More Links to US Intel on the Boston Bombing

Less than two weeks after the bombing of the Boston Marathon, details are still emerging about whether US intell agencies, specifically the FBI, were on the job and whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev slipped through an inefficient web of overlapping and confusing jurisdictions - despite billions of US dollars funding multiple intel organizations and a significant erosion of the country’s once cherished Bill of Rights.

According to the President’s 2013 budget request, $52.6 billion will fund the National Intelligence Program  which will be spread to include intel programs at the CIA, FBI, Pentagon and Departments of Homeland Security, State and Justice.  This is not to say that those agencies will not receive additional funding directly through its own budget process with, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security receiving $68.9 billion in 2013 which will trickle $4 billion down to the FBI for its domestic counterterror efforts.

So which agencies knew what and when did they know it?   Here’s where it gets really thought-provoking:  

·         For starters, with a House Homeland Security Committee hearing pending, the public might be interested to know how a wounded 19 year old with no real resources at his disposal eluded the world’s greatest military arsenal and an estimated force of 9,000 law enforcement officers for almost 24 hours, much of it in broad daylight.   The Associated Press quoted two unnamed officials that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was unarmed when he was apprehended thereby removing the need for armed Swat team house-to-house searches.  

·         Almost immediately, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a closed door  hearing with the FBI after which Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) emerged stating that the FBI confirmed ‘multiple’ contacts with Tamerlan Tsarnaev.    After denying that they knew Tamerlan, the FBI is still standing by its story that it interviewed the older brother only once, prior to his 2012 trip to Russia.  Sen. Burr’s comments lend some credence to what the Zubeidat Tsarnaev, the mother of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, has been saying for days - that the FBI visited her oldest son  on multiple occasions and even visited her.   NBC is now reporting that the FBI also visited Tamerlan and “members of the Tsarnaev ‘family’ in 2012.
 

·         On April 18^th, the FBI released a video of two young men whose identity remained a mystery.  The FBI said they needed the public’s help in identifying the two men in question yet we now know that the FBI knew at least Tamerlan, the older son from interview(s) in March, 2011 and again in November, 2012.   How is it that no one at the FBI, presumably the agents who conducted the interview(s) trained to be more observant than the average citizen, did not recognize Tamerlan? 

·         CBS is now reporting that in September, 2011, the CIA requested the addition of Tamerlan’s name to the TIDE database after being contacted by Russian authorities (who had earlier contacted the FBI) due to his alleged association with Chechen terrorists.  The elder Tsarnaev’s name was added to the classified “Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment” list of “suspected terrorists” which includes approximately half a million Americans.   

·         Despite earlier denials by the FBI that they did not know the Tsarnaev brothers and then later confirming that they had interviewed Tamerlan in 2011 without any follow-up and that they did not catch his trip to Russia in 2012 because his name was misspelled yet Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 23rd that the Homeland Security system ‘pinged’ when Tamerlan left for Russia in January, 2012.     The misspelling of Tamerlan’s name may be indicative of competing data bases since presumably once a name is in the system, it is in the system or perhaps the relevant agencies have not integrated their procedures.

Meanwhile, a New York Times editorial of August 22  entitled “How to Handle a Terrorism Case” cited the “superb civilian police work” that led to the capture of Defendant Tsarnaev – but failed to mention one word about the Boston Lockdown or violations of the Fourth Amendment by the house-to-house searches as if they had never occurred.  The editorial goes on to warn of allowing ‘raw emotions associated with a terrorism case to trample on the American system of justice."   

During the FBI’s ‘public safety’ interrogation before Miranda rights were read, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev clearly identified the reason for their attack at the Marathon.  It came as no surprise that their opposition to US foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq and its brutal assaults on Islam would be motivating factors. 

