News Day

Paranoia strikes deep—into your life it will creep. Buffalo Springfield, 1967

The U.S. Army now classifies the media as a threat – along with Al Qaeda, warlords and drug cartels. The classification is part of an Army slideshow, which you can download on-line at http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/opsec-blog.pdf.

There’s a man with a gun over there, telling me that I’ve got to beware.

Besides the media, soldiers and their families are apparently security threats. A 79-page order, issued April 19, warns about breaches of operations security—OPSEC in the military jargon—by soldiers writing e-mails home and blogging about their experiences in Iraq. Soldiers must clear e-mails and blog posts with their commanding officers before sending them (2-1(g). Failure to comply with OPSEC “may be punished as violations of a lawful order” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). And those “not subject to the UCMJ who fail to protect critical and sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure may be subject to administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.”

There’s something happening here, and what it is ain’t exactly clear.

Disclosure of “sensitive and critical information” violates OPSEC. What is “sensitive and critical” info? Giving an explanation, Maj. Ray Ceralde, the Army OPSEC program manager, explained that increased numbers of parked cars in a Pentagon lot and increased Pentagon pizza orders on January 16, 1991 could have signaled the next day’s beginning of Operation Desert Storm. That meant these facts were “sensitive and critical information.” (There’s some speculation that the whole pizza/parking lot story is an urban legend—but what do the facts matter, when security is at stake?) Some “critical and sensitive” information is specifically listed, and its disclosure prohibited, by the order, including photos of “Improvised Explosive Device (IED) strikes, battle scenes, casualties, destroyed or damaged equipment, personnel killed in action (KIA), both friendly and adversary…”

Though the 79-page order provides several descriptions of “sensitive” and “critical” information that may not be communicated, none of them provide much guidance to the soldiers, civilian employees, family members, or media who are the targets of the OPSEC order. In a neat Catch-22, the order itself is classified as “For Official Use Only (FOUO)”, and paragraph 1-6e says that FOUO information is “sensitive.” That means the order itself is “for official Government use only” and may not be distributed or circulated. (If you are not afraid of prosecution, you can download Army Regulation 530-1 at http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.)

Bottom line: virtually any information of any kind could become part of a complicated puzzle that could aid the enemy. Virtually any soldier, civilian employee or contractor could be prosecuted for communicating the wrong information. The only way to be sure you are not breaking the rules is to keep your mouth shut and tell no one back home what is actually going on.

That means no pleas for body armor. (E-mails in 2004 broke open the story of unprotected U.S. soldiers.) No scandals about unarmored Humvees (2004-2007). No reporting on torture of prisoners (Abu Ghraib). No truth-telling to families about death-by-friendly-fire (Pat Tillman). No whistle-blowing on a squad that rapes a fourteen-year-old girl and murders her whole family (Mahmudiya). No leaks about massacres (Haditha).

Remember: the media is the enemy. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.

Paranoia strikes deep—into your life it will creep.  Buffalo Springfield, 1967

The U.S. Army now classifies the media as a threat – along with Al Qaeda, warlords and drug cartels. The classification is part of an Army slideshow, which you can download on-line at http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/opsec-blog.pdf.

There’s a man with a gun over there, telling me that I’ve got to beware.

Besides the media, soldiers and their families are apparently security threats. A 79-page order, issued April 19, warns about breaches of operations security—OPSEC in the military jargon—by soldiers writing e-mails home and blogging about their experiences in Iraq. Soldiers must clear e-mails and blog posts with their commanding officers before sending them (paragraph 2-1g). Failure to comply with OPSEC “may be punished as violations of a lawful order” under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). And those “not subject to the UCMJ who fail to protect critical and sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure may be subject to administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.”  

There’s something happening here, and what it is ain’t exactly clear.

