[sunnykerr]

Well, I think he's been in captivity for years, which is time enough for the armed forces to have been made aware of the situation and come up with several scenarios, in order of "most prefered" to "not in a million years will we contemplate doing this."

I think the U.S. involvement in the region now straddles at least two administrations (depending on how you look at it, possibly way more), so that I have to assume some of the people involved on the U.S. side must have decent knowledge of the stakes, the particulars and the risks of such an exchange.

From the little I've gleaned from reading about it online, there seems to be some debate about whether or not this in fact broke the law. Apparently, there is some nebullous zone wherein the President, being the Commander-in-Chief may act in that capacity without consulting Congress, in which case it becomes a matter of determining if he was acting in his capacity as leader of the government or Commander-in-Chief.

I can't say I find that the most convincing argument, to be honest. Seems hinky that he wouldn't consult Congress. Of course, Congress has made it their business to derail most (not to say "all") of his projects, so I can easily see why Obama would want to go around them.

It may very be that this broke the law, of course. But, if that's the case, he certainly wouldn't be the first President to do so while in office, right? There comes a point where you almost wonder what took him so long, however cynical that might sound.

I suppose that, at the end of the day, I'd rather have an American be on American soil than in "enemy" custody. Hey, look at John McCain, if Bergdahl lives long enough (and doesn't go to jail), he could become a Senator.

[PhoenixRising]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) Seems hinky that he wouldn't consult Congress. Of course, Congress has made it their business to derail most (not to say "all") of his projects, so I can easily see why Obama would want to go around them. It may very be that this broke the law, of course. But, if that's the case, he certainly wouldn't be the first President to do so while in office, right? There comes a point where you almost wonder what took him so long, however cynical that might sound.

Well, there's a couple of flaws with that theory:

1. Obama promised "transparency" and a change in tactics from the previous administration. You can't go around acting like your doesn't stink and then just end up using the same toilet. Obama's track record involving the NSA, IRS, and VA scandals isn't giving him much benefit of the doubt that he once had back in 2009. And even Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee said that Obama broke Constitutional law with the Bergdhal swap.

2. Obama had two years of a Democratically controlled congress with a filibuster-proof majority, and yet his projects still managed to misfire. His rollout of the Affordable Healthcare Act website was his signature legislation, yet the Democrats botched the rollout mostly due to the White House's detachment from how everything was being put together. Chuck Todd of NBC, who was originally a huge Obama supporter heavily criticized the President on this. How could you botch your signature project and maintain the appearance of competence? Chris Matthews of MSNBC, also a huge Obama supporter, criticized Obama by saying that he "doesn't want to be the Chief Executive" of the US government.

Too many things have gone wrong on his watch that he apparently had no knowledge of, and appeared to not want to know about. His "lead from behind" attitude could just as easily be blamed for the problems with his projects. The Republicans only took back the House Of Representatives in 2010, but the Democrats still retained the Senate. Bill Clinton lost the entire Congress to the Republicans in 1994 and dealt with a Republican controlled House and Senate for the last six years of his Presidency, yet Clinton managed to get a lot more accomplished with both houses of Congress lost to the Republicans - and dealing with an impeachment hearing and a crisis in Kosovo at the same time - than Obama has with only one House out of the Democrats' control. So I don't think you can just "blame it on the Congress."

[sunnykerr]

Well, sure, Obama came in on "we're gonna do better" and then he actually had to do the job and, surprise, it's different than he anticipated. Didn't the guy before him go through the exact same thing? And the guy before that guy?

No one ever delivers on their electoral promises. Ever. I get that 2008 Obama was inspiring, but that's just not the reality of politics.

And maybe he does go around like his poop doesn't stink... I'll be honest and admit that I have a different opinion on this specific perception of the man... but let's say he totally does. Don't they all?

Obama's got a crap record with a whole lot of issues. And I seriously don't want to play the "blame the predecessor" game. He's the one in charge now and the buck stops with him. The thing is, he didn't become president in a vaccuum. A lot of those issues, and now I'm thinking specifically of the NSA and the VA ones, pre-date his administration. By how much, I don't know.

But the VA issues are especially long-standing. They may date back to freaking Reagan (and beyond) for all I know. It's no justification for the man in charge now to have failed on that front. It really is not, nor will it ever be. I'm just saying that, again, he's hardly unique in that regard.

And, like I said, for all I know, Obama broke the law by getting the soldier back without consulting Congress. I did find opinions on both sides of the issue. Apparently, Senator Feinstein has one. That's hardly surprising, considering she's a member of Congress. I can't imagine any of the members of either houses are particularly pleased they weren't consulted.

For sure, Obama had a lot of opportunities to pass a whole lot of legislation. And I don't think it's "blaming Congress" to say that Congress has a part of why that didn't happen. If Congress was irrelevant, or likely to simply pass those legislations because they belonged to the same party, or however you want to slice it, you wouldn't be living in a democracy.

