Saturday, August 22, 2009
EVENT: Cynthia McKinney’s Gaza Solidarity Triumph Tour
I apologize for not posting this earlier - I just found out about it myself. Short notice, but will for sure be an awesome discussion if you can make it.
Aug. 20-24, 2009
Suppose a former member of Congress, not long out of office, were aboard a boat in international waters that is rammed and nearly sunk by a U.S. ally’s warship. Suppose that same former member of Congress were aboard another boat six months later, in June 2009, that is boarded and the entire crew and passengers arrested and imprisoned by a U.S. ally.
Suppose that same former member of Congress were to negotiate with Egypt and succeed in gaining permission to bring a convoy of humanitarian aid across the border into Gaza, where she witnessed and documented the devastation caused by Israel’s December-January Operation Cast Lead. And suppose all these extraordinary events were met with silence by nearly all media in the U.S.
Several opportunities to hear from the source about all this and more are coming up this week when former Congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney comes to the Bay Area for her Gaza Solidarity Triumph Tour Thursday-Monday, Aug. 20-24. Oakland’s landmark Grand Lake Theater is the venue for her first appearance and the main event on Thursday, Aug. 20, at 6:30 p.m.
All events are fundraisers for the San Francisco Bay View newspaper, named Best of the Bay 2009 by the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Here’s the schedule in a nutshell:
Thursday, Aug. 20, 6:30 p.m., Grand Lake Theater, 3200 Grand Ave., Oakland, $15 (no one turned away, space permitting), tickets available in advance at the Grand Lake box office
Friday, Aug. 21, 6:30 p.m., Black Dot, 1195 Pine St., West Oakland
Saturday, Aug. 22, 3 p.m., Warren Auditorium, Ives Hall, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, $5, free parking
Sunday, Aug. 23, 4 p.m., Lunacy Theater, Redstone Building, 2940 16th St. at Mission (16th Street BART), San Francisco, $15 (no one turned away, space permitting)
Monday, Aug. 24, 5:30 p.m., 33 Revolutions Café, 10086 San Pablo Ave., at Central, El Cerrito, no admission, dinner available for a reasonable price
As an advocate for oppressed people at home as well as abroad, Congresswoman McKinney chose to kick off her tour on Aug. 20 because it marks the first anniversary of the police beating inside KPFA of longtime volunteer broadcaster Nadra Foster, an issue that will be addressed at the Grand Lake. Also speaking on issues of police abuse will be members of the Oscar Grant family.
For more information or interview requests, contact Bay View editor Mary Ratcliff, (415) 671-0789 or editor@sfbayview.com
AP sources: Report reveals CIA mock executions
The CIA's internal investigator found that agency interrogators conducted mock executions of terror suspects and in one case threatened a detainee suspected in the USS Cole bombing with a gun and power drill, congressional officials said late Friday.
The disclosures are contained in a 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general, which has been kept secret and is to be released next week, two officials told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been cleared for release.
The report's findings were first reported by Newsweek on its Web site Friday night.
In one case, interrogators brought a gun and power drill into a session with suspected Cole bomber Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, the report says. The suicide bombing of the warship USS Cole killed 17 U.S. sailors in Yemen in 2000.
In another episode, a gunshot was fired in a room next to a detainee to make the prisoner believe another suspect had been killed, according to the report, which a federal judge has ordered to be made public Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Nashiri was one of three CIA prisoners subjected to waterboarding, a brutal interrogation technique that simulates drowning that was among 10 techniques approved by the Bush administration's Justice Department in 2002. President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have denounced waterboarding as torture.
"The CIA in no way endorsed behavior_ no matter how infrequent_ that went beyond formal guidance," said agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano. He declined to comment on the contents of the IG report.
Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.
Holder is considering whether to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation practices, a controversial move that would run counter to President Barack Obama's wishes to leave the issue in the past.
Gimigliano said the career prosecutors at the Justice Department have reviewed the report to determine if any laws were broken and whether the interrogators should be prosecuted.
"Professionals in the Department of Justice decided if and when to pursue prosecution," he said. "That's how the system was supposed to work, and that's how it did work."
Just one CIA contract interrogator, David Passaro, has been prosecuted. He was found guilty in 2007 in the beating death of a prisoner in Afghanistan.
The Los Angeles Times reported Aug. 9 that a CIA operative brought a gun into an interrogation booth to force a detainee to talk. One of the congressional officials told the AP that referred to the interrogation of the USS Cole suspect.
The IG review was completed in May 2004. The ACLU has sought its release since then. It was expected to be released earlier this year but was delayed by government request.
The IG review cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogation methods employed by CIA interrogators, according to quotes from the report that were contained in Bush-era Justice Department memos declassified this spring. It says no attacks were averted by information obtained using harsh interrogation methods.
The CIA detained and interrogated 94 terrorist suspects; 28 were subjected to harsh methods. Of those three were waterboarded, according to government documents made public earlier this year.
But former CIA Director Michael Hayden said this week at a panel discussion in Washington that the review also credits the harsh interrogation with yielding information on al-Qaida's basic infrastrucutre, which in turn allowed the CIA to fight the organization behind the 9/11 hijackings.
John L. Helgerson, the now-retired CIA inspector who spearheaded the investigation, told the AP in June that the report is a comprehensive review of everything the CIA did in the secret detention and interrogation program begun in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The investigation was undertaken in response to concerns expressed by agency employees about the program, he added.
The disclosures are contained in a 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general, which has been kept secret and is to be released next week, two officials told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been cleared for release.
The report's findings were first reported by Newsweek on its Web site Friday night.
In one case, interrogators brought a gun and power drill into a session with suspected Cole bomber Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, the report says. The suicide bombing of the warship USS Cole killed 17 U.S. sailors in Yemen in 2000.
In another episode, a gunshot was fired in a room next to a detainee to make the prisoner believe another suspect had been killed, according to the report, which a federal judge has ordered to be made public Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Nashiri was one of three CIA prisoners subjected to waterboarding, a brutal interrogation technique that simulates drowning that was among 10 techniques approved by the Bush administration's Justice Department in 2002. President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have denounced waterboarding as torture.
"The CIA in no way endorsed behavior_ no matter how infrequent_ that went beyond formal guidance," said agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano. He declined to comment on the contents of the IG report.
Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.
Holder is considering whether to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation practices, a controversial move that would run counter to President Barack Obama's wishes to leave the issue in the past.
Gimigliano said the career prosecutors at the Justice Department have reviewed the report to determine if any laws were broken and whether the interrogators should be prosecuted.
"Professionals in the Department of Justice decided if and when to pursue prosecution," he said. "That's how the system was supposed to work, and that's how it did work."
Just one CIA contract interrogator, David Passaro, has been prosecuted. He was found guilty in 2007 in the beating death of a prisoner in Afghanistan.
The Los Angeles Times reported Aug. 9 that a CIA operative brought a gun into an interrogation booth to force a detainee to talk. One of the congressional officials told the AP that referred to the interrogation of the USS Cole suspect.
The IG review was completed in May 2004. The ACLU has sought its release since then. It was expected to be released earlier this year but was delayed by government request.
The IG review cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogation methods employed by CIA interrogators, according to quotes from the report that were contained in Bush-era Justice Department memos declassified this spring. It says no attacks were averted by information obtained using harsh interrogation methods.
The CIA detained and interrogated 94 terrorist suspects; 28 were subjected to harsh methods. Of those three were waterboarded, according to government documents made public earlier this year.