As the corporate media and its indentured politicians continue their simplistic thinking and bombastic rhetoric to divert attention from the root cause of terrorism, Vice President Biden’s recent speech at a memorial service in Boston did little to encourage healing or bring comfort to a traumatized community.  Instead the Vice President chose to inflame the passions of hate, vengeance and misunderstanding as if to throw down the gauntlet when he suggested:

“They can never defeat us.  They can never overthrow us   They can never occupy us.   So why,  why, whether its al qaeda central out of the Fatah or two twisted, perverted cowardly, knock-off jihadists here in Boston…  why do they do what they do?   I’ve thought about it a lot because I deal with it a lot and I’ve come to the conclusion …they do it to instill fair…fear.  To have us, in the name of our safety and security, jettison what we value most in the world,  our open society, our system of justice that guarantees freedom, the access of all Americans to opportunity, the free flow of information and people across this country, our transparency.  That’s their target.”

Let’s hope al qaeda and the Taliban were not listening…

Boston Manhunt Challenges Constitutional Principles

It was with great relief when the manhunt and apprehension for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev brought one chapter of the Boston Marathon bombing to a conclusion – even as that manhunt raised important legal, constitutional questions.   Friday was obviously a terrifying experience for the citizens of Boston and especially Watertown –  it was a surreal and disturbing event even for a distant viewer glued to the television as I was that day.

Almost immediately, the overwhelming presence of heavily attired swat teams with assault weapons, armored tanks with machine guns, Blackhawk helicopters circling, and empty neighborhood streets created a frightening futuristic vision of a police state with civilians locked inside.  Not to minimize the injuries and trauma inflicted by the dastardly deed, the simultaneous explosion of a fertilizer plant in Texas killed and injured more people and did considerably more damage but what was happening on the streets of Boston, the cradle of the American Revolution, was the equivalent of martial law with precedent-setting warrantless house to house searches by heavily armed civil law enforcement tactical teams that had morphed into a military presence.

The Fourth Amendment was adopted to protect Americans privacy from ‘unreasonable search and seizures’ from an intrusive government but allows access ‘upon probable cause’.  Obviously in this situation of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, Bostonians cannot be faulted for opening their doors with little hesitation but here’s the conundrum:  did law enforcement believe that a wounded 19 year old was sufficiently dangerous and that a reasonable threat existed to demand entry in what can only be considered a gross violation of the 4^th Amendment?

Given the challenge to Constitutional principles, the public interest would benefit from straightforward answers to the following:              

Was Attorney General Holder consulted and was there a house-to-house search game-plan already in place?  Was there any suggestion that a knock on the door might have been sufficient?   Was the possibility that Bostonians had the option to resist armed entry ever considered?  What was the deliberative process and who made the final decision to conduct a house-to-house search? What consideration was given to establishing a dangerous Constitutional precedent?

While many Americans appear blissfully unaware of the Fourth Amendment, if the Bill of Rights is allowed to continue to erode as it has since 911, the fragile state of our democracy as well as the quality of life for all Americans will continue to rapidly diminish  - even as a majority of the public fails to recognize the threat from within.

By late afternoon on Friday, MSNBC’s Alex Witt and Michael Isikoff were reporting that the FBI had interviewed Tamerlan at least once in 2011 and that his application for citizenship had been stalled by Homeland Security based on that interview.   The FBI has since responded that the result of their interview “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign.”   However  the distraught mother of the Tsarnaev brothers has claimed that the FBI  made repeated visits to Tamerlan.   She told RT News that  “..he was controlled by FBI for 3-5 years.  They knew what my son was doing, they knew what actions, what sites on the internet he was going. They used to come home, come  talk to me…they were telling me that he was really a serious leader and  they are afraid of him.  They told me whatever country, whatever information he is getting, they are controlling him.” 

As the New York Times revealed in 2012,  FBI agents have  been known to pose as terrorists, provide necessary resources to conduct  illegal activities and then ‘entrap’ those people enticed into committing acts of ‘terrorism’.  Hopefully, the ACLU or Center for Constitutional Rights will file a Freedom of Information request for the FBI’s entire file on their contact with Tamerlan Tsarvnaev.