Disclosure of “sensitive and critical information” violates OPSEC. What is “sensitive and critical” info? Giving an explanation, Maj. Ray Ceralde, the Army OPSEC program manager, explained that increased numbers of parked cars in a Pentagon lot and increased Pentagon pizza orders on January 16, 1991 could have signaled the next day’s beginning of Operation Desert Storm. That meant these facts were “sensitive and critical information.” (There’s some speculation that the whole pizza/parking lot story is an urban legend—but what do the facts matter, when security is at stake?) Some “critical and sensitive” information is specifically listed, and its disclosure prohibited, by the order, including photos of “Improvised Explosive Device (IED) strikes, battle scenes, casualties, destroyed or  damaged equipment, personnel killed in action (KIA), both friendly and adversary…”

Though the 79-page order provides several descriptions of “sensitive” and “critical” information that may not be communicated, none of them provide much guidance to the soldiers, civilian employees, family members, or media who are the targets of the OPSEC order. In a neat Catch-22, the order itself is classified as “For Official Use Only (FOUO)”, and paragraph 1-6e says that FOUO information is “sensitive.” That means the order itself is “for official Government use only” and may not be distributed or circulated. (If you are not afraid of prosecution, you can download Army Regulation 530-1 at http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.)

Bottom line: virtually any information of any kind could become part of a complicated puzzle that could aid the enemy. Virtually any soldier, civilian employee or contractor could be prosecuted for communicating the wrong information. The only way to be sure you are not breaking the rules is to keep your mouth shut and tell no one back home what is actually going on.

That means no pleas for body armor. (E-mails in 2004 broke open the story of unprotected U.S. soldiers.) No scandals about unarmored Humvees (2004-2007). No reporting on torture of prisoners (Abu Ghraib). No truth-telling to families about death-by-friendly-fire (Pat Tillman). No whistle-blowing on a squad that rapes a fourteen-year-old girl and murders her whole family (Mahmudiya). No leaks about massacres (Haditha).

Remember: the media is the enemy. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.

On April 16, a gunman shot 32 students at Virginia Tech University and then killed himself. In the United States, flags flew at half-staff the next day, as the nation mourned a senseless massacre by a single deranged man who legally purchased his gun just a month ago. Millions of Americans know Cho Seung-Hui’s name, his nationality, his story.

How many Americans know the name of Jaafar Hasan Sadiq and Talal Younis al-Jalili. Hasan Sadiq, a professor at the University of Mosul’s college of arts, was shot and killed on Monday. So was Talal Younis al-Jalili, dean of the university’s college of political science.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, pundits pontificated about school security and recalled Columbine High School (17 dead, 1999) and the clock-tower shooting at the University of Texas in Austin (16 dead, 1966). Threats and fears sent lockdowns rippling across the country, including high schools in Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, and Missouri.

More than 230 university professors have been killed since the beginning of the Iraq war, some 56 are missing, and more than 3,000 have fled the country. Some 70 people died in suicide bombings at Mustansiriya University in Baghadad in January. Another suicide bomb in February killed 40 more students, faculty and staff.

We went to the bridge again last night, carrying candles to stand in vigil and protest on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war. The candles were not much use, as daylight savings time has begun, and the sun doesn’t set until after 7:30, but we stood in the biting March wind as it swept down the Mississippi, in company with a hundred or two others of all ages, shapes and sizes.

The Lake Street bridge over the Mississippi is designated as a Peace Bridge, and every Wednesday afternoon sees a vigil for peace, which began as a protest against sanctions many years ago. Sanctions then, war now, the same bloody, evil policies of a government, our government, that sees power as a blunt instrument to batter those who will not bow.

This is not the Zocalo in Mexico City, filled with tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters, but it is one of our spaces for public standing. What has changed is not the commitment of the protesters, but the attitudes of those driving past. A few years ago, on a Wednesday afternoon, Molly and I stood there and counted the number of passing cars showing approval versus the number showing disapproval — thumbs up or down, peace signs, honking. Most, of course, went by without a signal at all.

Tonight, I saw only a single thumbs-down and no middle finger salutes, but what was more remarkable was that the vast majority of all the people in cars driving past on Lake Street honked in agreement, showed peace signs, waved, gave a thumbs-up signal. I know the polls say that we-the-people overwhelmingly oppose the war, but here was the actual, physical sign. The people have changed, the votes have chagned Congress–and yet the war continues.