But former CIA Director Michael Hayden said this week at a panel discussion in Washington that the review also credits the harsh interrogation with yielding information on al-Qaida's basic infrastrucutre, which in turn allowed the CIA to fight the organization behind the 9/11 hijackings.
John L. Helgerson, the now-retired CIA inspector who spearheaded the investigation, told the AP in June that the report is a comprehensive review of everything the CIA did in the secret detention and interrogation program begun in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The investigation was undertaken in response to concerns expressed by agency employees about the program, he added.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Bush White House politics linked to terror alerts
Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge says pressure from fellow Cabinet members to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election helped convince him it was time to quit working for President George W. Bush.
In a new book, Ridge says that despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft he objected to raising the security level, according to a publicity release from the book's publisher.
In the end the alert level was not changed.
Bush's former homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, said Thursday that politics never played a role in determining alert levels.
Two tapes were released by al-Qaida in the weeks leading up to the election — one by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the other by a man calling himself "Azzam the American." Terrorism experts suspected that "Azzam the American" was Adam Gadahn, a 26-year-old Californian whom the FBI had been urgently seeking.
Townsend said the videotapes contained "very graphic" and "threatening" messages.
Ridge's publicist, Joe Rinaldi, said Ridge was out of town and was not doing interviews until his book, "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... and How We Can Be Safe Again," is released on Sept. 1.
In 2004, Ridge explained why he didn't feel the alert should be raised. "We don't have to go to (code level) orange to take action in response either to these tapes or just general action to improve security around the country," he said then.
In 2005, months after he resigned, Ridge said his agency has been the most reluctant to raise the alert level. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'" he said during a panel discussion in May 2005. But his book appears to be the first time he publicly attributes some of the pressure to politics.
The Homeland Security Department, which Ridge was the first person to lead, faced criticism in 2004 from Democrats who alleged that raising the alert level was designed to boost support for the Bush administration during an election year.
Ridge, who resigned on Nov. 30, 2004, said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the Bush administration.
Townsend said that anytime there was a discussion of changing the alert level, she first spoke with Ridge and then, if necessary, called a meeting of the homeland security council comprising the secretaries of defense and homeland security, the attorney general and CIA and FBI directors. The group then made a recommendation to the president about whether the color-coded threat level should be raised.
"Never were politics ever discussed in this context in my presence," she said.
Asked if there was any reason for Ridge to have felt pressured, Townsend said: "He was certainly not pressured. And, by the way, he didn't object when it was raised and he certainly didn't object when it wasn't raised."
A former Republican congressman and governor of Pennsylvania, Ridge was widely named as a potential running mate to John McCain in 2008 before the GOP candidate chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
In a new book, Ridge says that despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft he objected to raising the security level, according to a publicity release from the book's publisher.
In the end the alert level was not changed.
Bush's former homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, said Thursday that politics never played a role in determining alert levels.
Two tapes were released by al-Qaida in the weeks leading up to the election — one by terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the other by a man calling himself "Azzam the American." Terrorism experts suspected that "Azzam the American" was Adam Gadahn, a 26-year-old Californian whom the FBI had been urgently seeking.
Townsend said the videotapes contained "very graphic" and "threatening" messages.
Ridge's publicist, Joe Rinaldi, said Ridge was out of town and was not doing interviews until his book, "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... and How We Can Be Safe Again," is released on Sept. 1.
In 2004, Ridge explained why he didn't feel the alert should be raised. "We don't have to go to (code level) orange to take action in response either to these tapes or just general action to improve security around the country," he said then.
In 2005, months after he resigned, Ridge said his agency has been the most reluctant to raise the alert level. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'" he said during a panel discussion in May 2005. But his book appears to be the first time he publicly attributes some of the pressure to politics.
The Homeland Security Department, which Ridge was the first person to lead, faced criticism in 2004 from Democrats who alleged that raising the alert level was designed to boost support for the Bush administration during an election year.
Ridge, who resigned on Nov. 30, 2004, said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the Bush administration.
Townsend said that anytime there was a discussion of changing the alert level, she first spoke with Ridge and then, if necessary, called a meeting of the homeland security council comprising the secretaries of defense and homeland security, the attorney general and CIA and FBI directors. The group then made a recommendation to the president about whether the color-coded threat level should be raised.
"Never were politics ever discussed in this context in my presence," she said.
Asked if there was any reason for Ridge to have felt pressured, Townsend said: "He was certainly not pressured. And, by the way, he didn't object when it was raised and he certainly didn't object when it wasn't raised."
A former Republican congressman and governor of Pennsylvania, Ridge was widely named as a potential running mate to John McCain in 2008 before the GOP candidate chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
What Makes Spain's Health Care System The Best? - An example of Single Payer
Spain's single-payer health care system is ranked seventh best in the world by the World Health Organization. The system offers universal coverage as a constitutionally-guaranteed right and no out-of-pocket expenses — aside from prescription drugs. Patients do complain, however, about the long wait to see specialists and undergo certain procedures.
STEVE INSKEEP, host:
Americans debating health care can do comparison shopping with other nations. We heard this week about Britain's system, and this morning we go to Spain. Its health care system is being ranked as one of the best in the world by the World Health Organization. As Jerome Socolovsky reports, most taxpayers there don't seem to mind paying for it.
(Soundbite of crowd chatter)
JEROME SOCOLOVSKY: La Paz University Hospital in Northern Madrid is not known for its creature comforts. But most patients say they're not bothered by the hard plastic chairs or the absence of soothing music in the waiting rooms. La Paz might be one of the oldest and biggest hospitals in Spain, but it's considered one of the best.
Unidentified Woman: (Spanish spoken)
Unidentified Man: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: Sali Avayeda(ph) has come for a follow-up appointment. She had a kidney transplant five months ago.
Ms. SALI AVAYEDA: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: I feel like a new person, she tells her doctor. Before the operation, Avayeda said she hardly ever set foot in a public health facility. She was one of the minority, the 10 percent of people in this country who pay extra to be treated at privately-run clinics. But when symptoms of kidney disease developed a few years ago, Avayeda headed straight to this public hospital.
Ms. AVAYEDA: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: The doctors are excellent. The nurses are very nice, and the service has been really good, she says.
(Soundbite of door opening)
SOCOLOVSKY: Out in the waiting room, another kidney recipient, 32-year-old Jorge Ordiya(ph), is not quite as enthusiastic.
Mr. JORGE ORDIYA: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: The care is good, technically speaking, but the personal service has its ups and downs, he says. The most common complaint of patients is the long wait to see specialists and undergo certain procedures. On the other hand, a study published last year in the U.S. journal Health Affairs found that in Spain, there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the United States.
Spain's constitution, drawn up in 1978 following the Franco dictatorship, not only guarantees the right to universal health care, it also requires the state to provide it. The World Health Organization's ranking system puts Spain's health care system seventh in the world, well ahead of America, even though it spends much less on health care.
Dr. Jimenez says the system covers virtually every medical need.
Dr. JIMENEZ (La Paz University Hospital): (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: I don't know of anyone who's had to go to another country for treatment that doesn't exist in Spain, he says. There are thousands of primary care clinics, even in small villages. Patients have a choice of doctors they can see as often as they like, and there are no co-payments and no claims forms. Even undocumented immigrants are treated.
In Spain, no one worries about their health coverage. If someone loses a job, is short of money or needs long-term care, the system will look after them. For those Americans who are used to private doctors offering a plethora of tests and the latest technologies, the Spanish system might seem a little basic, but no one is turned away.
Life expectancy in Spain is one of Europe's highest, and many of family practitioner Heronimo Fernandez Torente's(ph) patients in the northwestern city of Lugo are over 80 years old. He says there's no question of rationing.