During law enforcement’s press conference immediately after the capture of the younger brother who had eluded a massive dragnet for almost 24 hours, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz announced that the suspect would not be read his Miranda rights and that a ‘public safety exemption’ would be invoked.   While the special exemption dates back to 1984, according to the FBI’s Law Enforcement Bulletin, the Supreme Court interpreted that “the exemption would be triggered …. to protect the police or public from immediate danger.”  The exemption has not been widely used until the Obama Administration secretly expanded its authority in 2011. 

While on one hand, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz was announcing at the Friday night press conference that the ‘public safety’ exemption would be invoked yet on the other offered the assurance that no immediate threat existed stating that "Tonight we feel a tremendous sense of gratitude and relief." "Tonight we can sleep a little bit easier.”

The Sunday morning news show Reliable Sources included a lengthy hashing out of numerous media missteps that occurred on the day of the manhunt  - misstatements that were understandable since the media were precluded by law enforcement from their role of providing the public with immediate, on-the-scene reporting.  During the early part of that day, CNN’s Chris Cuomo announced the unsettling news that the media had been asked to not ‘interfere’ with law enforcement efforts.  

Viewers watched as reporters and photographers were pushed into a ‘safe zone’ out of the ‘line of fire” as the national networks filled time with an array of expert commentators.  Cuomo went on to inform the public that CNN was airing on a five second delay and would only broadcast feeds that ‘police are comfortable with.”  Presumably, Fox and NBC followed suit. The net effect of an almost total media blackout left reporters dependent on law enforcement for vital information, compromising the public’s right to know.   While the word censorship was never uttered, Cuomo explained that “we don’t know what we can’t control.’   Videos that have surfaced of the Thursday morning shootout and the capture of the suspect on Friday evening were taken by neighbors who live in the area. 

Part of the TV coverage on Friday included persistent questioning about why this heartbreaking tragedy had occurred, conjecture on the motive and whether the Tsarnaev brothers were lone wolves or part of a larger conspiracy.  One after another authority speculated about what could have radicalized either brother  - was it al qaeda, could it have been an inability to integrate into American society or perhaps they were just a couple of evil, wicked terrorists who hated America and certainly Tamerlan’s visit last year to Chechnya was proof-positive.  

Perhaps the most credible and informed commentator was Phillip Mudd, former Deputy Director of the CIA’s Office of Counterterrorism Analysis who responded to the Why question that “they believe the US is intervening in places where they shouldn’t be intervening, raping women and killing children.” Mudd  later suggested that the bombing was ‘very basic’ and that these are ‘not the guys I watched for twenty years.”  On Fareed Zakaria’s Global Public Square on Sunday, Mudd, now a senior research fellow with the Counterterrorism Initiative at the New America Foundation, said that the attack was more reminiscent of Columbine than al Qaeda since the brothers failed to obscure their faces, had no after-action plan and that he saw no evidence to hold Dzhokhar as an ‘enemy combatant.”

By Monday evening, after Defendant Tsarnaev was questioned by the FBI, he was informed of his Miranda right to remain silent, a Public Defender was appointed and it was announced that he will be prosecuted through the civil legal system.

 

The Boston Bombing and Failure of the Military/Intelligence Complex

In the aftermath of the bombing at the finish line of the 117^th Boston Marathon, much of the American public, mainstream media and politicians have  responded with a level of shock as if the sovereignty of the United States, Our Homeland, would be so honored and respected that such a horrific event, premeditated and cold-blooded, could not have occurred.   

Exhibiting the indignation of a leader who would never consider such a nefarious act on noncombatants, President Obama appeared unaware of the irony when he suggested that “any time bombs are used to target civilians, it is an act of terror.”   In pledging that the “American people refuse to be terrorized’ the President raises the disturbing possibility in its insinuation of future vengeance to be wrecked upon the presumed perpetrator(s).

