(I would be remiss if I did not also congratulate our Senior Democratic Senator, Pat Leahy for his courageous and principled vote.   – promoted by Sue Prent)

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy On His Vote In Opposition To The Short-Term Continuing Resolution Including Authority For Arming Syrian Rebels

September 18, 2014

Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on a continuing resolution to fund the federal government from October 1 to December 11. This vote should not be necessary. There is no good reason why we are not voting on fiscal year 2015 appropriations bills to fund the government the way we used to, rather than a continuing resolution that keeps the government on autopilot despite many new and compelling needs.

Chairwoman Mikulski of the Appropriations Committee and her counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers, have made this argument as well as any two people could. It is unacceptable that the Congress, which has the power of the purse, fails to use that power in a responsible manner. Passing annual appropriations bills should be a priority for both parties, and I hope that between now and when this short-term CR expires, we can do our job and finish work on those bills – which were reported by the Appropriations Committee months ago – and send them to the President.

Nine months ago, when the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus was enacted, no one anticipated the Ebola epidemic which has infected thousands of people and today threatens all of Africa. Thus, there is little funding available to combat it. The Defense Department, USAID, CDC, and others are scrambling to reprogram funds from other important programs.

Nine months ago, no one envisioned the surge in young migrants from Central America, and so the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are reprogramming funds. But it is not nearly enough to address the horrific gang violence and endemic poverty in those countries that are contributing to the flood of refugees across our border.

Nine months ago, did anyone here predict that ISIS would be routing units of the Iraqi army, beheading Americans, and seizing control of territory? Did anyone foresee Russia’s intervention in Ukraine? Did anyone foresee that we would be sending U.S. military advisors to Nigeria to help track down hundreds of school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? There is no money in the budget for any of this, so we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.  

Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bills have been reported out of Committee with strong bipartisan support. Let’s debate them. Senators can offer amendments. We can vote. That is what we should be doing instead of kicking the ball down the road for another two and a half months.

Obviously, we all recognize the need to keep the federal government operating. As much as I disagree with this approach, I would vote for the continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. But this vote does far more than that. It authorizes the President under title 10 of the U.S. Code to provide training and weapons to Syrian rebel forces. In other words, we are authorizing U.S. military intervention in Syria’s civil war – which for the past two years the Administration has strongly advised against – and doing so by tacking that authority onto a short term spending bill to keep the government operating.

As much as I believe the United States should support the fight against ISIS, and as much as I commend the President and Secretary Kerry for their efforts to build a coalition to that end, I am not convinced that the President’s plan to intervene in Syria can succeed. There are too many unanswered questions about the composition, intentions, allegiances, and capabilities of the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels who, like the Iraqi militias that openly admit to atrocities, are accountable to no one.

There is too little clarity about the White House’s intentions, particularly when there is talk of unilateral air attacks against ISIS by U.S. forces inside Syrian territory. There has been too little discussion of the potential consequences of this strategy for the brutal Assad regime which also opposes ISIS, for the anti-ISIS coalition, or for Iran’s or Russia’s ability to expand their influence in that region.

We have been assured that recipients of U.S. military equipment are vetted and that the use of the equipment is monitored. Yet we have seen U.S. military vehicles and weapons worth millions of dollars in the hands of ISIS and other anti-American groups in Iraq and Libya. Who can say who else has gotten their hands on them, or that the weapons we provide the Syrian rebels will not be used against innocent civilians or end up in the hands of our enemies?

The House resolution we are voting on addresses this issue narrowly, requiring vetting only as it relates to association with terrorists or Iran. It says nothing about vetting for gross violations of human rights, as would be required for assistance for foreign security forces under the Leahy Amendment.

The Administration says we need to defeat ISIS. I don’t disagree. ISIS is a barbaric enterprise that has no respect for human life and poses a grave threat to anyone it encounters, including Americans. Yet that is what the previous White House said about al Qaeda. A dozen years and hundreds of billions of dollars and many American lives later, al Qaeda is a shadow of what it once was but is far from defeated.

Since 9/11, numerous offshoots of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have proliferated not only in South Asia but throughout the Middle East and into East and North Africa. And one of those groups, formerly affiliated with al Qaeda, is ISIS. Some say ISIS is worse than al Qaeda. If ISIS is defeated, who comes next?

Not long ago the President said the sweeping 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks should be repealed, yet the White House recently cited it as a basis for attacking ISIS.

Alternatively, the White House says the President has the authority he needs under the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to defeat Saddam Hussein. No objective reading of those resolutions supports that conclusion. Yet here we are about to embark on another open ended war against terrorism, albeit, thankfully, without U.S. ground troops.

We can help combat ISIS, and we must, but the governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others in that region – some of which have vast oil wealth – need to show they share that goal at least as much as we do, not just by their statements but by their actions.

They should take the lead. We can support them, although Saudi Arabia, besides being a major oil supplier, has one of the world’s most repressive governments and Saudi charities have been a steady source of revenue for extremist groups. One has to wonder whether such alliances help or hurt us in in the long run.

