In this Issue:

Sick Secrets: Commentary by Rev. Michael Piazza
Treason at the Times: Bush attacks NYT after leak
Our Nation Needs Fewer Secrets: by Jimmy Carter
Freedom of the Press Loses 220-195: House votes on resolution
It’s never been this easy: H4PJ Partners with GoodSearch.com

Sick Secrets
by Rev. Michael S. Piazza

In the therapeutic community there is an often-used phrase, “You are only as sick as your secrets.” That is an important truth to learn when one is recovering from abuse or addiction. I would suggest that it is also true about a nation.

This past week both President Bush and Vice President Cheney went on the offensive against the New York Times and other news providers for breaking the story that the administration is tracking financial transactions without warrants. This is not the first time the administration has attacked the press rather than deal with the fact that they are at the very least circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There is little disagreement by anyone that tracking the financial dealings of terrorists is a good idea. Congress passed a law and established a legal process by which these things can be done. However, in pursuit of Dick Cheney’s expanded view of the power of the executive branch, they have examined financial transactions, conducted warrentless spying, and tracked every phone call made in America. These are just the secrets we have learned; who knows what we don’t know.

What has been interesting to me in the furor about the financial tracking revelations is that it really wasn’t a secret at all. This weekend, I read Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine, in which he describes, in great detail, the financial tracking of terrorists that has been taking place since September 12, 2001. The New York Times didn’t tell terrorists anything they did not already know. So, why the attacks by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney?

Some years ago, right-wing conservatives introduced into our vocabulary the concept of the “liberal bias” of the media. The consistent and repeated use of that word drove the media in this country rightward. The ascent of Fox was just one outcome. Now it appears the Bush Administration has decided that, by attacking the Times as unpatriotic and “dangerous” for publishing its secrets, it can chill investigative reporting and change the subject.

In my opinion, the media already has given this administration too much of a free ride. They have colluded with the President in creating a culture of fear that uses secrets in much the same way a totalitarian state would. Incrementally, under the guise of “making us safe from terror” the most secretive administration in history has persistently eroded our civil liberties. It has tortured prisoners while signing a law prohibiting it but adding a signing statement reserving the right to continue doing it. Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” The current American mantra seems to be, “Take my liberty but give me security.” While we have a greater probability of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist, we have allowed our fears to be so exploited that we have passively surrendered our freedoms and our values. Now the freedom of the press is under attack. Where will we draw the line? We need to figure that out before it is too late and we end up becoming like the very totalitarian nations of which we are afraid.

<--back to top-->

Treason at the Times
by Larry Beinhart
Originally Published by CommonDreams.org

Treason! At the NY Times!

George Bush, as reported by the AP and widely reprinted, said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America … [and] makes it harder to win this war on terror."

Peter King, (Republican, NY), also speaking to the AP, said, "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

"Some of the press, and particularly the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," Cheney said the day the story was published.
Toronto Star

"Loose lips kill American people," said the Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Toronto Star

“Running the story about the money-tracing program is a version of giving Anne Frank’s address to the Nazis.”
Richard Valeriani, Huffington Post

Wow! That’s heavy stuff!

How many American people, I would like to ask House Speaker Hastert, have these loose lips killed?

In the days following the NY Times story, I bet Al Qaeda assassins immediately began targeting international financial auditors. That’s why we’ve heard all those reports of slaughter in the streets of Brussels, Zurich, and Berne! And we can safely blame the NY Times for each and every one of those deaths!

Oh? The rate of death by violence of CPAs has not risen significantly in the past few days? How can that be?

If the story was like giving Anne Frank’s address to the Nazis, somebody must have been shipped off to a concentration camp or dead! Mr. Valeriani, the author of that metaphor, was an NBC reporter for 28 years, back when the “news was news.” Some young Jewish girl must have been taken. Or a Christian girl. Or a banker’s daughter. Somebody.

Well, alright, nobody died.

But surely it made it harder to pursue the war on terror! Surely! Dick Cheney said so.

Frankly, I’m in favor of following the money and finding out who backed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It’s been almost five years. How come it’s not been done?

There’s nothing shocking about the existence of the program. The only thing that’s shocking is its failure to produce results.

Click HERE to continue reading.

Hope for Peace & Justice needs your support to continue to provide a progressive, religious response to the Religious Right. Donations, at any amount, are greatly appreciated. Click here to Donate to H4PJ.

<--back to top-->

Our Nation Needs Fewer Secrets
by Jimmy Carter
Originally Published by the Miami Herald

The U.S. Freedom of Information Act turns 40 today, the day we celebrate our independence. But this anniversary will not be a day of celebration for the right to information in our country. Our government leaders have become increasingly obsessed with secrecy. Obstructionist policies and deficient practices have ensured that many important public documents and official actions remain hidden from our view.

The events in our nation today -- war, civil rights violations, spiraling energy costs, campaign finance and lobbyist scandals -- dictate the growing need and citizens' desire for access to public documents. A poll conducted last year found that 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about government secrecy. This is understandable when the U.S. government uses at least 50 designations to restrict unclassified information and created 81 percent more ''secrets'' in 2005 than in 2000, according to the watchdog coalition OpenTheGovernment.org.

Moreover, the response to FOIA requests often does not satisfy the transparency objectives or provisions of the law, which, for example, mandates an answer to information requests within 20 working days.