I'm hardly an expert on U.S. politics, but I do know that even your Democrats skew conservative, especially when it comes time to making certain controversial calls. Look at gun control, for instance. Now, maybe the status quo is the best thing on that front. I'm just saying, that's a clear instance where even Democrats went "against" President Obama.

Another example is how "Obamacare" is considered a flop. Again, not questioning how people perceive the thing. It's entirely within anyone's right to have formed whatever opinion they want to have about it. Where I live? It's seen as a success. One that got off to a spectacularly bad start, for absolute sure. But one that got there in the end.

And I'd hate to "blame Congress" for that one as well, but isn't it a widely known thing that the law was tooled around so much in the House that what wound up being passed was a pale reflection of what was the original intention?

And, hey, I love Clinton just as much as the next lilly-livered tree-hugger, but everyone also knows it's his administration that passed DOMA and "Don't Ask Don't Tell." So obviously, his accomplishments were many, but some of them clearly came at the result of pretty questionable compromises.

[sunnykerr]

US missile defence system in first successful intercept test since 2008 Boeing-run system developed to counter North Korea threat; Bush-era programme has failed in five of eight tests The US missile defense system managed by Boeing on Sunday hit a simulated enemy missile in the first successful intercept test of the programme since 2008, sources briefed on the test results said. The successful interception will help validate the Boeing-run Ground-base Midcourse Defense system, which provides the sole US defence against long-range ballistic missiles, the sources said. The system has failed to hit a dummy missile in five of eight tests since the Bush administration rushed to deploy it in 2004, to counter growing threats from North Korea.

No idea if this actually validates the system, but I suppose it's a good thing it works.

I imagine there have been quite a lot of investments up until now.

[sunnykerr]

IRS head contends 'no evidence' crime committed in email loss House panel will hear from White House official Jennifer O'Connor who once worked at the IRS as probe continues Republicans in Congress aren't buying the contention by the head of the Internal Revenue Service that he has seen no evidence anyone committed a crime when the agency lost emails that might shed light on the targeting of the Tea Party and other political groups before the 2010 and 2012 elections. On Tuesday, a House panel will hear from a White House official who once worked at the IRS. Jennifer O'Connor worked at the IRS from May to November 2013, helping the agency gather documents related to the congressional investigations, said Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. O'Connor has since moved to the White House counsel's office. Issa subpoenaed O'Connor on Monday night after the White House declined his invitation to have her testify. After getting the subpoena, the White House relented. Issa said he wants to question O'Connor about former IRS official Lois Lerner's lost emails. The IRS said Lerner's computer crashed in 2011, and emails she had archived on the hard drive were lost. Lerner headed the division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. The Oversight Committee is investigating the handling of applications from the Tea Party and other political groups. Congressional investigators want Lerner's emails to see if there is evidence that anyone outside the IRS was involved. "Before her promotion to the White House, Ms O'Connor led the response to the congressional targeting inquiry and she is uniquely qualified to explain why attorneys did not focus on and flag Lerner's 'lost' emails at the outset," Issa said. Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said, "Republicans have been trying desperately – and unsuccessfully – for more than a year to link this scandal to the White House." David Ferriero, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration, was also scheduled to testify. The National Archives has asked the IRS to investigate the loss of records, and whether any disposal of data was authorized. On Monday, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen appeared at a rare evening hearing before Issa's committee to answer questions about the lost emails. The hearing was contentious, with Koskinen brushing aside accusations that the IRS has obstructed the political group targeting investigations. "I have the ability to say I have seen no evidence of any crime," Koskinen said. Representative Michael Turner scoffed at Koskinen's assertion. "I have always believed that what happened in your agency with Lois Lerner is a crime," Turner said. "I believe that there were others involved. I believe the emails that are missing are the ones that would probably give us an ability to establish that. And I believe that somebody undertook a criminal act in its destruction." Turner, however, acknowledged he has no evidence to back up his belief. Koskinen said there was no evidence that Lerner intentionally destroyed the emails. To the contrary, he said the IRS went to great lengths trying to retrieve lost documents on Lerner's computer, even sending it to the agency's forensic lab. In 2011, the IRS had a policy of backing up emails on computer tapes, but the tapes were recycled every six months, Koskinen said. He said Lerner's hard drive was recycled and presumably destroyed. The IRS was able to generate 24,000 Lerner emails from the 2009 to 2011 period because she had copied in other IRS employees. Overall, the IRS said it is producing a total of 67,000 emails to and from Lerner, covering the period from 2009 to 2013. The IRS inspector general is investigating the lost emails, Koskinen said. Lerner, who is now retired from the IRS, has refused to testify at two Oversight Committee hearings, invoking her constitutional right against self-incrimination. In May, the House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress.

It's always bizarre when information like that goes missing.

Better missing than leaked, I say, but still, it is very strange.

Not sure if that means this is a Watergate incident, though.

I expect they'll get to the bottom of this.

And then we'll see if they let it be what it is or if it turns into another Benghazi.

