Saturday, April 20, 2013

Congress and the Executive Branch no longer required to file financial disclosures

 
President Obama signs the Original STOCK Act written by Louise Slaughter.
Mr. Obama talks about the values of 'fairness' and 'hard work' before signing the Original STOCK Act.  The original Act has since been modified under S.716.
Credit: US Govt. Work; Public Domain; http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse?feature=watch
 
Yes, it's a law.  Apparently under S.716 (a modification of the STOCK Act) the Congress of the United States of America and the Executive Branch are free from those annoying financial disclosures regarding non-public trading information.
 
 
The Modified Stock Act (S.716). Credit: US Govt. Work; Public Domain; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s716enr/pdf/BILLS-113s716enr.pdf

The Original Stock Act (Public Law 112-105).  Credit: US Govt. Work; Public Domain; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ105/html/PLAW-112publ105.htm

If one visits the White House List of Signed Legislation it appears at the top and is dated April 15, 2013.  However, we first became aware of the legislation via a Tech Dirt post on The Hacker News this week.  But that post and the FireDogLake post don't seem to include these links on their sites - even though they made these "great catches".  But (in an earlier post) FDL did catch the letter to  the Honorable Harry Reid and the Honorable Mitch McConnell re. the STOCK act.

In that letter the SEA (Senior Executives Association) complained that the "old" STOCK Act was a violation of The Privacy Act and "burdensome" regulation.  But didn't the President's promise on transparency mean that the public should know about such unlimited and inside financial transactions by our lawmakers and executives?  And what about the "burdensome" complaint?  For a Congress that works only 126 days to 109 days per year - it can't present such a burden - especially when our Federal employees stand to gain untold millions of dollars due to their positions.  You would likely be fired from your private position/job if you were to gain such gross amounts for such transactions - and likely jailed for corruption.

But back to the SEA - posted on their landing mission statement is the following "The Senior Executives Association is a nonprofit professional association that promotes ethical and dynamic public service...".  Yet, the request for modification of the STOCK Act does not seem ethical in that it does not present the transparency in the needed promise to get the current Administration elected into office.

The (offending) section of S.716 is Section 1 which includes, but is not limited to: "



SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS OF ONLINE ACCESS TO CERTAIN FINANCIAL

DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND RELATED FORMS.
 
 

(a) PUBLIC, ONLINE DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

FORMS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except with respect to financial disclosure



forms filed by officers and employees referred to in paragraph

(2), section 8(a) and section 11(a) of the STOCK Act (5 U.S.C.

App. 105 note) shall not be effective.
 

(2) EXEMPTED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.—The officer and



employees referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) The President.

(B) The Vice President.

(C) Any Member of Congress.

(D) Any candidate for Congress.

(E) Any officer occupying a position listed in section

5312 or section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, having

been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate..."

Link here to the Original STOCK Act (112-105 linked above also) to see that Sec. 8a and Sec. 11a do exclude members of Congress and members of the Executive Branch from reporting on those "burdensome" financial disclosures.

 


Thursday, February 7, 2013

Imminent Threat

Imminent threat

The current buzzword going around in politics and the media regarding the US Administration Use of Lethal Drone Force Legal Review (imprimatur: NBC News).

Apparently none of the sources cited in our posting "Are Drone Strikes a Form of Extrajudicial Killing?" searched their legal dictionaries or other sources for that phrase. 

Our blog did that and found possibly two applicable definitions.

The first one comes to us from The Law Dictionary - Imminent Danger

The other comes from The Free Dictionary - Imminent Threat (via public international law).

Regarding the first definition - you can guess that it concerns incidences 'where a person or persons may be called upon to defend themselves against homicide without protection from the law or other persons'.  The intended victim must be "reasonable" and "prudent".  A few court decisions are cited with the brief description.

It, of course, mentions nothing about drone strikes and persons perceived to be terrorists.  Innocent collateral victims of drone strikes are not mentioned - even though politicos have been seen defending said drone strike practice and policy.  For more on that perspective please see the report by Micah Zenko, Council on Foreign Relations.  (For just the summary and recommendations go to pp. 22+.)

The implication is that the US Policy requires some oversight by Congress - perhaps even transparency.  Also, there could be consequences with our foreign counterparts if the policy does not conform to expectations.

The second definition (Imminent Threat) is defined as a criterion - which makes it, too, somewhat vague as the pundits have been complaining.  Criteria like this can make for irreversible consequences and innocent collateral casualties and fatalities.