Responsible for three fatalities and injury to an estimated 170 people including the loss of limbs to perhaps dozens of individuals, the FBI has determined that the detonation was caused by two shrapnel studded ”pressure cooker” type bombs previously seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan and were traced to two black duffel bags.  

Not to diminish the pain and suffering and fear experienced by the citizens of Boston, the American public deserves to know why the US military-intelligence complex, with unlimited resources at their disposal, was caught by surprise?   What has been absent from the early reaction has been any inquiry as to why the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and who knows how many other national security agencies that cost the American taxpayer billions and billions of dollars each year failed in their responsibility to identify, to predict or to otherwise anticipate a possible attack.

According to the Homeland Security Department’s mission, its ‘founding principle and highest priority is to protect the American people from terrorist threats.”  Created by a pusillanimous Congress intent on satisfying public panic after 911,  the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was adopted by a bi-partisan Congress with a 295 – 132 vote in the House of Representatives and a  Senate 90 - 9 vote initiating the largest reorganization of the federal government since the National Security Act of 1947 combining 22 separate agencies into a single entity.

As if the catastrophe at Boston was  not enough to question the Department’s effectiveness, the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the DHS 2013 budget identified the Department’s expenditures at “more than a half a trillion dollars” since 911 with another $68.9 billion in funding for 2013 (1.3% over 2012).  Clearly, throwing money at a problem does not necessarily bring the desired result.

Also essential to public understanding is that the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the daily intrusive degradations at every airport across the country have been, largely, for naught.  The justification that legislative assaults on the Constitution that seriously eroded the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments were necessary to prevent another 911 are now revealed to be as fictitious as any imaginary fairytale. 

While the foregoing queries would make for an enlightening Congressional oversight hearing with Janet Napolitano and John Brennan providing public explanations as to why the military-intelligence agencies disastrously botched their assignment - despite an investment of hundreds of billions of public dollars, thousands of employees provided with the latest technological advancements – but don’t count on it.

The ‘Why” of this tragedy may be found in one obvious fact:  that violence begets violence and we are a violent society - not just domestically but from decades of a foreign policy that has, in the name of democracy, spread American violence around the planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Control Legislators Face Colorado Recall

As the Colorado General Assembly, guided by an unflinching Democratic leadership, moves to become the second State to adopt gun control legislation since the Newtown tragedy, the Basic Freedom Defense Fund  has set its sights on recalling the President of the State Senate and at least two other legislators, prominent proponents in the State’s pending gun control efforts.

in mid-January, the New York State Assembly moved fast and clean to approve the country’s most stringent gun control legislation barely one month after the Newtown tragedy, including limits on assault weapons, mental health requirements and ammunition magazines.  Barely one month after the Newton tragedy, New York efforts shrewdly occurred so swiftly as to preclude effective opposition with Governor Andrew Cuomo signing the legislation one hour after passage.

In what is may be a warning to other state legislators across the country and even Members of Congress acting on similar legislation, the BFDF, a tax-exempt organization based in Durango, Colorado has begun circulating petitions against politically vulnerable State Representative Mike McLachlan as local affiliates of BFDF have formed a committee to unseat State Senate President John Morse (D, Colorado Springs) and Senator Edie Hudak (D, Denver).   According to Kjersten Forseth, legislative aide to Morse, Colorado State Statute requires each petition to have signatures from 25% of last year’s Presidential vote to qualify for a recall ballot initiative.   

After recent testimony before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee by former astronaut Mark Kelly, the country’s most famous husband  to a wounded wife, former Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford, Colorado’s legislative package took shape including a prohibition on gun ownership to individuals with domestic violence convictions, a limit on ammunition magazines to 15 rounds, requirement for gun owners to pay for background checks, an expanded background check process and required training to receive a concealed weapon permit.

Home of a state that has experienced the horror of the Columbine attack in 1999 and the Aurora Theatre shooting last year, Anthony Garcia, who is organizing the petition effort on behalf of the BFDF, said that the gun control efforts were ‘an affront to the second amendment, an affront to the Constitution.”  

