mean, Bush said they hate our freedoms, right? Well what happens when we compromise our values to mirror theirs? Doesn’t that make us less free?

Michael Reynolds had this thought over at a previous post…

There’s a price to be paid for living in a civilization as opposed to living in the jungle. We minimize many risks, but we assume some others. We may have to swallow hard at times, but it’s the only way to have a civilization. Civilization, like freedom itself, isn’t free.

Well said.

This could anger a lot of folks on the left, but I think it’s an incredibly dangerous precedent to prosecute folks for following orders.

More from AP:

WASHINGTON -Attorney General Eric Holder says the government won’t prosecute CIA officials for using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects.

The decision comes as the Obama administration releases four long-secret legal memos from the Bush administration authorizing a dozen harsh interrogation techniques against high-value terror suspects.

Holder said in a statement Thursday it would be unfair to prosecute CIA employees for following the legal advice given at the time. And he says the government will defend any CIA employee in any court action brought in the U.S. or overseas.

And concerning the memos, no information will be redacted except the names of the CIA interrogators. Which makes sense if you want transparency, but want to protect the soldiers who carried out the Bush’s administration’s orders.

Now, for folks who know the left-wing commentator Glenn Greenwald, you might anticipate quite a backlash from him for this move.

Not necessarily…

One can certainly criticize Obama for vowing that no CIA officials will be prosecuted if they followed DOJ memos (though that vow, notably, does not extend to Bush officials), but — assuming the reports about redactions are correct — there is no grounds for criticizing Obama here and substantial grounds for praising him.

If you want to read the memos, you can find them here. But here’s potentially the most damning passage…

If you don’t think the people who developed these tactics knew what they were doing would be considered torture, well, now you do.

Case closed.

Yet another step towards the goal to make the government’s actions more transparent than any other time in our history…

“In late May, Data.gov will launch, in what US CIO Vivek Kundra calls an attempt to ensure that all government data ‘that is not restricted for national security reasons can be made public’ through data feeds. This appears to be a tremendous expansion on (and an official form of) third-party products like the Sunlight Labs API.

Of course, it is still a far cry from ‘open sourcing‘ the actual decision-making processes of government. Wired has launched a wiki for calling attention to datasets that should be shared as part of the Data.gov plan, and an article on O’Reilly discusses the importance of making this information easily accessible.”

A brief aside…

It’s news like this that makes me get my back up when folks talk about how he’s going to turn this country into a dictatorship, police state, etc. Because they obviously aren’t paying attention to what’s actually being done by the administration. Hopefully at some point they will.

(Found on Slashdot, via Twitter)

The site got some meat on it a couple days ago, and here’s what you can expect to find there right now.

• A map that details the local impact of the Capital Purchase Program, which is basically the “Don’t Let Banks Fail” program. Some states, like Missouri, haven’t received any money because our banks are sound. Other states, like New York, have received over $80 billion.
• The Road To Stability Plan that details exactly what the administration plans to do with housing, toxic assets, bad banks, consumer lending and small business.
• A “decoder” or glossary of terms about the financial rescue plans that may not seem obvious on first glance.
• A link to the Making Home Affordable site that let’s you fill in some information to see if you’d qualify to get your home refinanced or loan modified.

All in all it’s a good start, and like Recovery.gov, I’m sure it’ll contain more details. After all, Recovery.gov now has links to nearly every single state’s “Recovery” page and how the money is being spent. Here’s Missouri’s line by line distribution of the funds they’ve received so far. In fact, only North Dakota, South Dakota and South Carolina don’t have links to recovery pages yet, and that’s certainly not the federal government’s fault.

More as it develops…

And after the AIG mess, I say we give it to him. How we allowed one company to take down the entire system still feels unreal to me. How on earth could we allow that to go down? Crazy, crazy, crazy.

But it did happen and we are suffering massive fallout as a result, so we have to make absolutely sure we’re protected. And, like it or not, the only way to do that is give the government more power.

From Bloomberg…

The authority would allow the Treasury, in collaboration with the Federal Reserve, regulators and the president, to step in and more easily combat problems at systemically important institutions on the verge of failure, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. AIG has received $182.5 billion in government bailout funds, according to the Government Accountability Office.

“We must ensure that our country never faces this situation again,” Geithner is expected to say according to excerpts of his testimony obtained by Bloomberg News. “To achieve that goal the administration and Congress have to work together to enact comprehensive regulatory reform and eliminate gaps in supervision.”

The expanded powers, which require Congressional approval, could help monitor risk and detect problems across an array of financial-services firms to prevent shocks to the global economy such as the one caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September. [...]

It would also ensure proper accountability when taxpayer funds are provided to institutions in extreme circumstances, like AIG, which is now 80 percent owned by the government. The authority would provide the government with various tools including the ability to break contracts on executive compensation commitments, like those at the center of the furor over the insurance-giant’s $165 million in bonuses.

More transparency and more accountability.

What’s not to like about this?

And remember, since global commerce is so tied to our banking system, we have a responsibility not only to our taxpayers, but also the rest of the world. Because don’t kid yourself by thinking that China’s public calls to consider replacing our currency in the reserve basket didn’t come as a direct result of letting firms like AIG overleverage themselves to the point of insolvency.

As was the case with many things the Bush administration touched, the federal budget was gamed in such a way to make the deficit problems look smaller than they actually were. But now Obama and his team are set to change that.

Only problem? The deficit is going to get a lot bigger.

How much?

Try $2.7 trillion.

From NY Times:

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

No doubt there will be an initial backlash, but I’m hoping that folks will appreciate the increased transparency and realize once and for all how devastating the deception out of the Bush administration really was.

Here’s more…

Mr. Obama’s banishment of the gimmicks, which have been widely criticized, is in keeping with his promise to run a more transparent government.

Fiscal sleight of hand has long been a staple of federal budgets, giving rise to phrases like “rosy scenario” and “magic asterisks.”

The $2.7 trillion in additional deficit spending, Mr. Orszag said, is “a huge amount of money that would just be kind of a magic asterisk in previous budgets.”

“The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”

I think we just saw Orszag call Bush a liar.

Well deserved. Especially since Obama has to dig us out of an additional $2.7 trillion hole that wasn’t accounted for.

No more placeholders.

The site has finally launched and it has some good content, Including links to pretty much anything they have created about the bill and a place to share your story.

There’s also a map that details how many jobs in each state will be created or saved in the next 2 years. Missouri will apparently see 69,000 jobs created or saved, while California will see 396,000.

My guess is that you’ll start to see a lot more detail added to these numbers in the coming weeks as money starts heading out the doors. And given that this is the first time something like this has happened, I know Obama will probably see a popularity bump because of the transparency of the site.

Take a look and share your thoughts.