And some folks don't have a problem with that - and that makes the rest of us weep.





Thursday, January 17, 2013

Nightmareliner


Nightmareliner -

(Updated 1_20_2013 see below.  And again 1_30_2013.)

The VERY unfortunate and unfunny conflation of "Dreamliner" with nightmare/s or nightmarish events seen with the Dreamliner (Boeing's 787 airliner).

We'll go to the latest press release from the NTSB: "Second Investigative Update of Boston Boeing 787 Battery Fire". Yes, you read that right, 'battery fire'. Seems that the Lithium-ion batteries for the jets are catching fire (for "unknown reasons") with leaks of the lithium electrolyte fluid a possibility? An electrolyte leak could make fire spread and fire conditions even worse - fortunately one of the incidents required only "just about one half hour of extinguishing by the emergency staff".

 

The NTSB release almost occurred simultaneously with the FAA Dreamliner grounding announcement.


Credit: NTSB, US Government Work, Public Domain

 

As you can see posted above, the NTSB posted photos of burned 787 batteries with its PR.  Well, shouldn't they have fire-tested those batteries before? Well, yes and no, we found a PowerPoint presentation from the FAA regarding the fire testing of smaller commercial lithium ion batteries - but nothing yet on the full-scale commercial airline format. At least nothing related to the full-scale battery was found in our search.



Presumably, GS Yuasa was awarded the contract to supply the full-scale 787 aviation batteries. Link to the (presumed) spec sheet here. The spec sheet (as of this writing) states that the battery has a "Prismatic Shape" - which doesn't appear to resemble the photo/s supplied by the NTSB. What shape exactly is the battery form supposed to be?

 

If we read further down the spec sheet (under "Safety and Handling") we see that the "cell design details and specification are subject to change without notice." We sincerely hope that that verbiage wasn't approved in the *original contract.

 

The "Safety and Handling" section goes on to read: "Inappropriate handling or application...can result...even in the result of smoke generation or fire".

 

Yes, that is a known safety/hazard factor in Lithium ion batteries! See the link to the above PDF. Also, see the reports from the Consumer Product Safety Commission dating back to 2006. Of course, the GSY contract award for the specified batteries pre-dates those 2006 incidents.

 



 

Credit: Federal Register, U. S. Government Work, Public Domain

Further safety and hazard precautions are found for Lithium ion batteries in what appears to be a sample military grade battery Material Safety Data Sheet. Please note: the manufacturer of the battery for our sample MSDS is not involved or implicated in the current Dreamliner battery fires!

 

And the Wikimedia Foundation has an Ebook available on Google Books - and it also contains similar recommendations and precautions.

 

The element Lithium, itself, is rated as non-flammable but has some other safety issues on its own. The problems appear to arise in the Lithium battery - and its electrolyte (when leaked) - in certain applications like the Nightmareliner. Er, sorry, we mean the "Dreamliner". To be fair in the end, Boeing has also posted their own PR statement on the incidents (FAA 787 Action).


Update 1_20_2013 The FAA #designated Boeing to generate LiIon battery data #Nightmareliner http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324624404578253010041254492.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo Via @WSJ  Most of the video report given by Andy Pasztor LA WSJ Sr. Correspondent.

Update 1_30_2013 Boeing's Batteries Draw Criticism as Dreamliner Probe Continues | Autopia | Wired.com http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/01/boeing-787-battery-design-musk/
Update 2_05_2013

Boeing Asks FAA to Lift Grounding of Dreamliners for Test Flights http://soc.li/YoyaG3I Via CNBC


Update 2_10_2013
 

Expect Dreamliner delays, Boeing tells airlines http://reut.rs/1501qgw via @reuters
 

Please note this posting appears in our sister blog: http://antizendictionary.blogspot.com/2013/01/nightmareliner.html
 
Update 3_06_2013
 
Analytical theory may bring improvements to lithium-ion batteries http://phys.org/news/2013-03-analytical-theory-lithium-ion-batteries.html
 via @physorg_com
How lithium electrochemical research might save the Boeing Dreamliner http://www.examiner.com/article/how-lithium-electrochemical-research-might-save-the-boeing-dreamliner
via @examinercom
 
 
 
 
 

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Are Drone Strikes a Form of Extrajudicial Killing?