Dr. HERONIMO FERNANDEZ TORENTE (Family Practitioner): (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: People come complaining of osteoarthritis or that they are 90 years old and their cholesterol is a bit too high, and you have to refer them for treatment, he says, because the system guarantees it.
Torente's also vice president of the main Spanish doctor's association, the OMC. He complains that physicians here are underpaid and overworked. Still, he defends Spain's medical service and insists it has nothing to do with socialism.
Dr. TORENTE: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: It's the humanization of medicine, he says. As a citizen, it's my obligation to make sure that everyone has basic health coverage. But while health care costs are rising fast, Spanish politicians don't dare limit coverage. On the contrary, one of the most sure-fire vote getters for both left and right is the promise to build new hospitals using taxpayers' money.
For NPR News, I'm Jerome Socolovsky in Madrid.
(Soundbite of music)
INSKEEP: This is NPR News.
STEVE INSKEEP, host:
Americans debating health care can do comparison shopping with other nations. We heard this week about Britain's system, and this morning we go to Spain. Its health care system is being ranked as one of the best in the world by the World Health Organization. As Jerome Socolovsky reports, most taxpayers there don't seem to mind paying for it.
(Soundbite of crowd chatter)
JEROME SOCOLOVSKY: La Paz University Hospital in Northern Madrid is not known for its creature comforts. But most patients say they're not bothered by the hard plastic chairs or the absence of soothing music in the waiting rooms. La Paz might be one of the oldest and biggest hospitals in Spain, but it's considered one of the best.
Unidentified Woman: (Spanish spoken)
Unidentified Man: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: Sali Avayeda(ph) has come for a follow-up appointment. She had a kidney transplant five months ago.
Ms. SALI AVAYEDA: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: I feel like a new person, she tells her doctor. Before the operation, Avayeda said she hardly ever set foot in a public health facility. She was one of the minority, the 10 percent of people in this country who pay extra to be treated at privately-run clinics. But when symptoms of kidney disease developed a few years ago, Avayeda headed straight to this public hospital.
Ms. AVAYEDA: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: The doctors are excellent. The nurses are very nice, and the service has been really good, she says.
(Soundbite of door opening)
SOCOLOVSKY: Out in the waiting room, another kidney recipient, 32-year-old Jorge Ordiya(ph), is not quite as enthusiastic.
Mr. JORGE ORDIYA: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: The care is good, technically speaking, but the personal service has its ups and downs, he says. The most common complaint of patients is the long wait to see specialists and undergo certain procedures. On the other hand, a study published last year in the U.S. journal Health Affairs found that in Spain, there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the United States.
Spain's constitution, drawn up in 1978 following the Franco dictatorship, not only guarantees the right to universal health care, it also requires the state to provide it. The World Health Organization's ranking system puts Spain's health care system seventh in the world, well ahead of America, even though it spends much less on health care.
Dr. Jimenez says the system covers virtually every medical need.
Dr. JIMENEZ (La Paz University Hospital): (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: I don't know of anyone who's had to go to another country for treatment that doesn't exist in Spain, he says. There are thousands of primary care clinics, even in small villages. Patients have a choice of doctors they can see as often as they like, and there are no co-payments and no claims forms. Even undocumented immigrants are treated.
In Spain, no one worries about their health coverage. If someone loses a job, is short of money or needs long-term care, the system will look after them. For those Americans who are used to private doctors offering a plethora of tests and the latest technologies, the Spanish system might seem a little basic, but no one is turned away.
Life expectancy in Spain is one of Europe's highest, and many of family practitioner Heronimo Fernandez Torente's(ph) patients in the northwestern city of Lugo are over 80 years old. He says there's no question of rationing.
Dr. HERONIMO FERNANDEZ TORENTE (Family Practitioner): (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: People come complaining of osteoarthritis or that they are 90 years old and their cholesterol is a bit too high, and you have to refer them for treatment, he says, because the system guarantees it.
Torente's also vice president of the main Spanish doctor's association, the OMC. He complains that physicians here are underpaid and overworked. Still, he defends Spain's medical service and insists it has nothing to do with socialism.
Dr. TORENTE: (Spanish spoken)
SOCOLOVSKY: It's the humanization of medicine, he says. As a citizen, it's my obligation to make sure that everyone has basic health coverage. But while health care costs are rising fast, Spanish politicians don't dare limit coverage. On the contrary, one of the most sure-fire vote getters for both left and right is the promise to build new hospitals using taxpayers' money.
For NPR News, I'm Jerome Socolovsky in Madrid.
(Soundbite of music)
INSKEEP: This is NPR News.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cindy Sheehan Targets Obama's Vacation
It wouldn't be an official presidential summer vacation without her. Cindy Sheehan is going to follow President Barack Obama to Martha's Vineyard.
The "peace mom," who famously protested the Iraq war by camping out near President George W. Bush's Texas ranch during his vacations, plans to arrive on the island Aug. 25 -- two days after the first family gets there. Sheehan's son was killed in Iraq five years ago. A statement on Sheehan's blog says she and "other like-minded peace activists" want to remind Obama "the body bags aren't taking a vacation."
The Washington Examiner's Byron York gives Sheehan credit for consistency, but thinks "her days are over." He says the anti-war forces that rallied around her when Bush was in office have fallen silent and moved on.
Sheehan and the Obamas will find the Massachusetts resort all decked out for the presidential visit. The New York Times notes they could chill out with an "Obamarita" at Sharkey's Cantina or shop for T-shirts bearing slogans such as "Barackin' the Vineyard."
While the president's vacation will give a boost to the island's economy, one columnist is urging Obama to opt for a "stay-cation." Tracie Powell writes on CQ Politics that with health care reform hanging in the balance, it would be better for Obama to stay home -- even if it's just for the sake of "good public relations."
The "peace mom," who famously protested the Iraq war by camping out near President George W. Bush's Texas ranch during his vacations, plans to arrive on the island Aug. 25 -- two days after the first family gets there. Sheehan's son was killed in Iraq five years ago. A statement on Sheehan's blog says she and "other like-minded peace activists" want to remind Obama "the body bags aren't taking a vacation."
The Washington Examiner's Byron York gives Sheehan credit for consistency, but thinks "her days are over." He says the anti-war forces that rallied around her when Bush was in office have fallen silent and moved on.
Sheehan and the Obamas will find the Massachusetts resort all decked out for the presidential visit. The New York Times notes they could chill out with an "Obamarita" at Sharkey's Cantina or shop for T-shirts bearing slogans such as "Barackin' the Vineyard."
While the president's vacation will give a boost to the island's economy, one columnist is urging Obama to opt for a "stay-cation." Tracie Powell writes on CQ Politics that with health care reform hanging in the balance, it would be better for Obama to stay home -- even if it's just for the sake of "good public relations."
FBI trained informant on provoking others to kill judges and lawmakers
A New Jersey blogger facing charges in two states for allegedly making threats against lawmakers and judges was trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative, his attorney said Tuesday.
Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.
"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.
Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
"But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever," Orozco said.
Special Agent Ross Rice, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he would not comment on or even confirm Turner's relationship with the FBI.
Orozco spoke to reporters after a court hearing in Hartford on Tuesday. Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., did not appear, because he is in federal custody in Illinois. His arraignment on the Connecticut charges was rescheduled to Oct. 19.
In June, Turner urged his readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers and suggested government officials should "obey the Constitution or die," because he was angry over legislation—later withdrawn—that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parish's finances.
He wrote in Internet postings the same month that the Illinois federal appeals judges "deserve to be killed" because they issued a ruling that upheld ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park banning handguns. He included their photos and the room numbers of their chambers at the courthouse.