With a Democratic majority (23 – 12), Forseth confirmed that the Senate had finalized their legislative efforts on Monday evening, approving all five bills with the required fee legislation on the way to Governor Hickenlooper’s (D) desk for signature.   According to Forseth, the other four bills go back to the State House (with a 39 – 26 Democratic majority) for approval and then onto the Governor.   In a sign of desperation, Republicans have promised to filibuster final passage.  

Senator Morse, a strong supporter of the gun control package said “I wasn’t expecting things to get this divisive.  I really thought that after Sandy Hook that even the NRA recognized we’ve got to do something. “   Commenting on the effort to recall him, Morse added “that‘s why politicians around the country don’t want to stand up for this issue.“ 

As if writing a new chapter to Profiles in Courage, Colorado Democrats might teach Congressional Dems a thing or two including Morse who said he is willing to lose his seat and accept whatever the public decides but that he “will not back down”.   In a recent development Wednesday evening, the State House approved a bill limiting ammunition magazines to 15 rounds (34 – 30) that is now headed to the Governor for his signature.  The endangered State Representative McLachlan from a swing district who won election by less than 800 votes, voted Yes in the face of “threatening and disparaging emails against his family” stating that “I’m not going to let them bully me. I’m not going to let them hold out a recall as a way to make me abandon the principles that I stand for and the reasons people elected me.”

Holder tells Senate Commitee President will Speak on Drone policy

During Attorney General Eric Holder’s  March 6^th testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee,  in response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s dissatisfaction with the Administration’s lack of transparency on intelligence matters, Holder informed the Committee that President Obama would, within a  ‘relatively short period of time,’ be publicly speaking to explain that ‘we do these things reluctantly in conformity with international law, with domestic law and with our values as American people.”

Feinstein, who also serves as Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited the need for ‘vigorous oversight’ regarding the “legal underpinnings” of clandestine activity and has previously urged the Administration to be more forthcoming.  Feinstein told Holder that she believed the Administration ‘had good solid legal rational for the use of drones” with ‘very sound’ legal opinions and, referring to Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster underway on the Senate floor, did not believe it was ‘true or correct’ that an American citizen “walking down the street or eating in a café in this country can be targeted for elimination.”  Paul’s filibuster was prompted by a loosely-worded March 4^th letter from Holder attempting to outline Administration policy regarding the use of drones domestically on American citizens.   

Holder, who was not sworn in prior to his testimony (usually providing an essential legal framework for any Congressional witness), further agreed that there is a ‘greater need for transparency’ and "appropriately sharing information".  Assuring the Committee that “I have heard you, the President has heard you,” Holder stated that the President “feels strongly” and, within the next few months, will be ‘speaking about this’.  

It is not every day that Republicans in the Senate give a good reason to applaud their legislative behavior but Holder’s Committee appearance provided an opportunity for the newly-elected, already-controversial Sen. Ted Cruz  (R-Texas) to question the Attorney General on the Administration’s drone policy:

Cruz:  “I’d like to start with the topic of drones.  In your response to Sen. Paul yesterday, you suggested there may well be ‘ circumstances in which it is permissible to use drones to target a US citizen on US soil.   I’d like to explore those circumstances; in particular you pointed to two, Pearl Harbor and 911 – both of which were extreme military attacks on the homeland.  I want to ask a more specific question.  If an individual is sitting quietly at a cafe in the United States, in your legal judgment, does the  Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil to be killed by a drone?”

Holder:   …” for sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?”

Cruz:  “If that individual is not posing an imminent and immediate threat of death or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that individual?”

Holder:  “On the basis of what you said, I don’t think you can arrest   that person."  

Cruz:   “The person is suspected to be a terrorist, you have abundant evidence he is a terrorist, he is involved in terrorist plots but at moment he’s not pointing a bazooka at Pentagon. He’s sitting in a café; overseas the United States government uses drones to take out individuals when they are walking down a path, sitting in a café.   If a US citizen on US soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does  the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?”