 

Are Drone Strikes a Form of Extrajudicial Killing?

Updated 2_05_2013 (See below).  And again 2_06_+_07_+_10_+_2013 (below).

Some quite possibly are.  In this Examiner.com article by one of us (U. S. Congress hearing on unmanned weaponized vehicles) we learn about a hearing (11/16/2012) Congressman Dennis Kucinich had on Drone Strikes.  Mr. Kucinich once again (?) offered some public “disagreement” on drone strikes last week.  And what exactly is an “extrajudicial” killing?  Extrajudicial means (1) “done outside the law”, roughly.  So an extrajudicial killing is one that is “done outside the law”.  This is why nationally-authorized (which nation?) drone strikes can be so troubling.

 

As Professor James Cavallaro pointed out in the 11/16 Briefing “that some *475 to 885 innocent Pakistanis had been killed by these drones from 2004 to 2012”.  In so-called ‘signature strikes’ targeting individuals claimed to have been in ‘suspicious activity’.  In essence, they may have been denied due process – a concept as old as the Magna Carta if not older.  Individuals who may been collaterally killed by strategic and other drone strikes might then have been killed/judged without due process of law – as extrajudicial collateral killings.  These strikes may thus infuriate/alienate the local peoples whom then striking national authority may have been protecting.  The argument has also been put out that this creates further allegiance to terrorists and other enemies.

 

The U. S. Declaration of Independence, like most national law, states that we have a “right to life and liberty” amongst other things.  The absence of due process in some drone strikes seems to be a danger to that/those concepts.  That is enough reason to care about EKs and DSs.  EKs and DSs may have been obviously illegal if (as the Examiner article reminds) first responders and civilian rescuers had been targeted.   There is a legal basis for some of this in the United States and there is not. 

The recently passed NDAA 2013 Act (H. R. 4310) does make (funding) provisions for Counterrorism (Sub-title D) with the following Sections:

“Sec. 1021. Extension of authority to make rewards for combating terrorism.

Sec. 1022. Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United

States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station,

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Sec. 1023. Report on recidivism of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who have been transferred to foreign

countries.

Sec. 1024. Notice and report on use of naval vessels for detention of individuals

captured outside Afghanistan pursuant to the Authorization for Use of

Military Force.

Sec. 1025. Notice required prior to transfer of certain individuals detained at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan.

Sec. 1026. Report on recidivism of individuals formerly detained at the Detention

Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan.”

The above Sections only cover punishments such as detention and largely in Afghanistan borders.  A review of these and later sections do not cover the use of drone strikes and “pain of death”.  Only in other nations is it “lawful” to use lethal force against “enemy combatants”.    Such killings may be legal (for terrorists) or illegal according to U. S. Code 28 Sections 1350 and 1605A.  In the US Codes 28 1350 (previous) a person (survivors in our case) may have remedy through a tort (statute of limitations being 10 years) and in 1605A only “a state” may not be granted immunity for terrorism or the supporting of said terrorism (and more). 

Using/interpreting the above laws it would seem that any nation (by U.S. Code) would be engaged in extrajudicial killings if no act of war were declared and performed against no enemy combatants.    There is a DOD Process (same link provided earlier) for determining whether or not an individual is an enemy combatant.  These suggestions make the “Manning/Wikileaks” case/s seem more transparent.  No national laws could have been broken if “certain records have been made classified”.  That said, for our own and your protection, we can’t support or deny the case.

For the case of due process, this must be judged by the courts when there is a desire to extend “statutory requirements” in a “time of war”.  We wonder how the courts would judge on the recent killing of a Pakistani tribal leader and “good Taliban” (not necessarily an enemy combatant?) Maulvi Nazir.  Even though the Pakistani government may have called him a ‘good Taliban’ he has been described as a ‘militant’ – but not an enemy combatant. 
 
For a comprehensive review on the topic of drone strikes, see the Cornell Law report on “The civilian impact of drone strikes”.  One of the questions raised by the CL report (per the Wired Danger Room) is that even the White House does not know how many drone strike fatalities have taken place.  Indeed, in a White House press briefing (June 5, 2012) the 2008 killing of Abdullah Said al-Libi is mentioned very briefly.   True, while keeping such drone strike fatality information classified may protect names, lives and missions of our military and intelligence personnel it brings us back to a point made by *Professor Cavallaro.  It is difficult to judge whether drone strikes (fatalities) are extrajudicial killings without some sort of body count.