Orozco officially joined Turner's defense team in the Connecticut case on Tuesday, with approval from Superior Court Judge David Gold. Orozco said his Newark, N.J.-based firm has been representing Turner for the past five years, including during his FBI informant years.
Turner's Connecticut attorney, Matthew R. Potter, said it's too early to tell which trial will move forward first. Orozco said he plans First Amendment defenses in both cases.
Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, said the office would not comment on Orozco's statements.
Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an "agent provocateur" and was taught by the agency "what he could say that wouldn't be crossing the line," defense attorney Michael Orozco said.
"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest," Orozco said.
Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
"But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever," Orozco said.
Special Agent Ross Rice, a spokesman for the FBI in Chicago, said he would not comment on or even confirm Turner's relationship with the FBI.
Orozco spoke to reporters after a court hearing in Hartford on Tuesday. Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., did not appear, because he is in federal custody in Illinois. His arraignment on the Connecticut charges was rescheduled to Oct. 19.
In June, Turner urged his readers to "take up arms" against Connecticut lawmakers and suggested government officials should "obey the Constitution or die," because he was angry over legislation—later withdrawn—that would have given lay members of Roman Catholic churches more control over their parish's finances.
He wrote in Internet postings the same month that the Illinois federal appeals judges "deserve to be killed" because they issued a ruling that upheld ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park banning handguns. He included their photos and the room numbers of their chambers at the courthouse.
Orozco officially joined Turner's defense team in the Connecticut case on Tuesday, with approval from Superior Court Judge David Gold. Orozco said his Newark, N.J.-based firm has been representing Turner for the past five years, including during his FBI informant years.
Turner's Connecticut attorney, Matthew R. Potter, said it's too early to tell which trial will move forward first. Orozco said he plans First Amendment defenses in both cases.
Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, said the office would not comment on Orozco's statements.
NJ city considers adult curfew
(AP) — PATERSON, N.J. - Curfews might not be just for kids anymore in one city in northern New Jersey.
Officials in Paterson are considering one for people of all ages in a bid to curb violence after a spate of deadly shootings.
Several experts say they believe it would be the nation's first curfew of its type to include adults. The state ACLU says it would open Paterson to legal action.
The curfew would last for two months and would bar people from loitering outside from midnight to 7 a.m. Violators would face up to a $2,000 fine and 90 days in jail.
Officials are still working to make sure the plan can withstand legal challenges.
If the City Council passes it Sept. 1, a second vote and a public hearing are needed for it to take effect.
Officials in Paterson are considering one for people of all ages in a bid to curb violence after a spate of deadly shootings.
Several experts say they believe it would be the nation's first curfew of its type to include adults. The state ACLU says it would open Paterson to legal action.
The curfew would last for two months and would bar people from loitering outside from midnight to 7 a.m. Violators would face up to a $2,000 fine and 90 days in jail.
Officials are still working to make sure the plan can withstand legal challenges.
If the City Council passes it Sept. 1, a second vote and a public hearing are needed for it to take effect.
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Four-Step Healthcare Solution
It's true that the US health-care system is a mess, but this demonstrates not market but government failure. To cure the problem requires not different or more government regulations and bureaucracies, as self-serving politicians want us to believe, but the elimination of all existing government controls.
It's time to get serious about health-care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removing unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken:
1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market.
Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing — if health-care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.
Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they would increase their search costs and make more discriminating health-care choices.
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.
Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own — rather than the government's — risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.
3. Deregulate the health-insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.
Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.
All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.
Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal — to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable — the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.
As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution — benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low-risk groups. Accordingly, the industry's prices are high and ballooning.
To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.
4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.
Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.
It's time to get serious about health-care reform. Tax credits, vouchers, and privatization will go a long way toward decentralizing the system and removing unnecessary burdens from business. But four additional steps must also be taken:
1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health-care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health-care services would appear on the market.
Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing — if health-care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.
Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they would increase their search costs and make more discriminating health-care choices.
2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.
Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own — rather than the government's — risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.
3. Deregulate the health-insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.
Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.
All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.
Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal — to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable — the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.
As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution — benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low-risk groups. Accordingly, the industry's prices are high and ballooning.
To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.
4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate such subsidies, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.
Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.
Tim Pawlenty foresees GOP surge if health plan is rejected
It is sad because it is true.
The Obama administration is running the democratic party into the ground with their absolutely insane now now now agenda and Nazi ideologic cabinet post members.
But the saddest part is that we voters will not remember in 2012 that the Bush administration was just as bad if not worse for setting the stage. So they will vote republican.
They will still not realize that it is all a big joke and it really doesnt matter if you vote either democrat or republican... because when it comes down to it, its all the same BS policies. People are so blinded by the labels that they dont look any further into the substance for what those labels reflect.
When will we wake up and start voting independent, libertarian, constitutionalist, etc... ? When will we wake up and start paying attention to the campaign funders behind the politician? When will we stop deluding our selves by thinking that these electees actually have our interests at heart instead of the company that just donated $1000000?
For the sake of us all, you better wake up.
The secret history of TARP: How Goldman bailed out Goldman…
Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson wasn’t on Goldman Sachs’ payroll when the US government bailed out his former employer, but he may as well have been.
That’s the implication in a New York Times article, published Saturday, that shows President George W. Bush’s last treasury secretary, a former CEO of investment bank Goldman Sachs, had frequent conversations with the current CEO of Goldman during the week of Sept. 16, when the US government handed over $85 billion to rescue the troubled insurance giant AIG.
AIG’s outstanding debts to Goldman Sachs meant that $13 billion of the money handed over to AIG went directly to Goldman Sachs.
“During the week of the AIG bailout alone, Mr. Paulson and [Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd] Blankfein spoke two dozen times … far more frequently than Mr. Paulson did with other Wall Street executives,” the Times reports.
The revelation is sure to fuel further claims that the $700-billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, passed by Congress last fall with the support of both major presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, was “gamed” by Paulson in order to help out his colleagues at Goldman — and preserve his own reputation, which he made as the bank’s CEO.
Paulson spoke with Goldman’s CEO in an official capacity a total of 26 times before the treasury secretary was granted an “ethics waiver” that allowed him to be in far closer contact with his former employer than would have otherwise been allowed, Reuters notes.
In the five days after Paulson received his “waiver,” on Sept. 16, 2008, he spoke with Goldman’s Blankfein another 24 times.
But Paulson may have done more than help his former employer get bailed out of bad debts — he may have helped orchestrate the demise of his former employer’s competitors.
“Indeed, Mr. Paulson helped decide the fates of a variety of financial companies, including two longtime Goldman rivals, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, before his ethics waivers were granted,” the Times writes.
Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers — both investment banks in direct competition with Goldman Sachs — were not bailed out when bad debt forced them to cease operating last year.
“Ad hoc actions taken by Mr. Paulson and officials at the Federal Reserve, like letting Lehman fail and compensating AIG’s trading partners, continue to confound some market participants and members of Congress,” the Times notes.
From the Times article:
Goldman not only received $13 billion in taxpayer money as a result of the A.I.G. bailout, but also was given permission at the height of the crisis to convert from an investment firm to a national bank, giving it easier access to federal financing in the event it came under greater financial pressure.
Goldman also won federal debt guarantees and received $10 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It benefited further when the Securities and Exchange Commission suddenly changed its rules governing stock trading, barring investors from being able to bet against Goldman’s shares by selling them short.
While spokespeople for the Treasury and for Paulson defend the former treasury secretary’s discussions with Goldman Sachs as necessary given the financial crisis, some scholars and observers say the circumstances are suspicious.
