|
|
Editor's Note: Each year the Journalism Department at Sonoma State
University in California combs the media in search of stories that were
either under-reported or neglected altogether by the Major Media and
publishes their findings in a report called 'Project Censored'. This
issue we conclude the second part of a two part series on The Top
10 Censored Stories of 2007.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency that is
supposed to protect federal employees who blow the whistle on waste,
fraud, and abuse is dismissing hundreds of cases while advancing almost
none.
According to the Annual Report for 2004 (which was not released until
the end of first quarter fiscal year 2006) less than 1.5 percent
of whistleblower claims were referred for investigation while more than
1000 reports were closed before they were even opened.
Only eight claims were found to be substantiated, and one of those
included the theft of a desk, while another included attendance
violations. Favorable outcomes have declined 24 percent overall, and
this is all in the first year that the new special counsel, Scott Bloch,
was in office.
Bloch, who has received numerous complaints since he took office,
defends his first thirteen months in office by pointing to a decline in
backlogged cases.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Executive Director Jeff Ruch says, "Backlogs and delays are bad,
but they are not as bad as simply dumping the cases altogether."
According to figures released by Bloch in February of 2005 more than 470
claims of retaliation were dismissed, and not once had he affirmatively
represented a whistleblower.
In fact, in order to speed dismissals, Bloch instituted a rule
forbidding his staff from contacting a whistleblower if their disclosure
was deemed incomplete or ambiguous. Instead, the OSC would dismiss the
matter. As a result, hundreds of whistleblowers never had a chance to
justify their cases.
The Department of Labor has also gotten on board in a
behind-the-scenes maneuver to cancel whistleblower protections. If it
succeeds, the Labor Department will dismiss claims by federal workers
who report violations under the Clean Air Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
General Counsel for PEER, Richard Condit says, "Federal workers
in agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency function
as the public's eyes and ears . . . the Labor Department is moving to
shut down one of the few legal avenues left to whistleblowers."
"These
documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured
detainees to death during interrogation," said Amrit Singh, an
attorney with the ACLU. "The public has a right to know who authorized
the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered
up."
The Department of Defense released the autopsy reports in response to a
Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for
Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common
Sense, and Veterans for Peace.
One of forty-four U.S. military autopsy reports reads as follows: "Final
Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia
(lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the
recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage
extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy
revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back
and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks.
Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and
encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts. #8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act Sources: New Standard, Title: "Pentagon Seeks Greater Immunity from Freedom of Information" Author: Michelle Chen
According to amended language in the Defense Authorization Act, an
operational file can be any information related to "the conduct of
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence operations or intelligence
or security liaison arrangements or information exchanges with foreign
governments or their intelligence or security services."
Critics warn that such vague bureaucratic language is a green light for
the DIA to thwart a wide array of legitimate information requests
without proper justification. Steven Aftergood, director of the
research organization Project on Government Secrecy, warns, "If it falls
in the category of 'operational files,' it's over before it begins."
Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, adds, "These
exemptions create a black hole into which the bureaucracy can drive just
about any kind of information it wants to. And you can bet that
Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib-style information is what DIA and others would
want to hide."
Another development in this issue area over the past year is that
secrecy and intelligence gathering have become intense domestic
political issues. As a result, heightened public attention to the
gradual rollback on open-government laws is beginning to stir some
congressional action in the form of hearings and investigative reports,
not just related to classified information per se but also the new
quasi-classified categories that have cropped up since 9/11.
Earlier this year, the Pentagon initiated a department-wide review of
FOIA practices, though it is unclear whether this internal evaluation
will lead to actual changes in how information is disclosed or withheld
from public purview.
Student
Researchers: Bailey Malone and Lisa Dobias The
World Bank has meanwhile outlined the framework for a Palestinian Middle
East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) policy in their most recent report on
Palestine published in December of 2004,
Central to World Bank proposals are the construction of massive
industrial zones to be financed by the World Bank and other donors and
controlled by the Israeli Occupation. Built on Palestinian land around
the Wall, these industrial zones are envisaged as forming the basis of
export-orientated economic development. Palestinians imprisoned by the
Wall and dispossessed of land can be put to work for low wages.
These industrial zones will clearly benefit Israel abroad where goods
"Made in Palestine" have more favorable trade conditions in
international markets. IPS reporter Emad Mekay, in February 2007,
revealed the World Bank's plan to partially fund Palestinian MEFTA
infrastructure with loans to Palestine.
"We're not planning to diminish the war," Seymour Hersh quotes
Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute,
whose views often mirror those of Dick Cheney and Donald
Rumsfeld. "We just want to change the mix of the forces doing the
fighting-Iraqi infantry with American support and greater use of
airpower."
While battle fatigue increases among U.S. troops, the prospect of using
airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused
great unease within the military. Air Force commanders, in particular,
have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis will
eventually be responsible for target selection.
Hersh quotes a senior military planner now on assignment in the
Pentagon, "Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals,
or other warlords, or to snuff members of their own sect and blame
someone else? Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of al-Qaeda, or
the insurgency, or the Iranians?"
Visions of a frightful future in Iraq should not overshadow the
devastation already caused by present levels of American air power
loosed, in particular, on heavily populated urban areas of that country.
The tactic of using massively powerful 500 and 1,000-pound bombs in
urban areas to target small pockets of resistance fighters has, in fact,
long been employed in Iraq. No intensification of the air war is
necessary to make it commonplace.
A serious study of violence to civilians in Iraq by a British medical
journal, The Lancet, released in October, estimated that 85
percent of all violent deaths in Iraq are generated by coalition
forces. 95 percent of reported killings (all attributed to U.S.
forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets, or
other forms of aerial weaponry.
Shifting the mechanism of the destruction of Iraq from soldiers and
Marines to distant and safer air power would be successful in several
ways. It would reduce the negative publicity value of maimed American
soldiers and Marines would bring a portion of our troops home and give
the Army a necessary operational break. It would increase Air
Force and Naval budgets, and line defense contractor pockets.
By the time we figure out that it isn't working to make oil more secure
or to allow Iraqis to rebuild a stable country, the Army will have
recovered and can be redeployed in force.
|
|
|
|
||