[sunnykerr]

US Supreme Court limits presidential appointments The US Supreme Court has ruled on how the president can make appointments while Congress is in recess. In a unanimous ruling, the court ruled three appointments made by Barack Obama during 2012 were illegal, as the Congress was technically in session. The White House had argued the Senate was holding three-day sham sessions during a holiday break specifically to block appointments. Recess appointments can last no more than two years. Many appointees - including two Supreme Court justices and a Federal Reserve chairman - have won confirmation from the Senate after their initial appointments. The court case, known as Noel Canning v National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), was filed by a Washington state bottling company that argued an NLRB decision against it was not valid because the board members were among those appointed in the 2012 holiday break. Thursday's decision could invalidate some of the NLRB decisions made since those appointments. The ruling also effectively means political opponents in the Senate have the ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Presidents of both parties have used the recess power to circumvent lawmakers who refuse to vote on potential nominees. A separate federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running.

Well, there you have it.

Sounds reasonable enough.

Of course, if lawmakers continue to refuse to vote on potential nominees, this may just bring back de facto fillibusters.

[sunnykerr]

Former Procter & Gamble chief Robert McDonald nominated to head VA Barack Obama selects West Point graduate to lead beleaguered Veteran Affairs department, pending Senate confirmation Barack Obama has nominated former Procter & Gamble executive Robert McDonald as his next secretary of veterans affairs, banking on the former CEO’s corporate experience to shake up the beleaguered department. “We’ve got to regain the trust of our veterans with a VA that is more effective, more efficient and that truly puts veterans first,” Obama said on Monday afternoon. “Bob’s the man to get this done.” McDonald, 61, will succeed Eric Shinseki, who resigned from his post on 30 May following revelations about failures within the department, including a large-scale cover-up of backlogged waiting lists for one of the nation’s largest integrated health systems. “When it comes to delivering timely, quality healthcare, we have to do better,” Obama said. He urged the Senate to confirm McDonald as soon as possible to hasten the transformation of the department. A report by one of Obama’s top advisers, Rob Nabors, showed that there are “significant and chronic system failures" in the VA, which has nearly nine million veterans enrolled for care. The FBI has also opened a criminal investigation into the agency. Mcdonald said he is prepared to lead if confirmed by the Senate and that it is his goal “to improve the lives of our country’s veterans and help change the way the department of veterans affairs does business”. McDonald graduated from West Point military academy in the top 2% of his class and served in the US army for five years, though his military experience is considerably shorter than former secretaries of veterans affairs. Following his service, he began work at Procter & Gamble in 1980 and took the reins as CEO from 2009 to 2013. He left the company having failed to turn around its flagging profits in the midst of the Great Recession, though analysts say his skills at improving employee morale, encouraging strong leadership and creating simpler management systems could be a remedy for the veterans affairs past failings in those areas. "This is definitely a surprising pick. McDonald is not a name that was on anyone's radar over the last few weeks,” said Paul Rieckhoff, founder of the advocacy group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). “His branding background may prove helpful, because there are few organizations in America with a worse reputation with its customers than the VA right now. He's been away from the military for quite a while, and will have to move quickly to show he is committed to and understands the post-9/11 generation of veterans.” House speaker John Boehner, to whom McDonald made a $1,000 donation to last year, said in a statement that the the newly appointed secretary is: “a good man, a veteran and a strong leader with decades of experience in the private sector”, who is “the kind of person who is capable of implementing the kind of dramatic systemic change that is badly needed and long overdue at the VA”. Sloan D Gibson, former deputy undersecretary for veterans affairs, will remain the acting head of the department pending McDonald’s confirmation. Obama chided congress during the announcement, saying that he is waiting for its approval on several other personnel appointments.

Here's to hoping he's the right man for the job.

The fact that he's a veteran will help, but I have to imagine he's not the first former serviceman to be named to that post and the VA's issues are long-standing and numerous.

So I hope for the best, but it's a little hard to muster much belief, to be honest.

[sunnykerr]