Holder:  “I would not think that would be appropriate use of any kind of legal force.   We would deal with that in the way that we typically deal with a situation like that ….”

Cruz:  “With respect General Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion.  It was a simple legal question.  Does the Constitution allow a US citizen on US soil who doesn’t pose an imminent threat to be killed by the us government?”

Holder:  “I do not believe, again, you have to look at all the facts but on the facts that you’ve given me, this is a hypothetical. I would  not think that in that situation, the use of drone or legal force would be appropriate because….”

Cruz:  “General Holder, I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very  simple,  you are unable to give a simple one word, one syllable answer - no. I think it is unequivocal that if the US government were to use a drone to take the life of a US citizen on US soil and that individual did not pose an imminent threat that that would be deprivation of life without due process…”  

Holder:   “Maybe I’m not being clear.  I said the use of legal force; ….use of drones, guns or whatever else  would not be appropriate in that circumstance.”

Cruz:   “You keep saying appropriate. My question isn’t about propriety. My question is about whether something is  constitutional or not.  As Attorney General, you are chief legal officer of United State.  Do you have a legal judgment  on whether it would be constitutional to kill a US citizen on US soil in those circumstances?”

Holder:  “A person who is not engaged as you describe, this is the problem with  hypotheticals; the way in which you have described it, this person sitting at a café not doing anything imminently, the use of legal force would not be appropriate,  would not be …”.

Cruz:    “I find it remarkable you will still not give an opinion on the constitutionality. Let me move on to the next topic.”

Holder:   “Let me be clear.  Translate my ‘appropriate’ to ‘no’, I thought I was saying no, all right?”

Cruz:   “I am glad that, after much gymnastics,  I am very glad to hear that it is the opinion of the Department of Justice it would be unconstitutional to kill a US citizen on US soil if that individual did not pose an imminent threat.  That statement has not been easily forthcoming. I wish you had given that statement in response to Sen. Paul’s letter asking you it.  I would  point out that I   will be introducing legislation in the Senate to make clear that US government cannot kill a US citizen on US soil absent an imminent threat and I hope,  based on that representation the Department will support that legislation.” 

Holder: “Well, that’s totally consistent with the letter I sent to Sen. Paul.  I talked about 911 and Pearl Harbor - those are the instances where I said it might possibly be considered but other than that, we would use our normal law enforcement authorities along those lines…...”

Inexplicably, the Attorney General appeared unable to grasp the distinction between his use of what is ‘appropriate’ and what is Constitutional.  

FDR, the Budget Control Act of 2011 and Pentagon Spending

In the summer of 1935, at the height of the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt  signed the Revenue Act into law to pay for New Deal programs.  The Act raised tax rates from 59% to 75% on those Americans earning more than $5 million and raised corporate taxes from 13% to 15% on businesses earning over $50,000 annually.

In the summer of 2011, as President Obama’s $4 trillion ‘grand bargain’ with Speaker Boehner fell apart, the now-discredited Budget Control Act (BCA) was adopted on a bipartisan vote  to avoid an immediate economic default.   It was assumed that the sequestration portion of the Act which proposed mandatory cuts to military and domestic programs were so egregious that those reductions would never be allowed to occur.   The fact that Congress and the Administration were willing to take that gamble raises the inevitable question of whether the existing political structure is competent to run the country – especially in times of crisis.
 

Politically incoherent from the outset, the BCA which contained almost $1 trillion across-the-board cuts, brought the debt ceiling crisis to a conclusion while establishing a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka Super Committee) with twelve equally apportioned members of Congress.    If the forced negotiations failed to achieve a consensus on an additional $1.5 trillion cuts and increased tax revenue, then the BCA allowed a mandatory trigger of that amount to occur over the next ten years.   Of course, the Super Committee was doomed from the start – why would a dozen members of Congress  willingly commit political suicide by assuming  total responsibility  for determining the economic  future of world’s number one super-power.
 