“We don’t know what they talked about,” Samuel L. Hayes, a Harvard Business School professor emeritus, told the Times. “Obviously there was an enormous amount at stake for Goldman in whether or not the A.I.G. contracts would be made whole. So I think the burden is now on Mr. Paulson to demonstrate that there was no exchange of information one way or the other that influenced the ultimate decision of the government to essentially provide a blank check for AIG’s contracts.”
Since the $700-billion TARP bailout, Goldman Sachs has been doing very well for itself. Since several of its competitors disappeared from the market, the Wall Street investment bank has cornered the program trading market; by some accounts, half of all the automatic, computer-based trades done on the New York Stock Exchange are now carried out by Goldman Sachs.
Last fiscal quarter, the company made $100 million from stock trading on each of 46 business days — an all-time record, shattering the previous record of 34 such days, set by Goldman the previous quarter. The company has also been able to re-pay $10 billion of the cash it was handed in the bailout.
The $700-billion TARP bailout has been operating for nearly 11 months, and still has no official ethics guidelines attached to it, the Washington Times reported Saturday.
“An audit released Thursday by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), says the Treasury Department is in the final stages of drafting rules on lobbying for bailout money - more than 10 months into the program,” the paper reported.
According to the report cited by the Washington Times, at least three of the financial institutions that applied for TARP money were granted cash despite not meeting the criteria. This, the report said, was due to “qualitative mitigating circumstances.”
That’s the implication in a New York Times article, published Saturday, that shows President George W. Bush’s last treasury secretary, a former CEO of investment bank Goldman Sachs, had frequent conversations with the current CEO of Goldman during the week of Sept. 16, when the US government handed over $85 billion to rescue the troubled insurance giant AIG.
AIG’s outstanding debts to Goldman Sachs meant that $13 billion of the money handed over to AIG went directly to Goldman Sachs.
“During the week of the AIG bailout alone, Mr. Paulson and [Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd] Blankfein spoke two dozen times … far more frequently than Mr. Paulson did with other Wall Street executives,” the Times reports.
The revelation is sure to fuel further claims that the $700-billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, passed by Congress last fall with the support of both major presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, was “gamed” by Paulson in order to help out his colleagues at Goldman — and preserve his own reputation, which he made as the bank’s CEO.
Paulson spoke with Goldman’s CEO in an official capacity a total of 26 times before the treasury secretary was granted an “ethics waiver” that allowed him to be in far closer contact with his former employer than would have otherwise been allowed, Reuters notes.
In the five days after Paulson received his “waiver,” on Sept. 16, 2008, he spoke with Goldman’s Blankfein another 24 times.
But Paulson may have done more than help his former employer get bailed out of bad debts — he may have helped orchestrate the demise of his former employer’s competitors.
“Indeed, Mr. Paulson helped decide the fates of a variety of financial companies, including two longtime Goldman rivals, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, before his ethics waivers were granted,” the Times writes.
Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers — both investment banks in direct competition with Goldman Sachs — were not bailed out when bad debt forced them to cease operating last year.
“Ad hoc actions taken by Mr. Paulson and officials at the Federal Reserve, like letting Lehman fail and compensating AIG’s trading partners, continue to confound some market participants and members of Congress,” the Times notes.
From the Times article:
Goldman not only received $13 billion in taxpayer money as a result of the A.I.G. bailout, but also was given permission at the height of the crisis to convert from an investment firm to a national bank, giving it easier access to federal financing in the event it came under greater financial pressure.
Goldman also won federal debt guarantees and received $10 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It benefited further when the Securities and Exchange Commission suddenly changed its rules governing stock trading, barring investors from being able to bet against Goldman’s shares by selling them short.
While spokespeople for the Treasury and for Paulson defend the former treasury secretary’s discussions with Goldman Sachs as necessary given the financial crisis, some scholars and observers say the circumstances are suspicious.
“We don’t know what they talked about,” Samuel L. Hayes, a Harvard Business School professor emeritus, told the Times. “Obviously there was an enormous amount at stake for Goldman in whether or not the A.I.G. contracts would be made whole. So I think the burden is now on Mr. Paulson to demonstrate that there was no exchange of information one way or the other that influenced the ultimate decision of the government to essentially provide a blank check for AIG’s contracts.”
Since the $700-billion TARP bailout, Goldman Sachs has been doing very well for itself. Since several of its competitors disappeared from the market, the Wall Street investment bank has cornered the program trading market; by some accounts, half of all the automatic, computer-based trades done on the New York Stock Exchange are now carried out by Goldman Sachs.
Last fiscal quarter, the company made $100 million from stock trading on each of 46 business days — an all-time record, shattering the previous record of 34 such days, set by Goldman the previous quarter. The company has also been able to re-pay $10 billion of the cash it was handed in the bailout.
The $700-billion TARP bailout has been operating for nearly 11 months, and still has no official ethics guidelines attached to it, the Washington Times reported Saturday.
“An audit released Thursday by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), says the Treasury Department is in the final stages of drafting rules on lobbying for bailout money - more than 10 months into the program,” the paper reported.
According to the report cited by the Washington Times, at least three of the financial institutions that applied for TARP money were granted cash despite not meeting the criteria. This, the report said, was due to “qualitative mitigating circumstances.”
Sunday, August 16, 2009
As Afghans vote, US raises the stakes in war
Afghanistan's elections come at a pivotal moment for the US-led war effort as Washington pours troops and money into an increasingly ambitious mission with no end in sight.
The vote serves in part as a test of US strategy as thousands of troops have moved into the country's volatile south to try to bolster security in the face of rising violence from Taliban insurgents.
A brazen car bombing outside NATO military headquarters in Kabul on Saturday underscored the challenge confronting the Americans, who make up nearly two-thirds of the 100,000-strong coalition force.
Whatever the outcome of the polls, President Barack Obama faces a difficult crossroads amid mounting casualties, growing anxiety within his own party about the war and speculation the top commander in Afghanistan will ask for yet more forces.
"The president is making a practical commitment to Afghanistan that is far greater than that of his predecessor -- more troops, more civilians, and more money," said a report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"As the American footprint grows, so do the costs," it said.
US troop levels are set to reach 68,000 in coming months, more than double the number in place at the start of the year, and analysts predict the head of American and NATO forces, General Stanley McChrystal, will soon issue a request for more troops.
The administration meanwhile is scrambling to find more civilian experts to fix the country's corruption-plagued police and courts while weaning farmers off of the lucrative poppy crop.
With the US mission costing an estimated four billion dollars a month, the war in October will enter its ninth year. And despite the growing international presence, the insurgency's reach has steadily spread.
Some Democrats in Congress and commentators on the left are warning of "mission creep," arguing that Obama is taking on a costly, bloody counter-insurgency campaign without a reasonable chance of success.
"More and more people are questioning the underlying assumptions of the whole thing," Michael Cohen, a fellow at the New America Foundation, told the Washington Independent website.
In unveiling his strategy earlier this year, Obama declared the US goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
But to meet this narrowly defined goal, Obama is backing an elaborate village-by-village fight while building up the Afghan state from the ashes of 30 years of war.
Critics argue major terror figures have fled to Pakistan and that the administration's approach is contradictory, as it talks of targeting Al-Qaeda but requires the United States and its allies to plunge ever deeper into Afghan affairs.
"The administration has raised the stakes by transforming the Afghan war from a limited intervention into a more ambitious and potentially risky counter-insurgency," the senate committee report said.