NSA reformers dismayed after privacy board vindicates surveillance dragnet Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board endorses agency's so-called '702' powers, plus backdoor searches of Americans' information Civil libertarians saw their hopes for curtailing the National Security Agency's massive digital surveillance program dimmed in the wake of a report from a US government privacy board vindicating much of the international communications dragnet. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) voted Wednesday to adopt a 200-page report on the NSA's so-called "702" powers, which include the widespread collection of foreign email, voice and text messages and Americans' international calls. While PCLOB chairman David Medine said those efforts walked "right up to the line of constitutionality," the report largely vindicated the controversial surveillance, the scope of which was disclosed through reporting on documents provided by Edward Snowden, as both effective and legal. Elisebeth Collins Cook, one of five board members and a Justice Department official in the Bush administration, hailed the digital surveillance as "legal, valuable and subject to intense oversight," and characterized the PCLOB's recommendations as "relatively slight changes at the margins of the program." In ways both bold and subtle, the long-awaited report blessed the NSA's large-scale collection of digital data, even as it found elements of it problematic. The PCLOB denied that the 702 siphoning is bulk collection, even though it annually provides the NSA with "hundreds of millions" of different sorts of communications -- blessing an NSA definition that considers only indiscriminate collection, untethered to surveillance targets, to be bulk. "It's a big program, but it is a targeted program," Medine said after the sparsely-attended Wednesday hearing, which was held in the basement of a Marriott between Congress and the White House. Civil libertarians castigated the PCLOB over what they consider a counterintuitive definition. "They say if we're collecting everything from Egypt that's not bulk, everything from [area code] 202 that's not bulk, everything from gmail.com that's not bulk, and that's just bull****," said Jennifer Granick of the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. Dealing another blow to privacy advocates, the board endorsed the NSA, CIA and FBI's warrantless, so-called "backdoor" searches for information from Americans, just weeks after the House of Representatives voted to ban them. While Medine and another board member, former federal judge Patricia Wald, wanted to add greater legal protections, the board advocated restricting the FBI's warrantless searches and urged NSA and CIA analysts to certify that their queries are "reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information." "We have seen no evidence of a backdoor, so our recommendations are designed to make sure one is not built," Cook said. Perhaps most controversially, the PCLOB gave a qualified endorsement to the NSA's practice of siphoning directly from the Internet information that merely references a surveillance target even if the correspondence is neither from nor sent to that target, a practice known as "about" collection. The PCLOB acknowledged that "about" collection would mean the inevitable collection of purely domestic communications that the NSA is expressly not permitted to acquire, a circumstance intelligence officials called technologically unavoidable after they were compelled to disclose significant overcollection last summer. It urged the NSA to "continually" revisit technological feasibility and the scope of its targeting in order to minimize the intrusion into US privacy. It was far less concerned about non-US privacy considerations. "About" collection played at most a background role in what now appears to be an epochal 2007-8 debate in Congress to bless what had previously been a surveillance program almost entirely operated by executive prerogative. The PCLOB nevertheless found that the resulting law, the 2008 Fisa Amendments Act, and its critical Section 702 provision, authorized such collection, something Medine said was a "permissible" interpretation by NSA. All that amounted to a bitter pill for privacy advocates to swallow, particularly coming from a government body that in January had condemned the NSA's bulk surveillance of US phone data. The PCLOB may have interrupted recent momentum in Congress towards preventing the US government from conducting backdoor searches. Stanford's Granick held out hope that the PCLOB's assessment would inadvertently bolster the chances for a backdoor-search ban in Congress. The report's perceived moderation could aid legislators in curbing the searches on the argument that they would restore public confidence in US surveillance. "But for the longer term goal of reining in warrantless, massive collection of communications and for getting countries to protect their communications of all people and not just their own citizens, this doesn't help us at all," Granick said. The American Library Association similarly declared the PCLOB report a "serious disappointment" and said it should be "an absolute floor for 702 reform and a spur to immediate and broad legislative expansion." Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU, who testified to the PCLOB in March, called the report "weak." "It fails to fully grasp the significance of allowing the government to conduct surveillance on this massive scale, of allowing it to store millions of Americans' communications in government databases, and of allowing it to search those databases without any of the safeguards the Constitution has historically been held to require," Jaffer said in a Wednesday statement. The Center for Constitutional Rights called the PCLOB's treatment of the constitutional implications at stake "disappointingly superficial." "The board includes no mention whatsoever of free speech, due process, and right to counsel when analyzing the legality of the NSA’s collection of the content of communications between U.S. residents and persons of interest abroad," it said in a statement. Meanwhile, the leader of the US intelligence community acknowledged his victory. "In this important report, the PCLOB confirms that Section 702 has shown its value in preventing acts of terrorism at home and abroad, and pursuing other foreign intelligence goals," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a Wednesday statement, adding that he would take the board's privacy concerns "very seriously." The PCLOB is not done reviewing the NSA's surveillance authorities and their implementation. When the board next meets, on July 23, it will consider launching a new inquiry into one of the seminal texts behind US intelligence authorities, an executive order known as 12333. The NSA relies upon that obscure document for, among other things, its surreptitious collection of unencrypted information transiting from Google and Yahoo data centers. After the hearing adjourned Wednesday, Medine, Cook and Wald all indicated their appetite for reviewing 12333.

The problem I'm having is that I'm not sure I fully grasp what we're talking about.

To tell you the truth, I don't think anyone halfway reasonable would argue that we have diminished expectations of privacy nowadays and that, if there's a compromise to be made there in the name of national security, then so be it.

At the same time, we need to make sure that mistakes aren't made in a system that relies on such a compromise from the citizenry.

And we certainly need to know that it's worth the sacrifice.

And I don't think we have that information.

Not that I need to have that information personally, but some oversight of the system would be a most welcome thing, I believe.

[sunnykerr]

Happy belated 4th of July, may U.S. friends.

