Friday, July 15, 2005

Karl Rove Violated his Nondisclosure Agreement...

Section 5.5b of the amended Executive Order 12958 - Classified National Security Information states...

Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:
(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders...

With all the stories flying around about Rove talking to reporters in the case of Valerie Plame being outed, I wanted to point out something that is quite obvious and it has nothing to do with partisan bickering or whether Rove did the "outing".

The above section of Executive Order 12958, which you can find at ISOO (Information Security Oversite Office website) states that it is a violation to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person. Rove has testified that he had confirmed Novak about Plame, in other words, if this version is correct (we have heard for a while now that he was not involved), then he did in fact knowingly, willfully and negligently verify classified information to a person not authorized to have it.

It may not be the crime of intentionally outing an undercover CIA Operative but is is assuredly a violation of Executive Order 12958.

Section 1.1b of the same Executive Order states...

Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

Rove has no excuse here because even IF Novak brought it up and mentioned Plame and her position in the CIA, that did not make the information declassified, therefore Rove violated the order by verifying any classified information Novak might have had.

Section 4.1c states...

Classified information shall remain under the control of the originating agency or its successor in function. An agency shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency without its authorization...

If Rove, as Bush's advisor, wanted to verify classified CIA information he was bound to talk to the CIA first...but, of course, he did not.

There is a really interesting part here that leads to more restrictions...section 4.1a (2)...

the person has signed an approved nondisclosure agreement let's look at the nondisclosure agreement that Rove had to sign...

Paragraph 3, for example...I have been advised that any unauthorirized disclosure, unauthorized retention or any negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreperable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foriegn nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to recieve it: or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency responsible for the classification of the information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as described in (a) or (b) above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Paragraph 4 begins with...I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances...

OK...let's put all this into perspective. Rove's lawyer is attempting to say that Rove did nothing wrong by trying to make distinctions in the Executinve Order 12958. There are no distictions that you can pull out of the hat here. The EO 12958 and the nondisclosure agreement that Rove (and all Federal employees) signed states that negligent handling of classified information is a breach of the Agreement and violation of EO 12958, so even if Rove was not the person who "outed" Plame, he is still in violation of Federal Law. Even if he only CONFIRMED the information that Novak had, he still violated the law by confirming classified information to a person not authorized to have it.

Several years ago, George H. W. Bush fired Karl Rove under suspicion that Rove leaked information to Novak (70's)...same aide, same reporter looks really suspicious.

George W. Bush has stated publically that he would fire anyone involved in this. Rove swore for two years he was not involved at all but now swears under oath that he verified a reporter's classified information, which Rove was under an Agreement not to negligently handle. If Bush is really true to his word he needs to fire Rove for the breach of his Nondisclosure Agreement and violation of Executive Order 12958.

I will wager that Bush will not do his duty and will not keep his word...too many Evangelicals seem to have put this administration on a pedestal and now they seem to believe they are all above the law...and the truth will die with the people who have fought and died for this country.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Terrorism Brought Home, "W" Is Wrong Again...

To the people of Britain I express my heartfelt condolences. It is a tragedy beyond compare for any person to lose loved ones in an attack like this. Some here in the US found this out up close and personal on 9/11 when a Bush family friend hit us. I am sorry and all my hopes for your recovery is a daily exercise.

For those who get your shorts in a bunch for me mentioning Bush's family friend, you have the same shorts to get happy in because I am not stating anything that is not fact. The Bush and bin Laden families go way back. Bin Laden, at one time, was being payrolled and supplied by the US, just the same as Saddam was. Saddam apparently outlived his usefulness but bin Laden has not or else he would have been captured long ago. Instead, Bush took our troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq and left the search for the murderer of almost 3000 Americans with a severe lack of resources. Now his people have grown in numbers and make us all less safe.


On July 4th, Bush stated "We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

I hope Blair did not give the people of Britain that same moronic line...they would have tarred and feathered him.

We will be getting ours before can bet your money on it. Why you may ask. If those who believe what they are told do not seek the truth from every possible source and refuse to deal with the reality of what the Bush administration has been doing so they can believe the US is the hero, you would never understand nor would you see it coming.

George Bush has not made the world, especially us, safer. The figures that the Bush administration released last year (I will try to post it for you if I can find it again) showed a dramatic decrease in terrorism for the year but they also had to withdraw their report because actual numbers showed that terrorism had doubled.

Condi Rice's infinite stupidity had her jumping on this and denying any AQ connection. We should be used to her being clueless by now I guess.

For all the Rambo type war proponents a measure of "we told you so" is in order.

We could discuss the ironies of the situation...Bush's only high marks come from the way he deals with terrorism. If this was not so pervertted and sad, it would be funny.