We cannot stop at vigils, when they do not change realities. What’s next?

This is what democracy looks like. Fifty people at the table—Barbara, Yusef, Pablo, Anne, Yasim, Antonia, Martha, Ricky, Woli, Iztchel. New immigrants and old immigrants, representing all parts of the world. New immigrants tonight speak with accents of Liberia, Mexico, Russia, Ecuador, Somalia and more.

Tonight we gather, representing a few dozen organizations or ourselves as individuals. AFFIRM—the Alliance for Fair Federal Immigration Reform of Minnesota—has convened this community meeting to share concerns about immigration issues and, possibly, to find common ground and a way to work together.

One woman brings her niece and granddaughter, a few couples come together, a few more people bring little children. Many teenagers are here—tonight’s discussion on immigration hits close to home for them.

D— is a senior in high school. She wants to go to college next year. She has gone through high school in Minnesota, but she does not have immigration documents.

The Minnesota Dream Act, now before the legislature, could make it possible for many of them to go to college. The federal DREAM Act, now re-introduced in Congress, could provide them a path to legalization and citizenship.

W— does not say what country she came from, only that she was tortured, a lot, before she got out many years ago. And that she values her association with the Minnesota Center for Victims of Torture.

R— sells real estate, is nearing completion of a B.A. in business at Metro State and plans to continue for an MBA at St. Thomas. We joke about how many houses he will have to sell to pay for that tuition. He tells me that 70% of the Mexican immigrants to Minnesota are, like himself, originally from the Mexican state of Morelos.

G— insists that the state demographer undercounts Russian immigrants, saying there are only 15,000 Russian immigrants in Minnesota. He is sure the real number is 50,000, and wants to do something about the undercounting.

Another woman brings her concern about foreign professionals to the table, saying that Minnesota will not allow foreign doctors to serve as interns or residents here, though other states do so. She wants a way for immigrants who are professionals to become licensed and work in their fields.

M— wants a path to legalization for her husband. She is a U.S. citizen. He is not.

Another woman raises concerns about her Liberian-Minnesotan community, who now face an end to the Temporary Protected Status under which they have been living for years. Now the U.S. government has decreed that Liberia is no longer dangerous and that they must return by October, abandoning homes, jobs, and families here.

So many people, ages, jobs, nationalities. One hope—to continue to live together as Minnesotans.

Every year, 600,000 people apply to become citizens of the United States. To become a citizen, immigrants first have to live here for a number of years (usually five years). Then they must apply for citizenship, demonstrate their ability to speak and read and write English, and pass a test on U.S. government and history. (There are a few exceptions to residence and testing requirements, such as adopted children.)

This year, the federal government is making it harder for immigrants to become citizens. First, it changed the written test to make it more difficult. Now, it proposes to increase the application fee from $330 to $595. (And that’s only for the application—fingerprint fees and other charges increase the total cost even more.)

The increase in naturalization (citizenship) application fees is only one of many proposed immigration fee increases. The fee for adjustment of status, to become a permanent legal resident, will go up from $325 to $905. Other fees also increase, by an average of 66 percent.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, “Naturalization of immigrants in the United States brings significant benefits for the country. First, obtaining citizenship allows immigrants to participate fully in the civic life of the country by permitting them to vote in elections, run for office, and work in many government jobs. Further, naturalization is a powerful symbolic gesture of commitment to the United States. In taking the oath of citizenship, naturalizing immigrants pledge to support the values and laws of the United States and renounce their allegiance to any other country. Naturalizing citizens also commit to serving on a jury if called to do so. Further, in order to naturalize, immigrants must learn a basic level of English and study U.S. history and government. The ability to naturalize provides a strong incentive for immigrants to deepen their integration into the country by improving their English and learning more about their country of residence.”