Meanwhile, this veteran's family had a really terrible 4th of July:

US veteran dies waiting for ambulance in Albuquerque VA hospital Veteran who collapsed in hospital cafeteria died after waiting around 20 minutes for an ambulance, officials confirmed A veteran who collapsed in an Albuquerque Veteran Affairs hospital cafeteria – 500 yards from the emergency room – died after waiting around 20 minutes for an ambulance, officials confirmed Thursday. It took between 15 and 20 minutes for the ambulance to be dispatched and take the man from one building to the other, which is about a five-minute walk, officials at the hospital said. Kirtland Air Force Medical Group personnel performed CPR until the ambulance arrived, VA spokeswoman Sonja Brown said. Staff followed policy in calling 911 when the man collapsed on Monday, she said. "Our policy is under expedited review," Brown said. That policy is a local one, she said. The man's name hasn't been released. News of the man's death spread Thursday at the Raymond G Murphy VA Medical Center among veterans who were visiting for various medical reasons. Lorenzo Calbert, 65, a US Army veteran of the Vietnam War, said it was sad that a fellow veteran had to die so close to where he could have received help. "There's no reason for it," he said. "They have so many workers. They could have put him on the gurney and run faster than that ambulance." Paul Bronston, a California emergency-room physician and chair of Ethics and Professional Policy Committee of the American College of Medical Quality, said it may sound ridiculous that staff had to call 911 but that practice is the standard at hospitals. Typically, an ambulance would arrive faster, and other factors can stall workers trying to rush patients to the emergency room on foot, he said. "The question I would have (is) ... was there an AED (automated external defibrillator) on site as required?" he said. Bronston said 90% of those who collapse are afflicted by heart problems and an AED could help them. It was not known what caused the man to collapse or whether an AED was nearby. The death comes as the Department of Veterans Affairs remains under scrutiny for widespread reports of long delays for treatment and medical appointments and of veterans dying while on waiting lists. A review last week cited "significant and chronic system failures" in the nation's health system for veterans. The review also portrayed the struggling agency as one battling a corrosive culture of distrust, lacking in resources and ill-prepared to deal with an influx of new and older veterans with a range of medical and mental health care needs. The scathing report by Deputy White House chief of staff Rob Nabors said the Veterans Health Administration, the VA sub agency that provides health care to about 8.8 million veterans a year, has systematically ignored warnings about its deficiencies and must be fundamentally restructured. Marc Landy, a political science professor at Boston College, said the Department of Veterans Affairs is a large bureaucracy with various local policies like the one under review in Albuquerque. Although the agency needs to undergo reform, Landy said it's unfair to attack the VA too harshly on the recent Albuquerque death because it appears to be so unusual. "I think we have to be careful," he said. "Let's not beat up too much on the VA while they are already facing criticism."

The thing is, if the 20-minute delay was the problem, I'm not sure getting him to the emergency room instantaneously would have saved his life.

That's not a happy thought, but the point is that doctors don't show up right away when you get to the emergency room, even in an ambulance, and then they can't always keep you alive if they don't have the time to determine what the problem is.

[sunnykerr]