Casualties hit a record high for both US and coalition troops in July and commanders are bracing for more as the NATO-led force struggles to shift the momentum against the insurgents.
While the US blueprint tries to draw on the lessons of Iraq, analysts warn it could falter because of the Afghan government's dubious reputation and NATO's limited grasp of the country's tribes and culture.
The Kabul authorities are merely a collection of "competing fiefdoms" and the police are widely distrusted, said David Kilcullen, a former adviser to the US military who helped shape counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq.
"Extending the reach of a corrupt Afghan government, or teaching bad cops to shoot straight, is not going to make things better -- it's going to make things worse," Kilcullen, a retired Australian army officer, recently told an audience in Washington.
US officials have appealed for patience, saying the Afghan war was neglected for years under ex-president George W. Bush and that only recently has the effort been given the necessary resources and priority.
But pressure is mounting to show results, with a recent opinion poll showing American public support for the war is starting to slide.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his top commanders have repeatedly said there must be signs of genuine progress within a year to 18 months.
"After the Iraq experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway," Gates said in an interview last month.
"The troops are tired. The American people are pretty tired."
The vote serves in part as a test of US strategy as thousands of troops have moved into the country's volatile south to try to bolster security in the face of rising violence from Taliban insurgents.
A brazen car bombing outside NATO military headquarters in Kabul on Saturday underscored the challenge confronting the Americans, who make up nearly two-thirds of the 100,000-strong coalition force.
Whatever the outcome of the polls, President Barack Obama faces a difficult crossroads amid mounting casualties, growing anxiety within his own party about the war and speculation the top commander in Afghanistan will ask for yet more forces.
"The president is making a practical commitment to Afghanistan that is far greater than that of his predecessor -- more troops, more civilians, and more money," said a report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"As the American footprint grows, so do the costs," it said.
US troop levels are set to reach 68,000 in coming months, more than double the number in place at the start of the year, and analysts predict the head of American and NATO forces, General Stanley McChrystal, will soon issue a request for more troops.
The administration meanwhile is scrambling to find more civilian experts to fix the country's corruption-plagued police and courts while weaning farmers off of the lucrative poppy crop.
With the US mission costing an estimated four billion dollars a month, the war in October will enter its ninth year. And despite the growing international presence, the insurgency's reach has steadily spread.
Some Democrats in Congress and commentators on the left are warning of "mission creep," arguing that Obama is taking on a costly, bloody counter-insurgency campaign without a reasonable chance of success.
"More and more people are questioning the underlying assumptions of the whole thing," Michael Cohen, a fellow at the New America Foundation, told the Washington Independent website.
In unveiling his strategy earlier this year, Obama declared the US goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
But to meet this narrowly defined goal, Obama is backing an elaborate village-by-village fight while building up the Afghan state from the ashes of 30 years of war.
Critics argue major terror figures have fled to Pakistan and that the administration's approach is contradictory, as it talks of targeting Al-Qaeda but requires the United States and its allies to plunge ever deeper into Afghan affairs.
"The administration has raised the stakes by transforming the Afghan war from a limited intervention into a more ambitious and potentially risky counter-insurgency," the senate committee report said.
Casualties hit a record high for both US and coalition troops in July and commanders are bracing for more as the NATO-led force struggles to shift the momentum against the insurgents.
While the US blueprint tries to draw on the lessons of Iraq, analysts warn it could falter because of the Afghan government's dubious reputation and NATO's limited grasp of the country's tribes and culture.
The Kabul authorities are merely a collection of "competing fiefdoms" and the police are widely distrusted, said David Kilcullen, a former adviser to the US military who helped shape counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq.
"Extending the reach of a corrupt Afghan government, or teaching bad cops to shoot straight, is not going to make things better -- it's going to make things worse," Kilcullen, a retired Australian army officer, recently told an audience in Washington.
US officials have appealed for patience, saying the Afghan war was neglected for years under ex-president George W. Bush and that only recently has the effort been given the necessary resources and priority.
But pressure is mounting to show results, with a recent opinion poll showing American public support for the war is starting to slide.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his top commanders have repeatedly said there must be signs of genuine progress within a year to 18 months.
"After the Iraq experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway," Gates said in an interview last month.
"The troops are tired. The American people are pretty tired."
Obama's 3rd simultaneous War? US to attack Venezuela...
Chavez: ‘The winds of war [are] beginning to blow’
Some American troops will soon find themselves stationed at military bases scattered across the South American nation of Colombia with a mission to use advanced Predator drone technology to aid in fighting the drug trade and to combat terrorism, according to published reports Saturday.
But Colombia’s neighbors certainly do not see it that way.
In Venezuela, officials bristled. President Hugo Chavez warned, “the winds of war [are] beginning to blow.”
Chavez has already accused Colombian troops of making an incursion over the border and regional tensions are running high. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa also took exception, saying the United States would target Colombia’s neighbors if the deal is finalized.
“It has also sparked concern from moderate Colombian allies, such as Chile and Brazil, who want assurances that U.S. forces won’t be operating outside Colombia’s territory,” The Wall Street Journal adds.
Colombia says its agreement with the United States will allow Washington to use its military bases to track drug-runners through the use of remote aircraft.
“The Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, called for a meeting between US President Barack Obama and the region’s leaders, saying the ‘climate of unease disturbs me,’” reported the BBC.
“This agreement reaffirms the commitment of both parties in the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism,” Colombia’s foreign ministry said in a statement Friday.
Officials here said the two countries agreed the text of an agreement, which now has to be reviewed by government agencies in Bogota and Washington before getting a final signature.
The controversial deal would permit the US military to operate surveillance aircraft from seven bases to track drug-running boats in the Pacific Ocean.
A senior US general said Thursday that the United States needed to reassure regional powers about the deal.
“I think we need to do a better job of explaining to them what we’re doing and making it as transparent as possible, because anybody’s concerns are valid,” General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a news conference.
Washington sought out its ally Colombia to make up for the loss of its hub for counternarcotics operations in Manta, Ecuador.
Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa had refused to renew an agreement that allowed the US military to fly out of Manta for the past 10 years.
The deal is worth over 40 million dollars for Bogota, along with expanded US military assistance for Bogota’s counternarcotics efforts, according to a US defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Cartwright and Defense Secretary Robert Gates also said this week the deal was not a unilateral move but the product of a partnership with Colombia designed to target drug cartels.
“The strategic intent is, in fact, to be able to provide to the Colombians what they need in order to continue to prosecute their efforts against the internal threats that they have,” Cartwright said.
Colombia raised concern throughout the region, which has a troubled history of US military interventions, after announcing July 15 that it was negotiating the deal.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez led the charge, alongside his Ecuadoran counterpart and ally Correa.
Speaking in Quito at a regional summit last weekend, Chavez said he was fulfilling his “moral duty” by telling fellow leaders that the “winds of war were beginning to blow.”
“This could generate a war in South America,” he said.
Other regional leaders, including Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, have asked Colombia to explain its decision.
Responding to criticism, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said Friday the purpose of the deal was to “defeat terrorism,” adding that the accord with the United States will serves “as an insurance policy for neighboring nations.”
Uribe said he would attend an emergency summit of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) that will gather on August 28 in Bariloche, Argentina, to discuss the situation created by the Colombian base agreement.
However, Frank Mora, a US Defense Department official for Latin America, said the controversy was a storm in a teapot.
“This agreement simply formalizes what already almost exists right now,” he told AFP.
In his remarks, Uribe also extended an olive branch to Ecuador, saying the two countries “could have dialogue” and “resolve their differences in the future.”