As the  bipartisan finger-pointing and blame game continues, it is important to acknowledge that an enforced budget-cutting mechanism dubbed ‘sequestration’ originated with the Gramm Rudman Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Reduction Act of 1985.  At that time, Rudman referred to sequestration as ‘a bad idea whose time had come.”   Whether its current incarnation came from Jack Lew, current Treasury Secretary  or Gene Sperling, White House Economic Council Director  as Bob Woodward cites in Politics of Power (pg. 215) remains open to speculation.
 

Once the politically-generated ‘fiscal cliff’ stalled in January with modestly raised tax revenues while cutting unemployment benefits , the first sequestration $85 billion budget cut (coincidentally the same amount that the Fed Bank distributes monthly to the banks) kicked in on March 1^st despite a White House list of potentially horrendous cuts to education, transit, health care, housing, infrastructure projects and other essential people programs. 
 

Meanwhile, as Republicans sputter in protest over a $45 billion cut to Pentagon spending which represents only a softening of the edges, there is every reason to believe that the reduction will be watered down  in the name of ‘national security’ in the next  Continuing Resolution.   Since even before the fiscal debacle of 2008, the  tactic of Republicans to undermine and destroy the credibility of the Federal government, only to turn around and point to the result of their own actions as proof of why there is a breakdown in the Federal government’s performance, has proven to be shrewdly successful.   
 

For their part, today’s  Democrats bear little resemblance to past Democrats who constructed  the country’s once-sacrosanct social safety net.    Erroneously assuming Republicans would resist any military cuts and be forced to negotiate, the White House seriously misread the tea leaves as the party of Thomas Jefferson backed themselves into a tight corner with little room to maneuver.   

At the February 12^th Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the potential impacts of sequestration on the Department of Defense  with all five Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in attendance, Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich) opened the hearing with one example of ‘devastating’ sequestration impacts:   the Army had requested  $36.6 billion for 2013 but will only receive $30.6 billion (same as 2012 budget) with  sequestration cutting an additional $6 billion.  Levin went on to inform that since the Army has already spent $ 16 billion for 2013 with only $8 billion remaining for fiscal year 2013.   With “unexpected high operational demands requiring $6 billion to be spent overseas,”  left the Army with only $2 billion for domestic operations and maintenance for the next six months  - which, Levin pointed out, was originally budgeted at $20 Million.
 

As Committee members, regardless of political affiliation, expressed their empathy with the military’s need to pull in its belt for the first time in over thirty years, there was little evidence of a vibrant two party system  – until  tea party favorite Sen.  Mike  Lee of Utah had the last word.   Citing former Senator Chuck Hagel’s December 2012 Financial Times interview, Hagel was asked about  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s quote that sequestration would be ‘disastrous’ to national defense.  Lee quoted Hagel as stating that Defense “in many ways has been bloated”, “they have gotten everything they wanted in the last ten years”, that the “waste and fraud has been astounding” and that “they have taken priorities, taken dollars out of State Department and other agencies and put them in Defense”.   

In conclusion, Lee invited each Joint Chief “down the line” to respond  whether they agreed with Hagel’s general characterization.   After a few nervous twitters, only Ashton Carter, deputy Secretary of Defense responded, woefully failing the straight face test, citing Secretary Gates’ efficiency initiative to reform and improve the acquisitions system, how management problems occurred when it was easy to reach for more money to solve technical problems, that habits had accumulated over decades  and that “we have accommodated a substantial budget adjustment relative to  a few years ago.”   

In his first term, Lee,  who has shown a populist streak on occasion, responded that Carter’s answer appeared “inconsistent” since “Hagel’s statement was made just recently - in December.”

 

MOX Fuel, Plutonium Proliferation and the Russians

As automatic sequestration budget cuts loom, the Department of Energy has managed to keep a $5 billion plutonium plant alive - just barely. According to an Office of Budget and Management proposed budget, funding for the controversial Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel program would be cut 75% with no justification for not pursuing an outright cancellation.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War in 1990, the United States was faced with the dilemma of discarding a stockpile of dismantled nuclear warheads containing tons of lethal plutonium, leftovers from a frenzied arms-race with Russia that fabricated thousands of unnecessary budget-busting nuclear weapons, warheads and bombs since the end of WW II.