North Carolina voter law challenged: 'the worst suppression since Jim Crow' New voter ID law, seen by many as unduly affecting African Americans, to be challenged in court by civil rights group and NAACP North Carolina’s voter identification law, which has been described as the most sweeping attack on African American electoral rights since the Jim Crow era, is being challenged in a legal hearing that opens on Monday. Civil rights lawyers and activists are gathering in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for the start of the legal challenge that is expected to last all week. They will be seeking to persuade a federal district judge to impose a preliminary injunction against key aspects of HB 589, the voting law enacted by state Republicans last August. Lawyers for the North Carolina branch of the NAACP and the civil rights group the Advancement Project will argue that the main pillars of the law should be temporarily halted ahead of a full trial next year. Otherwise, they say, tens of thousands of largely poor black voters could find themselves turned away at the polls at the midterm elections in November. “This is the worst voter suppression law we have seen since the days of Jim Crow. It is a full-on assault on the voting rights of minorities,” said Reverend William Barber, president of the North Carolina state conference of the NAACP. North Carolina was the first state to take advantage of the landmark US supreme court ruling last June that removed one of the most powerful provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In Shelby County v Holder, the supreme court struck down the so-called “pre-clearance requirement” that had for almost half a century acted as a stalwart against racial discrimination at the polls in largely Southern states. The provision had required that nine entire states and parts of six others including North Carolina sought approval from the federal government, or “pre-cleared”, any changes they made to voting arrangements. The conservative majority of the supreme court argued that exceptional remedies that had been necessary in the 1960s to combat Jim Crow racism were no longer justified in the modern age. Republican-controlled states that were released under Shelby from federal oversight moved swiftly to take advantage of their new freedoms. The first state to legislate was North Carolina: governor Pat McCrory signed HB 589 into law barely a month after the US supreme court issued its ruling. Terms of North Carolina's new law HB 589 reins back on changes to voting arrangements that have encouraged greater participation, particularly by black and other ethnic minority groups, in a number of ways: • Photo ID. HB 589 requires most voters to show photo identification cards at the polls before they can cast their ballot. The type of card accepted is highly restricted, making it difficult for older people, particularly African Americans, without access to birth certificates or driving licences to vote. This provision will come into effect in the 2016 presidential election. But under the law, voters at the midterm elections this November will be asked to stipulate whether they have ID, an inquiry that civil rights advocates fear could alone dissuade many people from turning out on election day. • Same-day registration. The act eliminates the ability of individuals to register to vote on the day of election. In five out of the past six federal elections, African American voters have used SDR at proportionately much higher rates than whites – in the 2012 presidential election black voters made up less than a quarter of the whole electorate but 41% of voters who registered on the day. • Early voting. HB 589 cuts the number of early voting days from 17 to 10. In 2012, seven out of 10 African Americans who voted did so early – a rate 140% higher than that for white voters. • Out-of-precinct ballots. The legislation forces ballots to be discarded where they have been cast outside an individual’s precinct. Black voters are more than twice as likely to cast out-of-precinct ballots than whites, partly because they are less likely to own a car and have greater difficulty travelling to poll stations. • Elimination of pre-registration. In previous elections, civil rights groups held drives to pre-register 16- and 17-year-olds so that they would automatically be registered to vote when they turned 18. The drives were particularly successful in encouraging young ethnic minority teenagers to vote. HB 589 prohibits the practice. Voter fraud or racial suppression The Republican sponsors of the legislation argue that it is designed to avoid fraudulent voting and to reduce the cost of elections. They say the changes will be neutral in their impact, and will have no detrimental effect on any particular group of voters. But civil rights campaigners see the act as a rolling back on measures that have been introduced over the past few decades that have greatly increased voter participation. In 1992, North Carolina ranked 46th out of 50 in the state league table for voter participation, but it has risen steadily, from 37th in 2000 to 11th in 2012. The surge in voting was particularly notable for black voters who, energised by the chance to elect a black president, took full advantage of new, more convenient polling arrangements and turned out in historic numbers in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. Black voter participation snowballed from 42% in 2000 to 69% in 2012, with those casting their ballots overwhelmingly backing Barack Obama. The attempt by the Republican-dominated general assembly in North Carolina to tighten voting channels is especially worrying for older black residents who lived through the blatant discrimination of the Jim Crow laws. Like many southern states, North Carolina introduced hurdles to voting in the early 20th century specifically targeted at African Americans, including a poll tax and literacy tests. The poll tax was scrapped in 1920. But as the US supreme court itself has noted, the literacy test, which required black voters to read and write the US constitution before they could participate in the democratic process, lived on in some parts of the state until 1970. Rosanell Eaton, the lead plaintiff in this week’s legal challenge to HB 589, was born in 1921 and remembers the literacy test. This year, she faces losing her right to vote under the new act because the name on her birth certificate doesn’t tally with that on her driving licence. “I can’t imagine that I have to go through the same thing I had to go through 75 years ago,” she said in a recent interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC. “It is so horrible to think about going back where we came from.” Barber said that the threat of Eaton being unable to cast her vote this November was an indication of what southern legislators were prepared to do following the Shelby ruling. “This isn’t Republicanism, this is extremism. This is the model. When you look at North Carolina, you are looking at what extremists want to do to suppress voting.”

Well, these new requirements aren't even subtle, are they?

I have zero problems with photo ID. You have to provide that when you vote here. But, when that law was passed here, there was a "grace period" given for people who couldn't possibly meet those requirements.

It seems that same common sense has not been considered in North Carolina.

Like I said, not very subtle at all.

[sunnykerr]

Bowe Bergdahl returns to regular U.S. Army duty WASHINGTON -- Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. Army sergeant who spent nearly five years as a Taliban captive in Afghanistan, was returned to regular duty Monday with a desk job that makes him available to Army investigators for questioning about his disappearance in 2009. In a brief statement, the Army said Bergdahl is now assigned to U.S. Army North at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston in Texas, the same base where he has been decompressing and recuperating from the effects of his lengthy captivity. His exact administrative duties were not immediately disclosed, but a Pentagon spokesman, Army Col. Steve Warren, said Bergdahl is not restricted in any way. "He is a normal soldier now," Warren said. The Army said that in his assignment to U.S. Army North he "can contribute to the mission," which is focused on homeland defence. It said the Army investigation into the circumstances of his disappearance and capture by the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009 will continue. Bergdahl walked away from his unit after expressing misgivings about the U.S. military's role -- as well as his own -- in Afghanistan. He was captured by Taliban members and held by the Haqqani network for five years. He was released May 31 as part of a deal in which the U.S. released five top Taliban commanders who had been imprisoned at the military detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Some former members of his unit have labeled him a deserter and said some were wounded or killed looking for him. The Army has not ruled out disciplinary action against Bergdahl. Bergdahl, 28, whose family lives in Hailey, Idaho, arrived at the Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston on June 13 after nearly two weeks recuperating at a U.S. military hospital in Germany. Warren, the Pentagon spokesman, said he did not believe Bergdahl has seen his parents since his return to the United States. Army officials have refused to discuss the question of Bergdahl's contact with his parents, saying the family requested that it be kept private. Army officials had said that in recent days Bergdahl was allowed to go, with supervision, to a grocery store, restaurants, shopping centres and a library as part of the process of getting him comfortable with being out in public. Bergdahl is "able to participate in the same on- and off-post opportunities as any other soldier," Don Manuszewski, an Army North spokesman, said Monday. Bergdahl has not commented publicly on the circumstances of his disappearance, and the Army has made no charges against him. The Army has said it is investigating Bergdahl's disappearance and capture, but that investigators will not interview him until those helping him recover say it is all right to do so. Warren said he did not believe that Bergdahl had met with investigators, as of Monday.