Refugees and new immigrants typically have lower incomes. The fee increases hit them especially hard, as they struggle to learn English, support themselves and their families, and become part of their new country. The Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) is one of the immigrant advocacy organizations opposing fee hikes. SEARAC warns that, “The increased fees may further prolong the citizenship process for many whose incomes are dependent on their attainment of citizenship such as elders and disabled refugees who receive SSI benefits. The inability to obtain their citizenship after the allotted timeframe will result in the termination of their benefits.”

The fee hikes do not have to go through Congress. They are set by administrative regulations. But Congress—and individuals—do have a voice in the administrative process. The fees were proposed February 1, beginning a sixty-day public comment period. Along with SEARAC, the National Immigration Forum is urging people to voice their concerns about the fee increases. To comment on the fee increases, email OSComments@dhs.gov. The e-mail message should refer to the docket number of the regulation—DHS Docket # USCIS-2006-0044. (For more information about the comment process, go to http://www.regulations.gov.)

One mother was reunited with her baby. One father was released from jail to undergo the testing that might make it possible for him to donate a kidney to his (U.S. citizen) son. But most of the rest of the 230 families whose fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters were arrested in Worthington on December 12 are gone. Many have been shipped out of the country. Most of the rest are still in custody, far from Worthington and far from Minnesota.

On February 14, the Immigration Law Center of Minnesota reported on the heroic work done by attorneys from not only their office but also from the Detention Project (ILCM, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Centro Legal) and the private immigration bar and volunteers. The stories were still heart-wrenching, and showed more clearly than ever the inhumane, broken system that is U.S. immigration law.

The thirteen-year-old girl, left without parents when her mother was shipped to Mexico and her father disappeared. Days later, he was found in detention in Atlanta.

The twelve- and thirteen-year-old U.S. citizen children, the only safe members of their families, who had to look for missing relatives, shop for groceries, seek help.

The parents, trying to get passports for their U.S. citizen children, so they could take their sons and daughters away from the towns where they were born and raised and go to school to return to a “homeland” that offers no opportunity for parents or children.

The convoluted laws benefit predators who target immigrant families. “Within the first days, we heard five stories of people who had paid notary publics $3,000 to do the paperwork for them, in full belief that this would get them legal status,” reported Cynthia Anderson. “And, of course, it didn’t. People fly in, even from other states and charge people money to do nothing.”

Even worse, people’s desperate attempts to get jobs and support their families, here and “back home,” get them in even deeper difficulty. A 1976 law means that anyone who uses false documents to claim legal immigration is barred from immigrating legally in the future. That means that someone who uses another person’s birth certificate to get a job—even with that person’s permission—is barred from legal immigration in the future.

For people who try to stay within the law, the news is bad. ILCM director John Keller tells the story:

Take, for example, a married couple. The husband is a U.S. citizen and the wife is undocumented. Even though the law allows him to file a petition for her, the “devil is in the details,” as they say. As a lawyer, I must inform them that under our current laws and system, the processing of the paperwork will probably take one and one-half years. Not so bad, they think. Wait, there’s more … I have to tell them that after the first one and one-half years, since she entered the U.S. without a visa, she will have to return to her home country and wait, in a worst case scenario, up to ten years, without being able to legally return to her husband and children. Eleven and one-half years for a U.S. citizen to legally immigrate his wife. This is the legal process we want millions to go through? At this point, the U.S. citizen usually says: ‘Well, wait, but we have a child, or two children, born in the United States. Surely, that will help … the government doesn’t expect us to separate the little children from their mother … does it?’ That is a difficult question to have to answer. I tell them that the government lets you choose if your U.S. citizen children will separate from you or from her. They could always go with her.

Let me be clear. The current laws and their interpretations do not promote strong, stable, loving families—in many cases, the laws destroy them. A healthy nation, Minnesota, and our Minnesota communities depend on healthy, stable, strong families and our immigration laws must be reformed to that end.

A resolution introduced in the Minnesota House and Senate this week calls for Comprehensive Immigration Reform to promote family reunification and a path to legalization for hard-working immigrants in the United States, which only the U.S. Congress can pass. Illinois, Georgia and New York have passed similar resolutions.