Amidst Administration concerns about nuclear proliferation with Iran’s potential entry into the world of nuclear weapons and as the North Koreans conduct a ‘miniaturized’ nuclear device, the MOX fuel plant under construction since 2007 at the DOE’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina sounds, on the surface, like a conscientious effort to limit the spread of weapons-grade plutonium.

The beleaguered MOX plant, designed to convert plutonium from obsolete nuclear warheads to ultimately fuel commercial nuclear reactors has been plagued by out-of-control cost overruns and is significantly behind its 2007 startup date, has been targeted for total elimination by environmentalists, safe energy, peace and taxpayer groups.

Keeping the project on the books with a $2 billion life-line is of dubious legislative wisdom since the MOX facility may never function as originally designed or be reconfigured for any other purpose.  Even as the DOE has failed to find one commercial utility willing to utilize MOX, it is unclear what would be accomplished by maintaining an empty building with no purpose. In the marbled halls of Congress, it is frequently a clever ploy to ‘deep six’ a controversial, indefensible project and then quietly slip it back in when the opponents are engaged elsewhere – but the reality is that the 75% cut should not be considered a ‘done deal.’ Committed Congressional friends of the project can be expected to find a way, during all the hustle-bustle of the sequestration debate, to restore full MOX funding.

In recognition of the proliferation risks from surplus irradiated plutonium, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) signed a contract in 1999 with a consortium of corporate partners including Duke Energy to design and operate a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. By 2000, the US and Russia, which had also accumulated tons of excess plutonium, entered into a Management and Disposition of Plutonium Agreement PMDA. with each country accepting International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring and committing to convert no less than 34 metric tons of plutonium, also known as nuclear fodder for terrorists. The US had estimated 50 tons of surplus plutonium in its possession with 38 tons considered ‘weapons grade’

According to the 2000 Agreement, two options were identified for preventing plutonium from any future use: one option called for immobilization of plutonium in a ‘glass or ceramic matrix using a can-in-canister system of chemically stable ceramic discs suitable for geologic disposal.’ In 2001, President Bush cut project funds as he halted construction of an immobilization plant considered by Ed Lyman, Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, to be worth exploring as an alternative. Instead Bush gave the green light for development of a full-scale MOX program.

Upon scrutiny, the MOX fuel option is an untested nuclear boondoggle with the potential for accomplishing the opposite of the Agreement’s stated goal: prohibiting the proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium. The more experimental MOX process is considerably more hazardous and complicated with numerous opportunities for plutonium diversion - beginning with the removal of a plutonium “pit” (about the size of a grapefruit) from a defunct nuclear warhead. The ‘pit’ is to be converted into an oxide powder mixed with depleted uranium to form the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. Of special concern to Lyman is the increased handling by personnel and multiple transportation risks of one of the “world’s most dangerous substance and a usable nuclear weapon material traveling in unmarked trucks with weaken security safeguards than would otherwise be required for comparable toxic material.”

Of no less importance is the status of the bilateral Agreement (amended in 2011) with its Russian partner. Lyman and Tom Clements, nuclear weapons expert with Friends of the Earth, share the concern of the U .S. sanctioning Russia’s use of a fast neutron reactor and the reprocessing of some of its spent fuel to produce additional plutonium, thereby undermining the original intent of the Agreement to decrease plutonium stockpiles.

Clements added that the promise of the Agreement is no longer being pursued as Russia has abandoned the use of MOX in light-water reactors and has instead been building a new plutonium BN800 "breeder" reactor which poses significant nuclear proliferation risks as the reactor using MOX fuel can produce weapons-grade plutonium. "It is a blow to international nuclear non-proliferation policies that the US has helped enable Russia to build the BN800 breeder reactor," said Clements.

.