More interesting reading calls it Bush's flypaper theory...The Huffington Post

I have to wonder how many of those who believe George Bush does an acceptable job on terrorism have any idea that last September (2004) the Pentagon did a report that called the invasion of Iraq a strategic mistake. Although the damning report was finished in September 2004, the Bush administration delayed publishing until around Thanksgiving...after the 2004 elections and hours before the holiday weekend, giving it more of a chance to not affect the elections and not to get much media coverage. I wonder how many Americans as a whole know about it. The report also contradicted Bush's claim that they hate us because of our freedom when in fact the report stated that they did not hate us for our freedom but instead they hated us for our double standard policies. I will post a link to the report for anyone who wants to read it or email the pdf document to them.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 but Bush attempted to once again put the connections in America's mind recently in a speech meant to shore up dwindling support for the Iraq war. According to our own intelligence, Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists in a country where there were no links to Al Quada before we invaded...namely Iraq. I wonder if that's what George meant when he said bring it on...well Mr. Bush, they did.

We could have taken AQ out if we had stuck to Afghanistan...we had the manpower and resources. Instead, our soldier get killed in great numbers, innocent Iraqis die needlessly and our politicians in DC have fully armored vehicles when most of our troops do not.

There has been an outrageous amount of evidence that the Bush administration has manufactured us into a war that has been overlooked for 3 years. The Downing Street memos have been authenticated by Blair himself in Parlaiment session. What is it going to take for America to wake up and put an end to all of the misadventures of Bush and Co.?

The longer the GOP protects them and the American public lets them slide, the more likely we are to see a terrorism attack that makes 9/11 look like a small matter.

Friday, July 01, 2005

DU Report "Suppressed"...

WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq

I am posting this as a direct result of all those who attempt to argue that a weapon made from nuclear waste and by products are not harmful to human beings...which in all seriousness, is a poor argument and lacks any common sense at all.

An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret.
The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO.

Baverstock also believes that if the study had been published when it was completed in 2001, there would have been more pressure on the US and UK to limit their use of DU weapons in last year’s war, and to clean up afterwards.

Hundreds of thousands of DU shells were fired by coalition tanks and planes during the conflict, and there has been no comprehensive decontamination. Experts from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have so far not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution.

“Our study suggests that the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq could pose a unique health hazard to the civilian population,” Baverstock told the Sunday Herald.

“There is increasing scientific evidence the radio activity and the chemical toxicity of DU could cause more damage to human cells than is assumed.”

Baverstock was the WHO’s top expert on radiation and health for 11 years until he retired in May last year. He now works with the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Kuopio in Finland, and was recently appointed to the UK government’s newly formed Committee on Radio active Waste Management.

While he was a member of staff, WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, which was co-authored by Professor Carmel Mothersill from McMaster University in Canada and Dr Mike Thorne, a radiation consultant.

You can not make a weapon out of a substance that is even slightly radioactive, use that weapon in very large amounts and not expect it to cause some kind of radioactive damage (along with the other damage it causes). To argue that it does not cause such is beyond ridiculous and shows a complete detachment from reality.

The study suggested that the low-level radiation from DU could harm cells adjacent to those that are directly irradiated, a phenomenon known as “the bystander effect”. This undermines the stability of the body’s genetic system, and is thought by many scientists to be linked to cancers and possibly other illnesses.

In addition, the DU in Iraq, like that used in the Balkan conflict, could turn out to be contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive waste . That would make it more radioactive and hence more dangerous, Baverstock argued.

“The radiation and the chemical toxicity of DU could also act together to create a ‘cocktail effect’ that further increases the risk of cancer. These are all worrying possibilities that urgently require more investigation,” he said.

Baverstock’s anxiety about the health effects of DU in Iraq is shared by Pekka Haavisto, the chairman of the UN Environment Programme’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva. “It is certainly a concern in Iraq, there is no doubt about that,” he said.

UNEP, which surveyed DU contamination in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, is keen to get into Iraq to monitor the situation as soon as possible. It has been told by the British government that about 1.9 tonnes of DU was fired from tanks around Basra, but has no information from US forces, which are bound to have used a lot more.

Haavisto’s greatest worry is when buildings hit by DU shells have been repaired and reoccupied without having been properly cleaned up. Photographic evidence suggests that this is exactly what has happened to the ministry of planning building in Baghdad.

He also highlighted evidence that DU from weapons had been collected and recycled as scrap in Iraq. “It could end up in a fork or a knife,” he warned.

“It is ridiculous to leave the material lying around and not to clear it up where adults are working and children are playing. If DU is not taken care of, instead of decreasing the risk you are increasing it. It is absolutely wrong.”

If we can drop this kind of stuff on other people, there is no earthly reason why they can not drop it on us.

I suppose those using it have not given that much thought...