According to the National Security Archives 2003 report, median response times may be as long as 905 working days at the Department of Agriculture and 1,113 working days at the Environmental Protection Agency. The only recourse for unsatisfied requesters is to appeal to the U.S. District Court, which is costly, timely and unavailable to most people. Policies that favor secrecy, implementation that does not satisfy the law, lack of a mandated oversight body and inaccessible enforcement mechanisms have put the United States behind much of the world in the right to information.

Increasingly, developed and developing nations are recognizing that a free flow of information is fundamental for democracy. Whether it's government or private companies that provide public services, access to their records increases accountability and allows citizens to participate more fully in public life. It is a critical tool in fighting corruption, and people can use it to improve their own lives in the areas of healthcare, education, housing and other public services. Perhaps most important, access to information advances citizens' trust in their government, allowing people to understand policy decisions and monitor their implementation.

Nearly 70 countries have passed legislation to ensure the right to request and receive public documents, the vast majority in the past decade and many in middle- and low-income nations. While the United States retreats, the international trend toward transparency grows, with laws often more comprehensive and effective than our own. Unlike FOIA, which covers only the executive branch, modern legislation includes all branches of power and some private companies. Moreover, new access laws establish ways to monitor implementation and enforce the right, holding agencies accountable for providing information quickly and fully.

What difference do these laws make?

Click here to continue reading.

<--back to top-->

Freedom of the Press Loses 220-195
by John Nichols
Originally published by The Nation

There is one -- count him, one -- Republican member of the House of Representatives who supports Freedom of the Press.

Connecticut Congressman Chris Shays was the only member of the Republican caucus to join Democrats in opposing a House resolution that condemns news organizations for providing the American people with information about what their government is doing in their name but without their informed consent.

The non-binding resolution, rushed onto the House floor after President Bush and Vice President Cheney launched a public relations war against the New York Times for published leaked details of a Treasury Department effort to monitor bank transfers, was endorsed by a vote of 220-195 Thursday.

Voting to take a swipe at the Constitution were 219 Republicans and Louisiana Democrat Charlie Melancon.

Voting to protect and preserve the First Amendment were 194 Democrats and Shays.

The resolution, which was sponsored by Ohio Republican Mike Oxley, a powerful House member with close ties to the White House, declared "support for intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation" -- something no one in the House is likely to oppose. But it also put the House on record as "condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances" -- a message intended to intimidate whistleblowers and reporters who seek to expose assaults on the privacy rights of Americans that have been undertaken by the administration in a secretive manner that is inconsistent with Federal law and that eschews appropriate Congressional consultation.

Just to make his point clear, Oxley explained to his colleagues that the intention of his resolution was to signal that the government "expects the cooperation of all news media."

That sounded a little like a pronouncement from a Communist Party Congress in Beijing to Congressman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House. Both the United States and China "seem to be eager to clamp down as much as possible on their journalistic critics," Obey explained before voting "no."

Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the New York Democrat who co-chairs the House Future of Media Caucus and is one of the chamber's stalwart defenders of civil liberties, told his colleagues, "This measure attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration, which continues to violate the law. This president is in favor of releasing classified information to the press when it's to his political advantage and condemning the press when information reveals that the administration may be violating the law."

Added Hinchey, "Freedom of the press is essential to a functioning democracy in this country. However, this White House along with this rubber stamping, Republican Congress are impeding the press' ability to report the news and making it difficult for the public to understand the truth."

Congressman James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, was blunter. The representative, whose district is home to thousands of federal employees -- many of them involved in intelligence gathering -- referred to the resolution as "nuts."

Moran is, of course, correct.

Remarkably, only one Republican decided not to follow his party over the cliff of authoritarian ranting: Shays.

The Connecticut Republican had better watch out. He may find that his dissent will cost him his parking privileges -- or some other perk of office.

House Republicans are in a punitive mood. Arizona Representative J.D. Hayworth, who can usually be counted on to up the loony quotient, has collected the signatures of 70 House members, all Republicans, on a letter calling for the media credentials of New York Times reporters to be revoked.

What's next? A petition to take away Chris Shays' elevator pass?

<--back to top-->

It’s never been this easy
H4PJ partners with GoodSearch.com

Dear [% recip.FIRSTNAME({ifEmpty='Friend'})%],

Hope for Peace & Justice raises money in various ways. But it’s never been this easy. Now you can raise money for Hope for Peace & Justice simply by searching the Internet using GoodSearch.com.

GoodSearch.com works like any other search engine; the site is actually powered by Yahoo! The difference is each time you use GoodSearch.com, money is generated for us. We receive $.01 for each search. So, if each of you who receive this email uses GoodSearch.com once each day, we will receive more than $50,000 per year!

Here’s how it works:

1. Go to GoodSearch.com.
2. Type Hope for Peace and Justice into the “I support” box and click on “verify.”
3. Search the Internet just like you would with any search engine.
4. Since GoodSearch shares its advertising revenue with charities and schools, every time you search the Internet at GoodSearch, you’ll be earning money for us.

GoodSearch also has a toolbar you can download from the homepage so that you can search right from the top of your browser.

H4PJ will earn $.01 for each search on GoodSearch.com. The more people who use the site, the more money we’ll earn. So, please spread the word!

Send this message to your email list.

Thank you for supporting Hope for Peace & Justice through your online searches.

Blessings,

Mack Campbell
Development Specialist
www.h4pj.org

<--back to top-->