Ecuador broke off diplomatic relations with Colombia over last year’s air strike by the Colombian military against a Colombian leftist guerrilla base located in the Ecuadoran selva. Raul Reyes, a top leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was killed in that attack.
“I apologize for that,” Uribe said. “But we are interested in the future, and the same goes for Venezuela.”
Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern of neurologists over 25 deaths in America
A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.
The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.
It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.
The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications.
It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:
• More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
• 500 cases of GBS were detected.
• The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
• The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.
• The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
It is being developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13million people during the first wave of immunisation, expected to start in October.
Top priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying health problem, pregnant women and health professionals.
The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.
One senior neurologist said last night: ‘I would not have the swine flu jab because of the GBS risk.’
There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976 debacle’ in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people – more than the virus itself.
A mass vaccination was given the go-ahead by President Gerald Ford because scientists believed that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic, which killed half a million Americans and 20million people worldwide.
Within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.
More than 40million Americans had received the vaccine by the time the programme was stopped after ten weeks. The US Government paid out millions of dollars in compensation to those affected.
The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a slightly different strain from the 1976 virus, but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern.
Shadow health spokesman Mike Penning said last night: ‘The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS. We need a vaccine but we also need to know about potential risks.
‘Our job is to make sure that the public knows what’s going on. Why is the Government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if GPs, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned.’
Two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns. The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA’s Immunisation Department.
It says: ‘The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use.
‘GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out.
‘Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk.’
The second letter, dated July 27, is from the Association of British Neurologists and is written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chair of its surveillance unit, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chair of its clinical research committee.
It says: ‘Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member’s involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barre Syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.
‘Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.
‘Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case.
‘You will have seen Press coverage describing the Government’s concern about releasing a vaccine of unknown safety.’
If there are signs of a rise in GBS after the vaccination programme begins, the Government could decide to halt it.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, leaving them unable to transmit signals to muscles effectively.
It can cause partial paralysis and mostly affects the hands and feet. In serious cases, patients need to be kept on a ventilator, but it can be fatal.
Death is caused by paralysis of the respiratory system, causing the victim to suffocate. It is not known exactly what causes GBS and research on the subject has been inconclusive.
However, it is thought that one in a million people who have a seasonal flu vaccination could be at risk and it has also been linked to people recovering from a bout of flu of any sort.
The HPA said it was part of the Government’s pandemic plan to monitor GBS cases in the event of a mass vaccination campaign, regardless of the strain of flu involved. But vaccine experts warned that the letters proved the programme was a ‘guinea-pig trial’.
Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of the vaccines section of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group that reviews research, said: ‘New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to. It may be that there is a link to GBS, which is certainly not something I would wish on anybody.
‘But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we’ve extracted have any research on it at all.’
He said squalene, a naturally occurring enzyme, could potentially cause so-far-undiscovered side effects.
Jackie Fletcher, founder of vaccine support group Jabs, said: ‘The Government would not be anticipating this if they didn’t think there was a connection. What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial.’
Professor Chinnery said: ‘During the last swine flu pandemic, it was observed that there was an increased frequency of cases of GBS. No one knows whether it was the virus or the vaccine that caused this.
‘The purpose of the survey is for us to assess rapidly whether there is an increase in the frequency of GBS when the vaccine is released in the UK. It also increases consultants’ awareness of the condition.
'This is a belt-and-braces approach to safety and is not something people should be substantially worried about as it’s a rare condition.’
If neurologists do identify a case of GBS, it will be logged on a central database.
Details about patients, including blood samples, will be collected and monitored by the HPA.
It is hoped this will help scientists establish why some people develop the condition and whether it is directly related to the vaccine.
But some question why there needs to be a vaccine, given the risks. Dr Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said: ‘For people with serious underlying health problems, the risk of dying from swine flu is probably greater than the risk of side effects from the vaccine.
‘But it would be tragic if we repeated the US example and ended up with more casualties from the jabs.
‘I applaud the Government for recognising the risk but in most cases this is a mild virus which needs a few days in bed. I’d question why we need a vaccine at all.’
Professor Miller at the HPA said: ‘This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We’ll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS.
‘We are not expecting a link to the vaccine but a link to disease, which would make having the vaccine even more important.’
The UK’s medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is already monitoring reported side effects from Tamiflu and Relenza and it is set to extend that surveillance to the vaccine.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘The European Medicines Agency has strict processes in place for licensing pandemic vaccines.
‘In preparing for a pandemic, appropriate trials to assess safety and the immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
‘It is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues. The UK has one of the most successful immunisation programmes in the world.’
I COULDN''T EAT OR SPEAK... IT WAS HORRENDOUS
But within hours, she was on a ventilator in intensive care after being diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
She spent three months in hospital and had to learn how to talk and walk again. But at times, when she was being fed through a drip and needed a tracheotomy just to breathe, she doubted whether she would survive.
The mother of two, 57, from Maryport, Cumbria, had been in good health until she developed a chest infection in March 2006. She gradually became so weak she could not walk downstairs.
Doctors did not diagnose Guillain-Barre until her condition worsened in hospital and tests showed her reflexes slowing down. It is impossible for doctors to know how she contracted the disorder, although it is thought to be linked to some infections.
Mrs Wilkinson said: ‘It was very scary. I couldn’t eat and I couldn’t speak. My arms and feet had no strength and breathing was hard.
I was treated with immunoglobulin, which are proteins found in blood, to stop damage to my nerves. After ten days, I still couldn’t speak and had to mime to nurses or my family.
‘It was absolutely horrendous and I had no idea whether I would get through it. You reach very dark moments at such times and wonder how long it can last.
But I’m a very determined person and I had lots of support.’
After three weeks, she was transferred to a neurological ward, where she had an MRI scan and nerve tests to assess the extent of the damage.
Still unable to speak and in a wheelchair, Mrs Wilkinson eventually began gruelling physiotherapy to improve her muscle strength and movement but it was exhausting and painful.
Three years later, she is almost fully recovered. She can now walk for several miles at a time, has been abroad and carries out voluntary work for a GBS Support Group helpline.
She said: ‘It makes me feel wary that the Government is rolling out this vaccine without any clear idea of the GBS risk, if any. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and it certainly changed my life.
‘I’m frightened to have the swine flu vaccine if this might happen again – it’s a frightening illness and I think more research needs to be done on the effect of the vaccine.’ Hotline staff given access to confidential records Confidential NHS staff records and disciplinary complaints could be accessed by hundreds of workers manning the Government’s special swine flu hotline.
They were able to browse through a database of emails containing doctors’ and nurses’ National Insurance numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, mobile phone numbers and scanned passport pages – all details that could be used fraudulently.
And private and confidential complaints sent by hospitals about temporary medical staff – some of whom were named – were also made available to the call-centre workers, who were given a special password to log in to an internal NHS website.
It could be a breach of the Data Protection Act.
The hotline staff work for NHS Professionals, which was set up using taxpayers’ money to employ temporary medical and administrative staff for the health service.
The not-for-profit company runs two of the Government’s swine flu call centres – with 300 staff in Farnborough, Hampshire, and 900 in Watford, Hertfordshire.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley described the revelations as ‘disturbing’.
Anne Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Unison, said: ‘There’s no excuse for such a fundamental breach of personal security. Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to make sure this does not happen again.’
A spokeswoman for NHS Professionals would not confirm whether access to the confidential files had been granted.
The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official body that oversees public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.
It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.
The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious complications.
It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:
• More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
• 500 cases of GBS were detected.
• The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
• The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear.
• The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.
Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.
It is being developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13million people during the first wave of immunisation, expected to start in October.
