Some key points I've noted:

--For a child (when captured)
--Testimony extracted under torture admisable
--It is now a war crime to attack a USA uniformed soldier in a war zone

And simultaneously at Gitmo, a secret Fed plea deal where the sentence for Osama's former cook is a state secret. This is something completely new in American jurisprudence, the secret sentence.

------------

So, what is the professional left busy with? Calling Gibbs an asshole.

I think, as top shelf flack, he can handle that just fine. (So shed no tears fan-boys.)

Remarkably, what we aren't talking about is torture and Gitmo. You know, actual evil shit done in our names. Would suck to have an actual national dialog about that.

Oh, who'd bring it up? Who would actually talk about Gitmo, tribunals, our wars, torture, etc.?

That's right kids, the professional left, whoever that is (I doubt Gibbs really knows exactly who he means either). I mean, NOW we know who the "professional left" is: the professional left is anyone incensed by the term "professional left."

I think Gibbs hit it out of the park in a spectacular feat of misdirection and political calculation.

I mean, if I were say Tylenol Inc., and I had a big stack of poisoned pills I just had to sell, well, he'd win a spot right the fuck at the top of the short list.

Was it news that Obama burned the left? No, it wasn't, not to the left. But it sure is now. The limited attention span is amazing, owning the news cycle is amazing!

And, as always, don't think there's just one level to this stinky onion. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find issues so contrary to Obama the candidate positions as what is happening, today, at Gitmo.

Blue Cross of Texas might not be Wellpoint (most of rest are).

http://www.bcbstx.com /

Still, the creepiness is systemic.

Testimony of Robin Beaton

My name is Robin Beaton, and I am 59 years old. I was a registered Nurse for 30 years.
I worked in a hospital, had insurance, and was in good health. I retired from nursing, and started
a small business. I got an individual policy with Blue Cross and Blue Shield ("Blue Cross") in
December 2007.

In May 2008, I went to the dermatologist for acne. A word was written on my chart and
interpreted incorrectly as meaning pre-cancerous. Shortly thereafter, I was diagnosed with
Invasive HER-2 Genetic Breast Cancer, a very aggressive form of breast cancer. I was told I
needed a double mastectomy. When the surgeons scheduled my surgery I was pre-certified for
my two days hospitalization. The Friday before the Monday I was scheduled to have my double
mastectomy, Blue Cross red flagged my chart due to the dermatologist report. The dermatologist
called Blue Cross directly to report that I only had acne and please not hold up my coming
surgery. Blue cross called me to inform me that they were launching a 5 year medical
investigation into my medical History and that this would take approximately 3 months.
I was frantic. I did not know what to do or where to turn. I knew I could not pay for the
surgery myself Shortly thereafter I turned to my Congressman Joe Barton for help. Mr. Barton
and Christy Townsend worked tirelessly to help me.

Next, I found out that my insurance was completely canceled; this was devastating. I
had to completely refocus on what to do where to turn because my insurance canceled me.
Cancer is expensive and no one wanted to pay for it. This is America and we deserve good
Health Care.

Earlier in my life off and on I had a fast beating of my heart which was not a current
problem, just something that happened when I was upset. I truly did not even think about this
when I applied for insurance; I even offered to go take a physical they said no.
The sad thing is Blue Cross gladly took my high premiums and the first time I filed a
claim and was suspected of having cancer they searched high and low for a reason to cancel me.
There is a nurse who attends my church who works full time for Blue Cross and all she does is
read medical records looking for reasons to cancel people. After she heard what happened to me,
she told me how very sorry she was.

Blue Cross will do anything to get out of paying for cancer. Another sad fact is anyone
who has a catastrophic illness who is not part of a group stands a great chance of being left out in
the cold without insurance.

One of the main things I look forward to in my life is attending a cancer support group
every Monday and Tuesday. We meet others who have cancer and share our lives. Four of the
woman in my group had their insurance canceled because of cancer. The women in my group
frequently talk about once you have cancer you are considered uninsurable. This has been very
difficult to speak because I could be canceled again. I live with fear everyday of my insurance
company.

Continuing my story after Blue Cross canceled my policy I went everywhere looking for
help. I went to County Hospital where I was placed on a waiting list to get a Mastectomy.
Several times I went back to the County Hospital they would always say the same thing, "Why
are you here?" I answered, "I have cancer and need a mastectomy." The county hospital stated,
"Sorry we have misplaced your records." The process was unending trying to get help for cancer

I did every thing to get help. Everywhere you go takes time. No help was found until
Joe Barton after working a great long time got Blue Cross to reinstate my insurance. After being
diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in June 2008, I was placed back on the surgeons list to get
my Mastectomy. I finally received the surgery on October 2, 2008. My tumor grew 2.3 cm to 7
cm also; I had to have all my Lymph nodes removed due to waiting from June to October 2.

I am still undergoing chemotherapy every three weeks. Cancer is expensive and no one
wants to help. I pray with all my heart that no one has to go through the sheer agony that I have
endured for 1 year.

I did not deserve to have my insurance canceled. Blue Cross set out to get rid of me.
Blue Cross searched high and low until they found enough to get rid of me.

I pray that someone will listen to my story and help people like me who are powerless
against big insurance companies.

Thank You

Robin Beaton

June 11, 2009

--------

Blue Cross is Wellpoint.

--------


http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?...

And here, from the transcript which I just searched for every instance of her her name and related discussion, ( http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/... ), this is apparently how they deny she was covered by them:

Ms. Beaton, let me ask you, Blue Cross and Blue Shield came back to you after finding out you needed the surgery and said that they were taking your insurance and the date of rescission was dated back to the date of enactment of the insurance. Is that correct?
Ms. {Beaton.} I am kind of hard of hearing.
Mr. {Burgess.} Your rescission was effective on 12/07, which was the date that the insurance was initiated. Is that correct?
Ms. {Beaton.} Right. They gave me back all my premiums.
Mr. {Burgess.} Okay. That was going to be my question.
They refunded the--
Ms. {Beaton.} I never cashed the check because Mr. Barton told me never to cash it and I never did. They rescinded all my money back to the day that they said--in simple language, they wanted nothing to do with me. They gave me back every penny that I had ever given them and they considered never being insured by them.

-----

That's right, they attempted to refund all of her payments, ever, and therefore, in parallel bizarro insurance/greed world thinking, she wasn't covered by them.

Once upon a time she had another carrier, and the PR/lawyer reasoning goes that once Wellpoint/Blue Cross sent that check to her which she admitted they sent in this hearing, she was admitting she was covered by some other unnamed carrier. She did no such thing of course, but apparently it was enough for Reuters to snuff the story.

-----

Obama cited her to Congress:

Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/polit...

-----

How Robin Beaton Became Exhibit A in Obama Versus the Insurers

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Robin Beaton found out in a phone call from a member of her cancer support group that President Barack Obama cited her insurance ordeal as a reason to overhaul the U.S. health-care system.

“I cried when I finally watched him talk about my case in his speech” to Congress, said Beaton, 59, of Waxahachie, Texas, who is battling breast cancer. She saw a rerun of Obama’s Sept. 9 speech to Congress on cable television.

“If he’s able to bring this fight back to what it’s really about, I’ll feel so honored, like my story made a difference,” said Beaton, who runs a booth at an antique mart. “Every day I live in fear of them canceling my insurance.”

Beaton said she had her health insurance canceled once before in 2008, days before she was scheduled to undergo a double mastectomy. “She forgot to declare a case of acne,” Obama said in his speech. “By the time she had her insurance case reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size.”

“Pure and simple, I had pimples,” Beaton said in an interview yesterday, the morning after Obama discussed her case, without mentioning her name. “The hospital suddenly wanted a $30,000 deposit, and nobody on this earth has $30,000 unless you are really rich.”

...

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, the company that Beaton said dropped her health insurance, supports changing the health system so that people with pre-existing medical conditions are covered, as long as all Americans are required to carry health insurance coverage, spokeswoman Margaret Jarvis said. She declined to discuss Beaton’s case, citing privacy laws.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...

---

Sure sounds rock solid that she was their policy holder to me. Looks like Obama thought so too.

Lawyers who make there be less words, remarkable.

3230 less words.

I had read this and bookmarked it on Reuter's own site.

That's from after the dateline/byline, etc., and cutting any stuff at the end. Just article text.

Disappeared.

So Wellpoint 3/4 killed the story is more like it.

(I have it saved here and will run a side by side comparison tonight. Worth first checking Reuters and see if any story left though....)

Now completely excised from the article is the moving story of nurse Robin Beaton.



Reuters wire update states:

(Removes all references to Robin Beaton in first paragraph and throughout to reflect that the insurance company that canceled her policy was not a WellPoint subsidiary)

---

According to their damage control PR at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/we...

"Another significant error in the Reuters story is that WellPoint rescinded coverage to Robin Beaton. As noted during her public testimony during the US House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Ms. Beaton is NOT a WellPoint member, but rather was insured by another company."

----

So Reuters disappeared her. And disappeared about half of the article too.

Too late for me to figure out what's up exactly, but I'd wager it's some technicality on Beaton. I also like how in their friggin' press release they capitalize "NOT" just like arguing with the challenged on these here Internets (I find the random/emphasis capitalization people tend to be disingenuous, YOUR mileage may vary).

Original article is here for one place:

http://www.theusdaily.com/articles/viewart...

I only noticed this because I had been putting off a blog post. Trying to follow Blue Cross stuff in NY. 12 hours later the same article morphed into nada. Them lawyers are busy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aclu/44126166... /

Yeah I know, they supported a narrow aspect of Citizens United on sound principle, throw them under the bus!

Oh, on edit: a pretty good pragmatic argument if you ask me on their blog:

3 vs. 319

Today's Washington Post tells us that advisors to President Obama are telling him to reverse Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to send the 9/11 defendants to federal criminal court, and send them back to the military commissions system.

There are only two numbers you need to know in this debate over where the 9/11 defendants should be tried: three and 319.

Three is the number of people who have been convicted in the military commissions system. Two of the men convicted in the military commission system are free today.

Compare that to the more than 300 who have been convicted on terrorism-related charges in our federal criminal courts and are incarcerated in federal prisons.

President Obama promised during his campaign to bring those behind the 9/11 attacks to justice, and to restore the rule of law. Send him a message now, telling him to support his attorney general's decision to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security...

A Boumediene sequel bypassed
Geneva Convention at issue
Lyle Denniston | Monday, January 25th, 2010 10:19 am


Over the vigorous dissents of two Justices, the Supreme Court refused on Monday to clarify whether individuals in custody by the U.S. government may rely on the protections of the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war — an issue left at least partly unresolved by the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush and earlier detainee cases. The denial came as the Court appeared to clear the way for the extradition of the former Panamaian dictator, Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, to France for a trial on illegal drug charges.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued in dissent that the lower courts need guidance on the Geneva question. Noriega, who has completed his sentence after conviction in U.S. courts, tried to invoke the Geneva Convention to prevent his transfer to France for prosecution. He had been declared a prisoner of war, but the Eleventh Circuit Court ruled that Congress had taken away the right of anyone to pursue a habeas or other civil claim under the Geneva Convention. His appeal in Noriega v. Pastrana (09-35) argued that the Eleventh Circuit ruling resulted in “the complete repudiation of the Geneva Convention.”

Thomas wrote that the Court should review the Geneva issue to “provide much-needed guidance” on issues “with which the political branches and federal courts have struggled since we decided Boumediene….It is incumbent upon us to provide what guidance we can on these issues now. Whatever conclusion we reach, our opinion will help the political branches and the courts discharge their responsibilities over detainee cases, and will spare detainees and the Government years of unnecessary litigation.”

The Noriega case, the dissenters added, involves a conviction in regular federal court, in a case “uncomplicated by classified information or issues related to extraterritorial detention.” That, too, is a reason the Court should step in now, to rule in a case “insulated from the pressures of the moment.” The dissenters also argued that the Geneva issues are likely to figure in the Obama Administration’s planned prosecutions of the 9/11 suspects and others in federal court, and in the Administration plan to detain others for extended periods without charges.

...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/a-boumed... /

------

Friday, January 29, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Can't Wait to Say More About Geneva Conventions

Deborah Pearlstein

...


In essence, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) argues tha tthe Court should have granted review to an appeal by former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who claimed that Geneva barred the United STates from extraditing him to France to face drug crime charges in that country. Noriega had completed his sentence following criminal conviction under U.S. law, and ordinarily extradition under such circumstances would not be barred. But recall that Noriega had originally been captured by U.S. military forces operating in Panama in 1988. Responding to claims Noriega raised early in his criminal sentence about what treatment he would face in U.S. prison, a district court judge had ruled that the hostilities in which Noriega was seized constituted an "armed conflict" within the meaning of the Third Geneva Convention, that Noriega was a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, and that he was therefore entitled to POW protections regarding conditions of confinement. For various reasons, that decision was never especially contested. Fast forward 20+ years. Noriega's criminal sentence is now over, and he is arguing - in a collateral petition for habeas corpus - that Geneva gives him a right to repatriation to his home country now that the relevant armed conflict is over, and extradition to France would violate that right.


Having garnered only two (of the required four) votes to take the case, Justice Thomas lamented the Court's decision to deny cert. The Court should've granted review to "provide much-needed guidance" on issues "with which the political branches and federal courts have struggled since we decided Boumediene ." As Justice Thomas notes: "It is incumbent upon us to provide what guidance we can on these issues now. Whatever conclusion we reach, our opinion will help the political branches and the courts discharge their responsibilities over detainee cases, and wll spare detainees and the Government years of unnecessary litigation." Why would this case have any relevance for the Gitmo detainees, none of whom to date has been designated a "prisoner of war"? Because, says Justice Thomas, one of the government's arguments before the 11th Circuit below was that Noriega's claim was barred by Section 5 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (a provision amending the habeas statute directly and therefore untouched by the new Military Commissions Act of 2009). Recall that Section 5 provided as follows: "No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories." Noriega had argued that Section 5 is, among other things, unconstitutional. But if the provision is constitutional, and if Noriega can no longer "invoke" Geneva on habeas, then his case (and, Justice Thomas appears to hope, those of many of the Gitmo detainees) would certainly be over.

....

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-supr...

How about "the USA doesn't torture prisoners" numbnuts?

(I'll have to wade through the pdf tomorrow and see the brilliant reasoning why such a standard, long a part of our law and character, clearly MUST NOT apply to OLC lawyers. Ugh.)

extra points for waiting for the Tiger Woods Friday.

pdf of 69 page tortured discussion on torture is here: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nat...

Jan.5, so they've been sitting on this waiting for a particularly auspicious news dump Friday. Still trying to figure out who exactly released this today, all the stories seem vague on that.

Why a single "Associate Deputy Atty Gen." can offer absolution over large groups of people at Justice saying the opposite defies my imagination but so did Yoo/Bybee saying it's cool for the US to torture and we did.

Saw in last couple of days. Couldn't believe it, said some cruel stuff about Ted. Basically just non-sequitur for what I thought was an mostly interesting piece, out of the blue pissing on his grave.

Just figured out who she was via their transcript.

Midge Decter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Decter

Midge Decter (born July 25, 1927, in St. Paul, Minnesota) is an American neoconservative journalist and author of various books. With Donald Rumsfeld, Decter is the former co-chair of the Committee for the Free World and one of the original drivers of the neoconservative movement with her spouse, Norman Podhoretz. She is also a founder of the Independent Women's Forum, and was founding treasurer for the Northcote Parkinson Fund, founded and chaired by John Train.

...

She is also a member of the board of trustees for the Heritage Foundation, an influential Washington, D.C.-based public policy research institute.

She is one of the signatories to Statement of Principles for the Project for the New American Century.<2>

She is the mother of the conservative syndicated columnist John Podhoretz, the youngest of her four children, and the second by Norman Podhoretz. She is also the mother of Rachel Decter who married Elliott Abrams in 1980.

----

The Neocon mothership.

I take it something is still amiss at PBS.

I guess I say it was an interesting piece mainly because it had some footage I'd never seen, and a few decent interview snipets, but something was wrong with the tone, pace, focus. Evidently rules in place to give equal time to neocons.

"Kill your teevee!"

giving us all a clearer definition of the term numb nutz in the process.

Meantime, Chertof's clients are very happy to have their expensive machines that basically don't do much mandated to be purchased worldwide. Throw a half hour of Google at it and I expect you'll find some more former Shrub admin or Shurb Pioneers or some sort of BFEE making a nice profit while that unseen TSA man behind the curtain teaches us to bend over in this special new way, now with pictures.


A volunteer member of the UK security apparatus gets scanned


Same dude with skin. He's now sort of famous himself


Here a member of the UK security apparatus showing a female member
of the UK security apparatus how to zoom in on the "naughty bits"

They'll say no one could have possibly predicted that celebrity full body scans were the first new perversion of 2010.

Trust in the TSA.

Why, it's nearly unimaginable and almost requires the massive computer skills of a 4 year old to make a digital copy of a digital image made on a computer by a guy in a private booth (networked to up to 50 other booths I think--specs pdf at http://epic.org /).

I think I know what they have planned: first, pry off the "Prt Scrn" button from all keyboards. Second, stick chewing gum in all USB and flash memory slots. Third, ban TSA from owning cell phones and camera devices. Fourth, make sure that only the Shrub admin hold overs have the secret master password (default: "peepingtom123") that locks/unlocks the native image storage and network transfer. Lastly, post lots of notices to clear that Explorer cache. Like daily or something.

Oh, hey, who scans the scanners?

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-900...

Sec. 3 Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Or...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office... /

Obama Administration Misses Deadline To Close Guantánamo
January 22, 2010

ACLU Urges Closure Of Prison And End To Indefinite Detention

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
...

NEW YORK – The Obama administration missed the deadline today to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. On his second full day in office, President Obama signed an executive order to close the prison within a year. Today, the date that the prison was to have been closed, the facility remains open.

According to news reports today, the administration has decided to continue to detain without trial nearly 50 of the 198 Guantánamo prisoners because a presidential task force concluded that "they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release." The American Civil Liberties Union disputes that any significant category of such detainees exists, and renews its call for the closure of the prison and an end to the illegal policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial.

...

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obam...

Source: Wired

House Delays Patriot Act Spy Vote

# By David Kravets
# December 16, 2009 |
# 6:38 pm |
# Categories: Surveillance, politics

The House of Representatives tabled on Wednesday legislation to reform U.S. surveillance law. The two-month delay puts off a collision with a competing Senate version.

The move automatically extends provisions of the Patriot Act that would otherwise expire at year’s end. The Senate is likewise expected to delay the matter.

...

A key difference between the House and Senate packages concerns the standard by which the FBI may issue so-called National Security Letters — although Wednesday’s vote prolongs the time for more backroom negotiations. Reforming NSL powers is a key bone of contention in the Patriot Act debate, even though it is not one of the three Patriot Act provisions that was scheduled to expire Dec. 31

...

Under Wednesday’s action, the NSL-reform vote is also delayed until the New Year. And the three expiring provisions will remain in force at least through February. The extension came as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) balked at a Senate plan to include Patriot Act amendments into a $636 billion Pentagon funding measure, saying doing so would create “revolt on the left.”

....



Read more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/s... /

SETON HALL LAW RELEASES LATEST GTMO REPORT, "DEATH IN CAMP DELTA"

Seton Hall University School of Law’s Center for Policy & Research has issued a report, Death in Camp Delta, which finds dramatic flaws in the government’s investigation of three simultaneous deaths of detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The June 2006 deaths raised serious questions about the security of the Camp, and this report highlights the derelictions of duty by officials of multiple defense and intelligence agencies who allowed three detainees to die and elected not to conduct a proper investigation into the cause of the deaths.

The three detainees were each reported to have been found hanging in his separate cell shortly after midnight on June 10, 2006. According to the government’s own autopsies, each detainee had been hanging unobserved for a minimum of two hours. The deaths went unnoticed despite the constant supervision of five guards who were responsible for only 28 inmates in a lit cell block monitored by video cameras. According to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), each detainee should have been observed a minimum of once every 10 minutes by the guards. Despite clear violations of the SOP, no guards were ever disciplined.
CAMP IN DISARRAY

Buried in the investigation are details of a camp in total disarray. According to Professor Mark Denbeaux, Director of the Center for Policy & Research, the investigation shows “guards not on duty, detainees hanging dead in their cells for hours and guards leaving their posts to eat the detainees’ leftover food.” During initial investigation interviews immediately following the deaths, those guards on duty were warned that they were suspected of giving false statements and were even read their Miranda rights. These guards were also ordered to not write out sworn statements, even though SOPs demanded they should.
COVER UP

Professor Denbeaux commented, “An investigation was promised. The promised investigation was a cover up. Worse still, given the gross inadequacy of the investigation the more compelling questions are: Who knew of the cover up? Who approved of the cover up, and why? The government’s investigation is slipshod, and its conclusion leaves the most important questions about this tragedy unanswered.”

Taking the military investigation’s findings as truthful and complete, in order to have committed suicide by hanging, the detainees had to:

1. Braid a noose by tearing up their sheets and/or clothing
2. Make mannequins of themselves so it would appear to the guards they were asleep in their cells
3. Hang sheets to block the view into the cells, in violation of SOPs
4. Stuff rags down their own throats
5. Tie their own feet together
6. Tie their own hands together
7. Hang the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall and/or ceiling
8. Climb up on to the sink, put the noose around their necks and release their weight, resulting in death by strangulation
9. Hang dead for at least two hours completely unnoticed by guards
...

http://law.shu.edu/about/news_events/relea...