Obviously, he's still under investigation.

But if he was an immediate danger, they wouldn't put him back on duty, would they?

Not even desk duty.

In light of shootings in armed-forces bases, his purported mental problems and everything, that'd be supremely stupid, wouldn't it?

[sunnykerr]

Plan to split California into six states could end up on 2016 ballot Billionaire Tim Draper collects 800,000 signatures, which could put plan experts call a 'colossal waste of time' on 2016 ballot One billionaire’s plan to divide California into six states might actually make an appearance on the ballot in 2016. Clad in a tie depicting his vision for a divided state, venture capitalist Tim Draper on Tuesday delivered 1.3m signatures to Sacramento, the state’s current capital. That exceeds the state’s 807,615 signature requirement for getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot, though officials will still have to determine the validity of those signatures. Draper, who recently purchased 29,656 bitcoins in a government auction, said that he wants the state divided into six separate entities, each with their own constitutions, governments and, presumably, flags. He believes that dividing the state into six parts would solve California’s problems and lead to greater accountability. The six proposed states are Jefferson, which would contain the so-called “Emerald Triangle”; North California, home to wineries, suburbs and the present state capital; Central California, where much of the country’s produce comes from; West California, with Hollywood, Disneyland and Los Angeles; South California, the hot, dry border state; and Silicon Valley. They would look like this. “The chances of this passing are zero, zip, nada,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo in an email. In an article he co-wrote on the subject, Yoo said that Draper’s argument that California is “nearly ungovernable” doesn’t stand up to criticism because that claim can’t be proven. If Draper’s measure does make it onto the ballot and is supported by a majority of California’s more than 17.7m registered voters, one large thing stands in the way of his plan: the federal government. The US constitution requires the consent of a state’s legislature and Congress to create new states, meld two states together or make other complicated modifications. “This is the kind of thing that is not going to go over well, especially considering what it would mean for representation in the Senate,” said Richard Hasen, a law professor at UC Irvine. “It would multiply by six times California’s power in that body and putting aside partisan politics, it seems quite unlikely that you would get buy-in from the country to admit five new states into the union to magnify California’s power.” Draper’s continued efforts to get the measure on the ballot have frustrated people who believe he is distracting from real issues the state is facing, including a severe drought. "This is a colossal and divisive waste of time, energy and money that will hurt the California brand," Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio told the San Francisco Chronicle. He formed an opposition group called OneCalifornia with GOP strategist Joe Rodota to combat the measure.

To think of all the good this guy could accomplish if he only focused his considerable reasources of time and money towards worthier goals.

On the other hand, this gives you a pretty good picture of what actually controls governments nowadays, doesn't it?

[sunnykerr]

US readies to transfer six Guantánamo Bay detainees to Uruguay, officials say Pentagon notified Congress of intent to transfer group, including four Syrians, one Palestinian and one Tunisian US officials said the Pentagon has notified Congress of its intent to transfer six Guantánamo Bay detainees to Uruguay. Uruguayan president Jose Mujica has opposed the way detainees are treated at Guantánamo and has said that he would take them in, but then they would be free to leave. The officials, who spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity because it is the administration's policy not to publicly confirm such notifications, said the Pentagon alerted Congress of the plan last week. In practice, the actual transfer would not take place until at least 30 days after the congressional notification. It would be the first transfer of Guantánamo Bay detainees since five former Taliban commanders were exchanged in May for Bowe Bergdahl, the army sergeant who had been held for five years by the Taliban. The release of the five for Bergdahl irritated Congress because it was not given the required 30-day notice. There are currently 149 Guantánamo detainees. The New York Times, which first reported the plan to release the six detainees, reported that the group includes four Syrians, one Palestinian and one Tunisian. US and Uruguayan officials have spoken publicly in recent months about their negotiations over terms under which Uruguay would allow a number of Guantánamo Bay prisoners to resettle there. It is not clear what Uruguay would gain, beyond advancing the cause of eventually closing Guantánamo Bay. Numerous Latin American leaders have been critical of the US detention center. Mujica told the Associated Press on 2 May that he wanted to help close Guantánamo Bay by taking some prisoners but would not agree to Washington's demand to keep the former terror suspects inside Uruguay. "They will be able to move freely," he said. "They can leave. But they've been turned into walking skeletons. They've been destroyed by what they've gone through, physically and psychologically." He declined to say more to avoid complicating the talks. "We've made our proposal. It's the United States that has to decide." Mujica met with President Obama at the White House on 12 May. In their public remarks neither leader mentioned a Guantánamo Bay prisoner deal.