Update 1_30_2013 PBS stares back at 1.8-gigapixel ARGUS drone imaging system http://phys.org/news/2013-01-pbs-gigapixel-drone-imaging.html#ajTabs Via Phys.org.

Their link to the PBS Show "Rise of the Drones" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html

Update 2_05_2013

Via BBC News






Even though it links to a US Government Document we cannot provide a copy of it here as it bears the imprimatur of NBC News.
The controversial  phrase "imminent threat" appears on page 8 of the PDF's text.  This sounds like a "battlefield term" and not easily understood by the non-military portion of public without further study.  It seems like invoking the "law of war" upon an individual?
The document cites multiple references to US Laws and Codes but curiously omits the Codes 1350, 1605A and 4310 that we cited above in this posting.
Letter to Eric Holder from Sensenbrenner and Conyers about the Draft of the White Paper (Nov. 8 2011?) http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/Conyers-Nadler-Scott121204.pdf
Drones: Confidential Justice Department Memo: Targeted Killing of Americans Does Not Require 'Clear Evidence' of Imminent Attack - @Gawker http://gawker.com/5981678/confidential-justice-department-memo-targeted-killing-of-americans-does-not-require-clear-evidence-of-imminent-attack
Update 2_06_2013
 



John Brennan faces grilling over leaked drone memo as senators demand answers http://gu.com/p/3dt4p/tw  via @guardian

BBC News - CIA operating drone base in Saudi Arabia, US media reveal http://bbc.in/XiqIkm

Drones: The Washington Post and a Bunch of Other News Organizations Helped Keep CIA Drone Base Secret - @Gawker  http://gawker.com/5982123/the-washington-post-and-a-bunch-of-other-news-organizations-helped-keep-cia-drone-base-secret
A one-paragraph law justifies the U.S.’ 11-year war on terror. We break it down: propub.ca/X3CQaT

It's ok to question the president. In fact, it's mandatory. He asked us to "hold him acountable"-- bit.ly/YaJA3L#drones
 
Update 2_07_2013

Lawmakers to see classified drone memos ahead of Brennan confirmation hearing

Fox News
- ‎1 hour ago‎
The Obama administration plans to give lawmakers sensitive and long-sought documents Thursday morning that provide the legal rationale for drone strikes on Americans, in a bid to tamp down concerns ahead of the confirmation hearing for President ...
Ken Dilanian

CNN Staff
 
Lesa Jansen, CNN
 
Via Gawker


What is a secret drone base that's not actually a secret? The Washington Postand the New York Timesrevealed today that they were among a number of news organizations that participated in a blackout regarding the location of a "secret" CIA drone base in Saudia Arabia at the behest of the Obama...
 
You can't sign the Stop Drones WH petition because it failed the 100K signed threshold https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-drone-strikes/QGjycNt4

However, via Haloefekti
Sign the other Stop the #drones petitions, several like this 1.usa.gov/WDmdBG...(Cont libertweet.com/t/ES28m)
Reforming US Drone Strike Policies by Micah Zenko Council on Foreign Relations. http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Drones_CSR65.pdf

Two children holding a sign " Drones kill innocent children like us " #NoDrones twitpic.com/c0s95c

Update 2_10_2013
Via Gawker
Drones: Is This The CIA's Secret Saudi Arabia Drone Base? - @Gawker http://gawker.com/5982850/is-this-the-cias-secret-saudi-arabia-drone-base
Update 2_11_2013
'McLaughlin Group' Panel Debates Drone Program (VIDEO): via HuffPost huff.to/12jwCmF Surprise,pat Buchanan on side against the prez. Via sylvaners@Sylvaners
Push to Expand U.S. 'Kill List' Officials Press to Mark Algerian Militant as Target for Death or Capture http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906004578292371006607066.html?KEYWORDS=US+expands+kill+list#articleTabs%3Dvideo Via @WSJ

However, the 'target' in question (Mokhtar Belmokhtar) has already been given a life sentence and 2 death sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokhtar_Belmokhtar


1.       Updated 3_06_2013 MotherJones

Drones: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know But Were Always Afraid to Ask http://bit.ly/ZeheGc

 

Eric Holder: Drone Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil Legal, Hypothetically http://huff.to/13DL0v3
 via @HuffPostPol

Update for Saturday 6/29/2013

Must see BookTV segment about "Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield"