In Israel and the Occupied Territories, Palestinian villagers in the West Bank are accusing Israeli settlers of burning their olive groves and damaging their property. The attack took place in the village of Ma’adama.

Palestinian villager: “Some settlers went down the hill and set a number of trees ablaze over the water well which serves the village. It is called the Sha’ara well. They attacked people’s belongings and broke and uprooted trees. And the fire, as you saw when you arrived a little while ago, it was still burning."

Israel continues to expand West Bank settlements it says it ultimately plans to keep.

DemocracyNow.com

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A huge truck bomb exploded at the entrance to the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on Saturday evening, killing at least 53 people and wounding at least 266, according to the acting interior minister.

The blast, one of the worst acts of terrorism in Pakistan’s history, went off just a few hundred yards from the prime minister’s house, where all the leaders of government were dining after the president’s address to Parliament.

The toll was expected to grow because of reports that people had been trapped inside the six-story hotel, which has been a favorite meeting spot of both foreigners and well-connected Pakistanis in the heart of the capital. The building was quickly engulfed in flames and continued to burn for hours Saturday night.

Among the dead were the Czech ambassador, two American citizens and a Vietnamese woman. Some 11 other foreigners were injured. Rescuers brought at least five more bodies out of the burnt hotel on Sunday.

The bomb left a vast crater, 40 feet wide and 25 feet deep, at the security barrier to the hotel. Witnesses said security guards were buried under a mound of rubble. Cars across the street from the hotel were mangled, and trees on the street were charred and stripped of their branches. The blast shattered windows in buildings hundreds of yards away.

Witnesses said they dragged dozens of bodies from the lobby of the hotel and an adjacent parking lot, including those of a number of foreigners. Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department, issued a statement saying at least one American citizen was killed and several others were injured.

The bombing was the deadliest to take place in the well-guarded capital and may have been timed for the day that President Asif Ali Zardari made his first address to Parliament since his election two weeks ago. Mr. Zardari, whose wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated in December by a suicide bomber, vowed in his speech to root out extremism and to stop terrorists from using Pakistani soil to attack other countries.

Both he and the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, condemned the attack and repeated their determination to deal with terrorism with an iron hand, the state news agency, The Associated Press of Pakistan, reported.

On national television late Sunday, Mr. Zardari said most of the victims had been security guards at the entrance to the hotel. “These are not the acts of a Muslim,” he said. “We will get rid of this terrorism cancer.”

There was no immediate claim of responsibility. But Pakistani analysts said the bombing may have been in retaliation for recent army operations that have reportedly killed scores of militants in the tribal area of Bajaur, near the border with Afghanistan, and the adjacent area of Swat.

An American intelligence official said the attack “bears all the hallmarks of a terrorist operation carried out by Al Qaeda or its associates.”

The tribal areas have become a safe haven for insurgents linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, whose attacks on targets in Pakistan have become increasingly frequent and lethal. Coming after a bombing this year at another gathering spot for foreigners, the Serena Hotel in Kabul, Afghanistan, the Marriott attack seemed intended to send a message to Washington and other allies of Pakistan.

Despite the tough talk by the president and prime minister, it was unclear what kind of response the government would mount. Pakistan has been in a state of political turmoil for months, and from the American perspective at least, the new civilian government has so far shown little interest in pursuing a campaign against the militants.

President Bush denounced the attack on Saturday. “I strongly condemn the terrorist bombing in Islamabad that targeted and killed many innocents,” he said.

The Islamabad Marriott has been attacked by militants at least twice in the past, including in a suicide attack in January 2007 that killed a policeman. A senior police official, Ashfaq Ahmed Khan, said initial reports suggested that an explosives-laden dump truck had been detonated near the entrance.

“The Marriott is an icon,” said Abdullah Riar, a former aide to Mrs. Bhutto. “It’s like the twin towers of Pakistan. It’s a symbolic place in the capital of the country, and now it has melted down.”

One wounded American who works at the embassy here said he was unlocking his car when the bomb exploded. The American, who gave only his first name, Chris, had injuries to his face, neck and shoulder, and was holding a bloody T-shirt to his face.

American Embassy personnel members at the scene said they had come to help American citizens caught in the blast.

Amjad Ali Khan, a guard on duty at a side entrance to the hotel, said that he had seen four to five bodies in the hotel parking lot and that he helped carry out 40 bodies from inside the hotel. He said they had been “in the lobby and in the restaurant and everywhere.”

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

Amjad Ali Khan, a guard on duty at a side entrance to the hotel, said that he had seen four to five bodies in the hotel parking lot and that he helped carry out 40 bodies from inside the hotel. He said they had been “in the lobby and in the restaurant and everywhere.”

“There were very few people injured,” he said. “They were all dead.”

When asked who he thought was responsible for the blast, he responded, “They are terrorists.”

The Interior Ministry had warned several days ago that it had information that four or five suicide bombers had been dispatched on missions around the country. The government enforced tight security during the president’s 3 p.m. address, posting Army Rangers and police officers in rings around the Parliament and government buildings.

The Marriott is nearby, but security may have been reduced after the speech and ahead of the evening meal, when Muslims break their fast during the holy month of Ramadan. The bomb exploded at 8 p.m., when many Pakistanis were inside the banquet hall at the back of the hotel.

Asmatullah Marvat, a paramedic for the Capital Development Authority, said rescue workers had taken 70 to 80 people to different hospitals in the city.

Hotel workers said that they had heard a loud explosion and that the east wing of the hotel was on fire. “I was inside the Marquee Hall,” said a man who identified himself as Kaleem. “It was iftar time. All of a sudden there was a massive explosion. The roofs collapsed, and we ran out the back.”

Zahid Ahmed, a businessman who rushed to the blast site from a nearby neighborhood, was standing near the wreckage of mangled cars across the road. “I saw dozens of casualties,” he said. “People were trying to help but it was such a depressing sight that I cannot describe it”, he added, with moist eyes and shaking his head.The Islamabad police asked the army to assist in the rescue work.

The F.B.I. offered to send special agents to help investigate, said a senior American official, who declined to be identified because of the nature of the matter. The F.B.I. is awaiting approval from the Pakistani government, the official said.


Reporting was contributed by Salman Masood from Islamabad, Jane Perlez from London and Eric Schmitt from Washington.


NYTimes.com

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan's top leaders were to dine at the Marriott hotel that was devastated by a truck bombing over the weekend, but changed the venue at the last minute, a senior government official said Monday.

The blast in the capital Islamabad killed as many as 60 people and underscored the extremist challenge facing nuclear-armed Pakistan. Two intelligence officials said Pakistani troops and tribesmen opened fire on two U.S. helicopters after they crossed from Afghanistan into the northwest tribal region, where Taliban and Al Qaeda militants are operating.

In a further sign of the country's deteriorating security situation Monday, gunmen kidnapped Afghanistan's ambassador-designate and killed his driver in the main northwestern city of Peshawar, said a spokesman for the mission in the city.


FoxNews .com

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

Pakistani troops and tribesmen reportedly opened fire on two US helicopters that crossed into the country from neighboring Afghanistan on Monday. This comes as reports emerge that the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan are discussing the creation of a joint military force to fight along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Democracy Now .com

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

Pentagon Unveils Heat-Inducing Ray-Gun: Non-Lethal Crowd Control or Dangerous Weapon?
The Pentagon unveils a new heat-ray gun that is designed to make targets feel like they are about to catch fire. It’s main goal: pain. Does it violate international law, and could it be used for torture? Retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson says: “Why would I want to use an $8 million weapon [when I can use] a 25-cent pen knife?” Human Rights Watch military expert Marc Garlasco says the weapon raises major concerns. They joins us for a discussion.


The Pentagon has unveiled one of its newest high-tech weapons of the future this week—a heat-ray gun that is designed to make targets feel like they are about to catch fire. The gun is officially known as the Active Denial System, or ADS. It functions by firing an invisible high-energy beam from a large rectangular dish mounted on a Humvee vehicle.

The beams are designed to penetrate clothing and then travel less than half a millimeter into the skin. Within seconds, the beam heats the skin to around 120 degrees. The Pentagon describes the raygun as a safe, non-lethal weapon designed for crowd control but critics question the safety of the weapon if used on crowds containing elderly people, children or pregnant women.

The weapon isn’t expected to go into production for another three years but the Pentagon has already launched a public relations campaign to win support for the experimental weapon. This is an excerpt from a promotional video produced by the Department of Defense.


AMY GOODMAN: This is an excerpt from a promotional video produced by the Pentagon.

PENTAGON VIDEO: ADS uses a directed beam of millimeter-wave energy that penetrates about one-sixty-fourth of an inch into the adversary’s skin. The energy is harmless. The superficial heating effect is nearly instantaneous, and the adversary instinctively flees. ADS is an ideal choice for protecting members of the US military and their equipment in a wide range of operations, particularly when the use of lethal force would be counterproductive. ADS utilizes groundbreaking technology that is designed to save lives, protect the innocent and limit collateral damage, while effectively repelling adversaries. ADS will minimize fatalities by providing our forces a non-lethal option between shouting and shooting.

AMY GOODMAN: Marc Garlasco of Human Rights Watch joins us in the studio, senior military analyst at the organization, expert on non-lethal weapons. Gary Anderson joins us on the phone, retired Marine colonel, defense consultant in Washington, D.C. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Marc Garlasco, can you describe further this weapon and what your concerns are?

MARC GARLASCO: Well, one of the problems that we have is that I can’t do a very good job of describing it to you. I have gone and met with a number of military personnel and gone down to actually have conferences on the ADS, looked at video for footage on tests of the ADS, and spoken to a variety of military personnel on it, and yet they continue to hold back information from us. And one of the problems that we have is this veil of secrecy that they refuse to lift. We’re not looking for any classified information on it, just for information basically to understand the legal and medical tests that have been undertaken on it. And so, I really can’t describe in full this weapon, because of this veil of secrecy. And it’s incumbent upon the military to really lift that veil now so that we can have that discussion and debate on this really novel technology.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you feel when you’re hit with it? I mean, reporters have been hit with it.

MARC GARLASCO: Well, we’ve been told—I haven’t been shot with it yet. I’m sure that they’re looking forward to getting me under the gun soon. I haven’t been shot with it yet, but from the video that I have seen and from speaking to people who have been hit with it, it’s an instantaneous heating, very quick, rapid, and you just want to get out of the way.

AMY GOODMAN: So it causes pain.

MARC GARLASCO: It causes pain, absolutely. And one of the questions that we have for the military is, under international law, a weapon cannot legally be used, which is designed solely to cause pain. And so, we would like to see how their legal definitions have been put forward on this weapon and what their legal response is to it.

AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Gary Anderson, is this a laser? And what about this point of the weapon to cause pain?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: OK. Could I ask a question to your other guest first: if he has contacted the Pentagon since they have unveiled the weapon? They were under some strictures not to, until they officially did. Currently, they have, since you have a promotional video. Could I get an answer from that?

AMY GOODMAN: Marc Galasco.

MARC GARLASCO: Sure. Well, they just unveiled the weapon this week, which doesn’t give a lot of time for that. But I have been speaking to them for the last two years on the weapon. Sir, first I want to let you know that—

COL. GARY ANDERSON: [inaudible] my question. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t mis-categorizing the Pentagon’s position now that they’ve updated. I would suggest that you do contact them.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Gary Anderson, is this a laser? And what about this issue of a weapon just designed to cause pain?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: Yeah, I think the promotion video probably described it. It’s millimeter-wave. It excites the upper level of the skin to a very small part, but it does inflict a sensation of pain that would cause you not to go any further if you were advancing toward an area. I have been hit by the thing about 56, 60 times, and you get a sensation of pain. You don’t want to go any further. It’s an involuntary reaction. And then, when you stop going, they turn it off, and you’re OK.

AMY GOODMAN: And when you say you get a sensation of pain, you mean across your body it’s this shock of heat, of burning?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: It is a sense that you’re very, very hot. It’s like having an oven opened right in your face, and just like going close to a hot stove, you don’t want to go any further.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s the danger of a weapon like this being used during an interrogation session, being used for torture?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: Any—you know, any weapon can be misused if you—you know, if put in the wrong hands. The question I would ask is this: you know, each variation of this weapon costs about $8 million. Why in the world would I want to use an $8 million weapon to do something I could do with a 25-cent pen knife?

AMY GOODMAN: Marc Garlasco?

MARC GARLASCO: Well, first, I’d like to say that Human Rights Watch supports the development of non-lethal weapons. We certainly think it’s a good thing to not want to kill civilians, and the US military currently uses a variety of non-lethal weapons. People have to understand that this is something that is currently in their toolbox, things such as foams or pepper spray, and even things like beanbag guns. And so, these are things that they have right now.

This weapon is a leap forward by generations. You know, really Star Trek has taken over at this point. This is a novel weapon. It’s new technology. And so, at Human Rights Watch, we believe that it’s time for an open debate. There needs to be discussion on it. And we would have hoped that over the last two years, as we have been working with the military to learn more about this weapon, that that would have happened. It seems now that they’re trying to say, you know, the weapon has been authorized, we’re going to develop it, and now you’ve got a couple of years to learn about what we’re going to do with it.

COL. GARY ANDERSON: Well, let’s take those sort of point by point. First of all, all of the weapons that Marc described, with the exception of the foam, have the potential of leaving permanent damage. They’re not designed to do that, but they can, and they have. It is against the Geneva Convention to deliberately inflict permanent harm on a person that you expect to survive. That’s exactly why the ADS was developed. It doesn’t do that, and it outranges any of the weapons that we have now. Right now, the slingshots and the small arms weapons that are concealed in crowds of pregnant women and children, as they were in 1993 in Somalia and in 2003 in Fallujah, can outrange any of these weapons that he just described. The ADS has a line of sight-type thing to give you a standoff, so you don’t put either your people or the opposition in undue danger.

Now, let me also say that I do reemphasize the fact that now that the Pentagon has been able to unveil the weapon, I would encourage you to get together with them and open your dialogue. They’re ready to have it now. And then, if you still feel they’re not being forthcoming, then you probably have, perhaps, a legitimate problem with it.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the long-term effects of this weapon?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: As far as I know, there are none. Let’s see, the last time I was exposed to it was September of 2005, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m still alive, breathing, and feel pretty good, and just passed my last physical.

AMY GOODMAN: Marc Garlasco?

MARC GARLASCO: Well, I don’t really think that 2005 is long-term. I appreciate what you’re saying. There are certainly things that we need to learn about this. I went out to the labs and met with some of their folks. They were very reticent to share information. They were happy to have you, but, you know, they’re not as open with the documentation as we would hope they would be.

We have to understand non-lethal weapons, as you’ve stated, certainly can kill at times. This weapon is not designed to do that, but there are other things that non-lethal weapons do, as well. One of our concerns is that they lower the threshold of use. Let’s say, for example, I’m a 19-year-old soldier holding an M-16, and I have a crowd in front of me. You know, perhaps if I see women and children, I’m going to be less likely to pull the trigger on them, because I know that I have the capability to kill them. But if I have a weapon in hand, which I know is not going to give permanent damage, or at least believe that, perhaps I’m more likely to use it. And so, we’re concerned that it’s not just the medical effects or the lasting effects on people, but there are a variety of things non-lethal weapons do just by their nature that will complicate the battlefield.

COL. GARY ANDERSON: Marc, I understand your concern, but I suffer from the advantage of having experienced that type of position and that type of decision-making close-up in Somalia, and I will tell you this: I desperately wanted to have that capability as an alternative between doing nothing and having to fire into the crowd. Even if I was very, very precise with my snipers, there was always a chance of killing an innocent. I wanted that ability to sort of set my phaser on stun, and I think any thinking soldier would want that, and I think the American public is going to understand that. So I welcome having this argument. Now that the Pentagon has allowed the scientists to talk about it, I really welcome this policy debate. I think the American public has an innate ability to understand common sense, and I think they’ll side with my side, rather than your side.

MARC GARLASCO: Yeah, I don’t see it as an argument, nor do I see a need to have an argument. We’re just looking for an honest and open discussion about it. In fact, when I first met with the military on the ADS two years ago, I said to them, “Look, you know, here is an opportunity to embrace your critics and to have us as a supporter. Explain the weapon system to us better, because we really think it’s a good idea not to kill civilians, and potentially you’ve developed something here that has some very positive aspects to it, but we have legitimate concerns.” Now, they’ve taken two years and dragged their feet. As you state, they have now unveiled the weapon. I think it’s incumbent upon them, though, to allow that debate, to have that debate, before a weapon is given the thumbs up and put into production.

COL. GARY ANDERSON: I think they’ve opened up that debate, Marc. I think what you need to do is engage with them, and let’s go ahead and have that debate.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think, Marc Garlasco, that this new heat-ray gun has signaled a new direction in non-lethal technology?

MARC GARLASCO: Well, absolutely. You know, we’ve gone now—there’s been a huge leap in non-lethals, from the very short-range non-lethal weapon that leaves marks and now all of a sudden we have things that are novel technologies, things that are not going to be stopped under certain international laws, or I should say that are not going to be governed by certain international laws on weapons. And so, we’re going to look at the broader Geneva Conventions covering them. You know, for example, there is no treaty body that is going to govern them specifically, so we have to look at international law more broadly. And so, since they’re a completely new level of technology, we really have to take a look at them very carefully. And, as you stated, it’s not understood, the long-term damage effects. 2005 is not a good bellwether. We don’t really understand the ocular damage that it can do to someone. And as also stated before, pregnant women, children, the infirm, these are all people that are going to be far more susceptible to lasting damage, and there needs to be more understanding on the part of the public as to what the effects of this weapon are.

AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Anderson?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: OK, I think, Marc, I agree with you there. But the one thing I want to point out is that we’re dealing with adversaries who are deliberately putting women and children into those situations to mask gunmen, and so forth. It’s called asymmetric warfare, and they do it very well. Not having the ability to deal with that in a non-lethal manner is, in my mind, criminally irresponsible.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, stun guns, for example, were talked about as non-lethal technology, and, of course, we see case after case in being used in domestic situations, police on people here in the United States, where people have died.

MARC GARLASCO: That’s correct. And they continue to be used. We’re talking now about not an individual; this is a crowd-control weapon. We’re talking about a large number of people. I was out at Penn State University last year, which is one of the labs that works on Active Denial System, and I learned that one of the problems that they’ve been working with is the bounce effect of the weapon, where if you’re firing the weapon and it hits off of an acute angle, that, in fact, it could be directed in ways that—you know, a scatter ability that they may not intend. And so, there are a lot of potential—

AMY GOODMAN: And what does that mean?

MARC GARLASCO: That means that the weapon can hit one spot, and it can ricochet off and go much farther than it’s intended. And so, we’re just concerned about the development of policies, procedures, and the way the weapon is employed. The training of the soldiers—this is something completely new that these kids are not going to be initially understanding. They have to learn how to use it.

And also looking at the possibility of the weapon cutoff, you know, as I understand it, currently when the weapon is first employed, there is a safety mechanism in which it shuts off very rapidly so that the people are not, you know, on fire for a long time, or at least have that sensation for a long time. The concern is override. What about the possibility of a lengthening of this period so that the people are actually exposed to it for a longer period—can an adversary fight through it? And so, there are a lot of things going on here. It’s far more complicated. And while I appreciate what the colonel says, that we want to minimize civilian casualties—and we at Human Rights Watch believe that, as well—it’s far more complicated than just saying you either have the opportunity to be shot with a bullet or to be uncomfortable.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there. I want to thank you both for being with us. Marc Garlasco of Human Rights Watch, and I also want to thank retired Marine Colonel Gary Anderson, joining us from Washington, D.C., defense consultant.


Democracy Now .com

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

Bush, Ahmadinejad Address UN General Assembly
President Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were among world leaders to address the opening of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. In his last General Assembly speech as US president, Bush continued on his White House theme of casting the UN as an irrelevant institution.

President Bush: “The United Nations is an organization of extraordinary potential. As the United Nations rebuilds its headquarters, it must also open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability and seriousness of purpose. With determination and clear purpose, the United Nations can be a powerful force for good as we head into the twenty-first century. It can affirm the great promise of its founding.”

Later in the day, Ahmadinejad took the podium. He said Iran is open to dialogue but would defend itself against any attacks. In a veiled reference to Israel and the United States, Ahmadinejad also called for the disarmament of major nuclear powers.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “The Iranian nation is for dialogue. But it has not accepted and will not accept illegal demands. The time has come for the IAEA to present a clear report to the international community on its monitoring of the disarmament of these nuclear powers and their nuclear activities.”

In a reference to Israel and its supporters, Ahmadinejad made several mentions of “Zionists” throughout his speech. He warned both Israel and the United States are in danger of collapse.

Ahmadinejad: “Today the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters. American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders. Today, the thought of hegemony quickly becomes a demerit.”


Democracy Now .com

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

In Pakistan, the Pakistani military is claiming it’s recovered the wreckage of an American spy plane near the Afghan border. Pakistani officials say the drone crashed due to a malfunction, but villagers in the area say it was shot down. It’s believed to be the first time a US spy plane has crashed inside Pakistan. The news comes amidst ongoing US-Pakistani tensions over several US-led attacks inside Pakistan.

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of U.S. Attack, and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a U.S. attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week while the International Atomic Energy Agency–or IAEA–is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran"s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.

The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.

The Iranian President refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cut back threats to use military force against Iran.

As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the UN. But this year President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of a war with Iran.

Yesterday afternoon Juan and I sat down with President Ahmadinejad in his hotel blocks from the UN for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, the threat of war with the United States, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.

Ervand Abrahamian, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York. He is the author of several books on Iran, most recently “A History of Modern Iran.”


Democracy Now . com

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down

Bush Admin Faces Congressional Skeptics on $700B Wall St. Bailout
Both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee lambasted the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout plan Tuesday. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke repeatedly clashed with almost every senator on the committee, all of whom focused on Wall Street’s culpability for the crisis. Many also brought up executive pay and emphasized the need for oversight of the Treasury. [includes rush transcript


AMY GOODMAN: Both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee lambasted the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion bailout on Tuesday. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke repeatedly clashed with almost every senator on the committee, all of whom focused on Wall Street’s culpability for the crisis. Many also brought up executive pay and emphasized the need for oversight of the Treasury.


Section 8 of Secretary Paulson’s bailout proposal explicitly denies any check on his powers. It says, “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”


Paulson was defensive about this point in his opening statement to the committee. He said he did not want to be presumptuous and include an oversight mechanism in the bailout plan.


HENRY PAULSON: We gave you a simple three-page legislative outline, and I thought it would have been presumptuous for us on that outline to come up with an oversight mechanism. That’s the role of Congress. That’s something we’re going to work on together. So if any of you felt that I didn’t believe that we needed oversight, I believe we need oversight. We need oversight. We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it. And we need to do that in a way that lets this system—lets this program work effectively, quickly, because it needs to work effectively and quickly, and it needs to—and it needs to get the job done.


Now, the market turmoil we are experiencing today poses great risk to US taxpayers. When the financial system doesn’t work as it should, Americans’ personal savings and the abilities of consumers and businesses to finance spending, investment and job creation are threatened. The ultimate taxpayer protection will be the market’s stability, provided as we remove the troubled assets from our financial system. Don’t forget that. If this system has to work, it has to work right, and that will be the ultimate market protection.


I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative, a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund everyday needs and economic expansion. Again, I’m frustrated. The taxpayer is on the hook. The taxpayer is already on the hook. The taxpayer already is going to suffer the consequences if things don’t work the way they should work. And so, the best protection for the taxpayer and the first protection for the taxpayer is to have this work.



AMY GOODMAN: Treasury Secretary Paulson, speaking before the Senate Banking Committee. Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke also tried to sell the bailout to skeptical committee members. He warned of a definite recession in the absence of a bailout.


BEN BERNANKE: The financial markets are in quite fragile condition, and I think, absent a plan, they will certainly get worse. But even at the current state, they are not serving the necessary function to support the economy. Credit is not being provided. Secretary Paulson mentioned non-financial companies are not able to finance themselves overnight. Credit is just not going to be available. It’s going to also affect savers, because the value of their assets that they have. So, even in the current condition, even if things don’t get severely worse—but I think they would get worse without some kind of an action—this will be a major drag on the US economy and will greatly impede the ability of the economy to recover in a healthy way.



AMY GOODMAN: But Congress did not appear to be easily swayed. Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd of Connecticut said he found Paulson’s proposal “unacceptable.”


SEN. CHRIS DODD: Barely seventy-two hours ago, Secretary Paulson presented a proposal that he believes, and others do as well, is urgently needed to protect our economy. This proposal is stunning and unprecedented in its scope and lack of detail, I might add. It would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to intervene in our economy by purchasing at least $700 billion of toxic assets. It would allow the Secretary to hold onto those assets for years and to pay millions of dollars to handpicked firms to manage those assets.


It would do nothing, in my view, to help a single family save a home, at least not upfront. It would do nothing to stop even a single CEO from dumping billions of dollars of toxic assets on the backs of American taxpayers, while at the same time do nothing to stop the very authors of this calamity to walk away with bonuses and golden parachutes worth millions of dollars. And it would allow the Secretary and his successors to act with utter and absolute impunity, without review by any agency or a court of law. After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, but our Constitution, as well.



AMY GOODMAN: The committee’s leading Republican, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, also did not mince words in his criticism of Paulson’s, quote, “ad hoc” plan.


SEN. RICHARD SHELBY: We’re now facing the most serious economic crisis, as Chairman Dodd said, in a generation. So far, the Treasury Department’s and the Fed’s response to the crisis has been a series of ad hoc measures. First came the bailout of Bear Stearns, which we were told was unavoidable. Then came Lehman Brothers, which was allowed to fail. And then, just last week, the Fed and Treasury organized a bailout of AIG. I believe the absence of a clear and comprehensive plan for addressing this crisis has injected additional uncertainty into our markets, and it has undetermined the ability of our markets to tackle this crisis on their own.


Unfortunately, the Treasury Department’s latest proposal continues, I believe, its ad hoc approach, but on a much grander scale. The Treasury’s plan has little for those outside of the financial industry. It is aimed at rescuing the same financial institutions that created this crisis, with the sloppy underwriting and reckless disregard for the risks they were creating, taking or passing on to others. Wall Street bet that the government would rescue them if they got into trouble. It appears that bet may be the one that pays off.


Once again, what troubles me most is that we have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well spend $700 billion or a trillion and not resolve the crisis.



AMY GOODMAN: Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning said the Treasury’s bailout plan is tantamount to, quote, “financial socialism.”


SEN. JIM BUNNING: We cannot make bad mortgages go away. We cannot make the losses that our financial institutions are facing go away. Someone must take those losses. We can either let the people who made the bad decisions bear the consequences of their actions, or we can spread that pain to others. And that is exactly what the Secretary’s proposal is to do: take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers. The Paulson plan will not help struggling homeowners pay their mortgages. The Paulson plan will not bring—the Paulson plan will spend $700 billion worth of taxpayers’ money to prop up and clean up the balance sheets of Wall Street. This massive bailout is not a solution. It is a financial socialism, and it’s un-American.



AMY GOODMAN: Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown grilled Paulson and Bernanke about how those who lost their homes in the mortgage crisis feel about the bailout.


SEN. SHERROD BROWN: I don’t think a single call to my office on this proposal has been positive. I don’t believe I’ve gotten one yet of the literally thousands of emails and calls we’re getting. Part of this reflects outrage by taxpayers making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 a year bailing out people whose country club memberships cost many times that. Part of it is, I think, an attitude. Wall Street, to most people in my state, I think, certainly to many of them, Wall Street didn’t care one bit what it was doing to neighborhoods in Cleveland and Dayton and Toledo. It didn’t see the devastation. It didn’t feel the pain. And my question for each of you is, do you think that—do you think Wall Street owes the American people an apology?


BEN BERNANKE: Wall Street made a lot of mistakes. Regulators made a lot of mistakes. We’re going to have to go through all that. But let me just say this: people on Main Street who think that Wall Street is somewhere far away and has—whatever happens there has no implications to their lives are just misinformed, because if Wall Street and credit markets freeze up—


SEN. SHERROD BROWN: I No, Mr. Chairman, people know that what happens on Wall Street has an effect on their lives. That’s not the question. The question is, does Wall Street owe the American people an apology?


BEN BERNANKE: Wall Street itself is an abstraction. There are many people who made big mistakes and many regulators who made mistakes, and we need to figure out what those were and make sure they don’t happen again.


SEN. SHERROD BROWN: Secretary Paulson?


HENRY PAULSON: Yeah, you know, I share the outrage that people have. It’s embarrassing to look at this, and I think it’s embarrassing for the United States of America. There’s a lot of blame to go around, a lot of blame, and a lot of blame with the big financial institutions that engaged in—that’s where I’ve started, with this irresponsible lending; the overly complicated complex securities that no one understood as well as they should and, it turns out, they didn’t understand them themselves; the rating agencies that rated those securities; blame to the people that made loans they shouldn’t have made; to some people that took out loans they shouldn’t have taken out; there’s—to regulators. So, there is no doubt about that.


But what we’re focused on now is, and what I think your constituents want to hear is, let’s fix the problem in the way that is going to have the least negative impact on them, and then let’s go out and deal with all these problems and figure out how to make sure that we minimize the likelihood they will happen again.


SEN. SHERROD BROWN: No disrespect, Mr. Secretary, but they understand much of that. They do want a solution, but they don’t want the same people that have helped to inflict this pain on the American people to get the opportunity, because of our reluctance on executive compensation and our reluctance to do accountability, to inflict more pain.



AMY GOODMAN: Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown reminding Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke of the price Main Street is paying for both Wall Street’s excesses and now the bailout.


When we come back from break, we will turn to Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, and then we’ll be joined by leading children’s rights advocate in this country, Marian Wright Edelman. Stay with us.

__________________
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down