I'm getting the feeling these Gitmo prisoners aren't really an immediate risk to anyone.

I mean, I understand the whole scandal of releasing purported terrorists.

But they've held them this long.

If they still were believed to constitute a risk, why would they be releasing them (or, you know, as close to releasing them as you can without actually doing it)?

[sunnykerr]

Veteran Affairs healthcare deal reached after six weeks of House-Senate talks Sanders and Miller schedule Monday news conference -- billions due for clinics, doctors and outside care After more than six weeks of sometimes testy talks, House and Senate negotiators have agreed on a compromise plan to fix a veterans health programme hit by long patient waiting times and falsified records covering up delays. The chairmen of the House and Senate veterans affairs committees have scheduled a news conference for Monday afternoon, to unveil a plan expected to authorise billions in emergency spending to lease 27 new clinics, hire more doctors and nurses and make it easier for veterans who cannot get prompt appointments with VA doctors to obtain outside care. The agreement reached on Sunday by Representative Jeff Miller, a Florida Republican, and Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, was a long time coming. The House and Senate approved bills on veterans healthcare in early June, and lawmakers from both parties said they expected a final bill by 4 July. Instead, negotiators met once in public, then disappeared or held private meetings that produced few results. Talks reached a low point last Thursday, as Sanders and Miller had a public spat that appeared to leave the two sides far apart, with only days remaining until Congress goes on a five-week recess. Sanders, who chairs the Senate veterans panel, and Miller, chairman of the House panel, repeatedly lashed out at each other. Sanders accused Miller of acting in bad faith, while Miller said Sanders had "moved the goalposts" in talks to fix veterans' healthcare. A partisan impasse loomed, even as both sides said they hoped to avoid what Miller called the "sort of bickering and name-calling for which Washington has become infamous”. Three days later, after talks by telephone, Miller and Sanders were on the same page. Aides to the two men said on Sunday they had reached a tentative agreement. The deal requires a vote by a conference committee of House and Senate negotiators, and votes in the full House and Senate. Miller and Sanders said in a joint statement that they "made significant progress" over the weekend toward agreement on legislation to reform the Veterans Affairs department, which has been rocked by reports of patients dying while awaiting VA treatment and mounting evidence that workers falsified or omitted appointment schedules to mask frequent, long delays. The resulting election-year firestorm forced VA secretary Eric Shinseki to resign in late May. The plan set to be announced on Monday is intended to "make VA more accountable and to help the department recruit more doctors, nurses and other health care professionals”, Miller and Sanders said. Louis Celli, legislative director for the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, said the deal would provide crucial help to veterans who have been waiting months or even years for VA healthcare. "There is an emergency need to get veterans off the waiting lists. That's what this is all about," Celli said on Sunday. Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said the agreement was good news – although several months late. "It's about time they're doing their jobs," he said of Sanders, Miller and other members of Congress. "You don't get a medal for doing your job." Veterans waiting two months for medical appointments "don't care about all this back and forth" in Congress, Tarantino said. "That's what should be driving decisions." An updated audit by the VA this month showed that about 10% of veterans seeking medical care at VA hospitals and clinics still have to wait at least 30 days for an appointment. About 46,000 veterans have had to wait at least three months for initial appointments, the report said, and an additional 7,000 veterans who asked for appointments over the past decade never got them. Acting VA secretary Sloan Gibson has said the VA is making improvements, but said veterans in many communities still are waiting too long to receive needed care. The VA provides healthcare to nearly 9 million enrolled veterans. The House and Senate are set to adjourn at the end of the week until early September, and lawmakers from both parties have said completing a bill on veterans' healthcare is a top priority. The Senate is expected to vote this week to confirm former Procter & Gamble chief executive Robert McDonald as the new VA secretary, replacing Gibson.

I don't know what was decided on, in the end, though.

Anyone have any ideas?

[sunnykerr]

So I guess this is what happened:

House approves Veterans Affairs healthcare overhaul Vote, which carried 420-5 on Wednesday, sends the bill to the Senate, where approval is expected by the end of the week The House has approved a compromise bill to refurbish the Veterans Affairs Department and improve veterans’ health care. The 420-5 vote Wednesday sends the bill to the Senate, where approval is expected by the end of the week. The $16.3 billion measure is intended to help veterans avoid long waits for health care, hire more doctors and nurses to treat them and make firing senior executives at the VA easier. The measure includes $10 billion in emergency spending to help veterans who can’t get prompt appointments with VA doctors to obtain outside care; $5 billion to hire doctors, nurses and other medical staff and about $1.3 billion to lease 27 new clinics across the country. The Senate on Tuesday confirmed business executive Robert McDonald to lead the sprawling agency.