The Minnesota legislature is considering a Commission on New Americans, which would study and recommend specific initiatives to keep Minnesota a strong and welcoming destination for immigrants, and to learn from success stories in Willmar, Pelican Rapids and Worthington, which have been strengthened by the arrival of new immigrants in their work forces and schools. (And it’s a bi-partisan issue—while Democratic Senators Mee Moua and Sandy Pappas have taken the lead on immigration legislation over the years, Republican State Representative Rod Hamilton of Mountain Lake is co-sponsoring the Commission legislation.)

“I don’t have insurance right now,” my friend admitted. “So I’m being really careful to eat right and exercise, and so far I’ve been lucky.” My friend is pushing 60, so her luck has to hold for a little more than five years. She can’t afford thousands of dollars a month to purchase a private health insurance policy and, given her age and health history, would have a really hard time getting coverage. She is one of many Minnesotans who make too much money for Minnesota Care but have no available employment-based health insurance coverage.

Today 383,000 Minnesotans, including 68,000 children remain uninsured. That’s no private health care insurance. No Medicare or Medicaid. No Minnesota Care. Nothing.

Minnesotans, though, fare better than the rest of the country. Across the United States, 47 million people live without health care insurance, including 9 million children.

Sunday I listened to State Senator Linda Berglin (DFL) and State Representative Paul Thissen (DFL) and Cal Ludeman, representing the Pawlenty administration, talk about health insurance at a public forum. Their earnest discussion was enough to make your eyes glaze over. Do we want 175% of poverty level or 200% of poverty level? Expanded section 125 pre-tax plans? Q-Care standards? Promotion of portability of health insurance coverage? It was enough to make your eyes glaze over. And nothing they said would help my friend.

“All over the place, people are refusing to take wages or cutting their hours so they can stay in Minnesota Care.” Senator Linda Berglin said. Minnesota Care has lots of problems, starting with a 26-page enrollment form that has to be filled out twice a year. Even so, it provides one of the few opportunities for sort-of-affordable health care for thousands of Minnesotans. Her health care legislation would do a lot to improve and expand Minnesota Care, and it should pass. But that is not enough.

We need a national health-care program. We need it now. We need it so badly that even Wal-Mart, AT&T, Intel, Kelly Service and other businesses have formed a coalition with SEIU and the Communication Workers of America to call for national, universal health care coverage.

Insurance companies are the least effective way to finance health care. They are the reason that the United States has the highest per-person health care cost in the world, and still doesn’t provide universal health care coverage.

Think about every dollar you spend on healthcare: one-third of it now goes to the insurance companies for their profits, their administration, their advertising, their lobbyists, so if we take that one-third that we’re now spending on spurious — we don’t need them, we don’t need the insurance companies –and that would cover literally everybody who is uncovered in the United States for a lot less money and provide for the kind of system that most countries in the world, most of the advanced countries in the world, enjoy. Marilyn Clement, National Coordinator of Healthcare-NOW!, speaking on Democracy Now, 2/9/07

Publicly-administered health care plans—like Medicare, which covers all people over the age of 65—deliver medical care at a lower cost than private health care insurance.

Publicly-funded, universal health care coverage is the right thing to do. People are suffering, people are dying because they cannot afford health care. The number of uninsured in the United states has risen by nine million since 2000.

Publicly-funded, universal health care coverage is good for business. It would cut employer costs far more than any tax break proposed by the Bush administration and it would help make U.S. business more competitive internationally. Think about it. Employers in countries with universal public health care do not pay any health insurance costs. That automatically lowers their labor costs.

This is not just a healthcare crisis, this is a business crisis. By next year, health benefit costs will exceed profits in the Fortune 500 companies, and if we look at companies like Starbucks, they’re spending more on health benefits than coffee beans. It’s no longer just a healthcare crisis, it’s an economic crisis. Jeanne Lambrew, Senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and an associate professor at George Washington University, speaking on Democracy Now, 1/9/07.

Minnesota can and does do a lot of good work on health care, but it cannot do the whole job. What we need is UNIVERSAL, publicly-funded and administered health care coverage. That can only happen if it happens nationwide.