Top priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying health problem, pregnant women and health professionals.
The British Neurological Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out.
One senior neurologist said last night: ‘I would not have the swine flu jab because of the GBS risk.’
There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976 debacle’ in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people – more than the virus itself.
A mass vaccination was given the go-ahead by President Gerald Ford because scientists believed that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the 1918-19 pandemic, which killed half a million Americans and 20million people worldwide.
Within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunised and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000 people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.
More than 40million Americans had received the vaccine by the time the programme was stopped after ten weeks. The US Government paid out millions of dollars in compensation to those affected.
The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a slightly different strain from the 1976 virus, but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern.
Shadow health spokesman Mike Penning said last night: ‘The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS. We need a vaccine but we also need to know about potential risks.
‘Our job is to make sure that the public knows what’s going on. Why is the Government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if GPs, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned.’
Two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns. The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA’s Immunisation Department.
It says: ‘The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use.
‘GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out.
‘Reporting every case of GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared with the background risk.’
The second letter, dated July 27, is from the Association of British Neurologists and is written by Dr Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, chair of its surveillance unit, and Professor Patrick Chinnery, chair of its clinical research committee.
It says: ‘Traditionally, the BNSU has monitored rare diseases for long periods of time. However, the swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic has overtaken us and we need every member’s involvement with a new BNSU survey of Guillain-Barre Syndrome that will start on August 1 and run for approximately nine months.
‘Following the 1976 programme of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.
‘Active prospective ascertainment of every case of GBS in the UK is required. Please tell BNSU about every case.
‘You will have seen Press coverage describing the Government’s concern about releasing a vaccine of unknown safety.’
If there are signs of a rise in GBS after the vaccination programme begins, the Government could decide to halt it.
GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, leaving them unable to transmit signals to muscles effectively.
It can cause partial paralysis and mostly affects the hands and feet. In serious cases, patients need to be kept on a ventilator, but it can be fatal.
Death is caused by paralysis of the respiratory system, causing the victim to suffocate. It is not known exactly what causes GBS and research on the subject has been inconclusive.
However, it is thought that one in a million people who have a seasonal flu vaccination could be at risk and it has also been linked to people recovering from a bout of flu of any sort.
The HPA said it was part of the Government’s pandemic plan to monitor GBS cases in the event of a mass vaccination campaign, regardless of the strain of flu involved. But vaccine experts warned that the letters proved the programme was a ‘guinea-pig trial’.
Dr Tom Jefferson, co-ordinator of the vaccines section of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, an independent group that reviews research, said: ‘New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to. It may be that there is a link to GBS, which is certainly not something I would wish on anybody.
‘But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies we’ve extracted have any research on it at all.’
He said squalene, a naturally occurring enzyme, could potentially cause so-far-undiscovered side effects.
Jackie Fletcher, founder of vaccine support group Jabs, said: ‘The Government would not be anticipating this if they didn’t think there was a connection. What we’ve got is a massive guinea-pig trial.’
Professor Chinnery said: ‘During the last swine flu pandemic, it was observed that there was an increased frequency of cases of GBS. No one knows whether it was the virus or the vaccine that caused this.
‘The purpose of the survey is for us to assess rapidly whether there is an increase in the frequency of GBS when the vaccine is released in the UK. It also increases consultants’ awareness of the condition.
'This is a belt-and-braces approach to safety and is not something people should be substantially worried about as it’s a rare condition.’
If neurologists do identify a case of GBS, it will be logged on a central database.
Details about patients, including blood samples, will be collected and monitored by the HPA.
It is hoped this will help scientists establish why some people develop the condition and whether it is directly related to the vaccine.
But some question why there needs to be a vaccine, given the risks. Dr Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said: ‘For people with serious underlying health problems, the risk of dying from swine flu is probably greater than the risk of side effects from the vaccine.
‘But it would be tragic if we repeated the US example and ended up with more casualties from the jabs.
‘I applaud the Government for recognising the risk but in most cases this is a mild virus which needs a few days in bed. I’d question why we need a vaccine at all.’
Professor Miller at the HPA said: ‘This monitoring system activates pandemic plans that have been in place for a number of years. We’ll be able to get information on whether a patient has had a prior influenza illness and will look at whether influenza itself is linked to GBS.
‘We are not expecting a link to the vaccine but a link to disease, which would make having the vaccine even more important.’
The UK’s medicines watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is already monitoring reported side effects from Tamiflu and Relenza and it is set to extend that surveillance to the vaccine.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘The European Medicines Agency has strict processes in place for licensing pandemic vaccines.
‘In preparing for a pandemic, appropriate trials to assess safety and the immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
‘It is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the UK would use a vaccine without careful consideration of safety issues. The UK has one of the most successful immunisation programmes in the world.’
I COULDN''T EAT OR SPEAK... IT WAS HORRENDOUS
But within hours, she was on a ventilator in intensive care after being diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
She spent three months in hospital and had to learn how to talk and walk again. But at times, when she was being fed through a drip and needed a tracheotomy just to breathe, she doubted whether she would survive.
The mother of two, 57, from Maryport, Cumbria, had been in good health until she developed a chest infection in March 2006. She gradually became so weak she could not walk downstairs.
Doctors did not diagnose Guillain-Barre until her condition worsened in hospital and tests showed her reflexes slowing down. It is impossible for doctors to know how she contracted the disorder, although it is thought to be linked to some infections.
Mrs Wilkinson said: ‘It was very scary. I couldn’t eat and I couldn’t speak. My arms and feet had no strength and breathing was hard.
I was treated with immunoglobulin, which are proteins found in blood, to stop damage to my nerves. After ten days, I still couldn’t speak and had to mime to nurses or my family.
‘It was absolutely horrendous and I had no idea whether I would get through it. You reach very dark moments at such times and wonder how long it can last.
But I’m a very determined person and I had lots of support.’
After three weeks, she was transferred to a neurological ward, where she had an MRI scan and nerve tests to assess the extent of the damage.
Still unable to speak and in a wheelchair, Mrs Wilkinson eventually began gruelling physiotherapy to improve her muscle strength and movement but it was exhausting and painful.
Three years later, she is almost fully recovered. She can now walk for several miles at a time, has been abroad and carries out voluntary work for a GBS Support Group helpline.
She said: ‘It makes me feel wary that the Government is rolling out this vaccine without any clear idea of the GBS risk, if any. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and it certainly changed my life.
‘I’m frightened to have the swine flu vaccine if this might happen again – it’s a frightening illness and I think more research needs to be done on the effect of the vaccine.’ Hotline staff given access to confidential records Confidential NHS staff records and disciplinary complaints could be accessed by hundreds of workers manning the Government’s special swine flu hotline.
They were able to browse through a database of emails containing doctors’ and nurses’ National Insurance numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, mobile phone numbers and scanned passport pages – all details that could be used fraudulently.
And private and confidential complaints sent by hospitals about temporary medical staff – some of whom were named – were also made available to the call-centre workers, who were given a special password to log in to an internal NHS website.
It could be a breach of the Data Protection Act.
The hotline staff work for NHS Professionals, which was set up using taxpayers’ money to employ temporary medical and administrative staff for the health service.
The not-for-profit company runs two of the Government’s swine flu call centres – with 300 staff in Farnborough, Hampshire, and 900 in Watford, Hertfordshire.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley described the revelations as ‘disturbing’.
Anne Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Unison, said: ‘There’s no excuse for such a fundamental breach of personal security. Action needs to be taken as soon as possible to make sure this does not happen again.’
A spokeswoman for NHS Professionals would not confirm whether access to the confidential files had been granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