I have thought hard about this. It is far from black and white. I deeply respect the President. In the end, he may be right. But I worry about the slippery slope we may be starting down in the thick of a sectarian civil war. I am not prepared – on a stop-gap, short-term spending bill, containing authority drafted by the House of Representatives, in the waning hours of the day of adjournment, and with no opportunity for amendments – to endorse a policy that will involve spending hundreds of millions and almost certainly billions of dollars over multiple years to train and arm Syrian fighters who may or may not share our goals or values.

Not in a part of the world where past U.S. military interventions with similarly vague goals involving similarly questionable allies have consistently turned out very differently from the Pollyannaish predictions of former Pentagon and White House officials.

Time and again we have been assured of relatively quick and easy success, only to pay dearly over the course of protracted, costly wars that fell far short of their lofty goals and unleashed forces of hatred that no one predicted.

Year after year, the Administration asked Congress for billions of dollars to support former Iraqi President Malaki’s government. Yet the White House now concedes that his sectarian policies, and the widely reported abuses of the Iraqi army that the U.S. trained and equipped, were a cause of the resentment and divisions that contributed to the rise of ISIS and threaten to break Iraq apart.

The Iraq War was a disaster for this country. The families of Americans who gave their lives or were grievously injured will suffer the consequences for many years to come. It caused lasting damage to our national reputation and to the image and readiness of our armed forces. Yet I worry that other than trying to avoid another costly deployment of U.S. ground troops, we have learned little from that fiasco. The Middle East is no place to intervene militarily without a thorough understanding of the history and the centuries old tribal, religious, and ethnic rivalries that have far more relevance than anything we might think we can achieve.

Does that mean there is no role for the United States in that part of the world? Of course not. But rather than set goals that may or may not be realistic but will almost certainly have profound and potentially dangerous unintended and unanticipated consequences, let’s have a real debate that thoroughly considers all the options, all the costs, all the pros and cons. This is far too important a decision to be dealt with in such a cursory manner.

So I will vote no, with the hope that in November or December we will revisit this issue, and have the real debate we are avoiding today.

# # # # #

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/pr…

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy On His Vote In Opposition To The Short-Term Continuing Resolution Including Authority For Arming Syrian Rebels

September 18, 2014

Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on a continuing resolution to fund the federal government from October 1 to December 11. This vote should not be necessary. There is no good reason why we are not voting on fiscal year 2015 appropriations bills to fund the government the way we used to, rather than a continuing resolution that keeps the government on autopilot despite many new and compelling needs.

Chairwoman Mikulski of the Appropriations Committee and her counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers, have made this argument as well as any two people could. It is unacceptable that the Congress, which has the power of the purse, fails to use that power in a responsible manner. Passing annual appropriations bills should be a priority for both parties, and I hope that between now and when this short-term CR expires, we can do our job and finish work on those bills – which were reported by the Appropriations Committee months ago – and send them to the President.

Nine months ago, when the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus was enacted, no one anticipated the Ebola epidemic which has infected thousands of people and today threatens all of Africa. Thus, there is little funding available to combat it. The Defense Department, USAID, CDC, and others are scrambling to reprogram funds from other important programs.

Nine months ago, no one envisioned the surge in young migrants from Central America, and so the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are reprogramming funds. But it is not nearly enough to address the horrific gang violence and endemic poverty in those countries that are contributing to the flood of refugees across our border.

Nine months ago, did anyone here predict that ISIS would be routing units of the Iraqi army, beheading Americans, and seizing control of territory? Did anyone foresee Russia’s intervention in Ukraine? Did anyone foresee that we would be sending U.S. military advisors to Nigeria to help track down hundreds of school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? There is no money in the budget for any of this, so we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bills have been reported out of Committee with strong bipartisan support. Let’s debate them. Senators can offer amendments. We can vote. That is what we should be doing instead of kicking the ball down the road for another two and a half months.

Obviously, we all recognize the need to keep the federal government operating. As much as I disagree with this approach, I would vote for the continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown. But this vote does far more than that. It authorizes the President under title 10 of the U.S. Code to provide training and weapons to Syrian rebel forces. In other words, we are authorizing U.S. military intervention in Syria’s civil war – which for the past two years the Administration has strongly advised against – and doing so by tacking that authority onto a short term spending bill to keep the government operating.

As much as I believe the United States should support the fight against ISIS, and as much as I commend the President and Secretary Kerry for their efforts to build a coalition to that end, I am not convinced that the President’s plan to intervene in Syria can succeed. There are too many unanswered questions about the composition, intentions, allegiances, and capabilities of the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels who, like the Iraqi militias that openly admit to atrocities, are accountable to no one.

There is too little clarity about the White House’s intentions, particularly when there is talk of unilateral air attacks against ISIS by U.S. forces inside Syrian territory. There has been too little discussion of the potential consequences of this strategy for the brutal Assad regime which also opposes ISIS, for the anti-ISIS coalition, or for Iran’s or Russia’s ability to expand their influence in that region.

We have been assured that recipients of U.S. military equipment are vetted and that the use of the equipment is monitored. Yet we have seen U.S. military vehicles and weapons worth millions of dollars in the hands of ISIS and other anti-American groups in Iraq and Libya. Who can say who else has gotten their hands on them, or that the weapons we provide the Syrian rebels will not be used against innocent civilians or end up in the hands of our enemies?

The House resolution we are voting on addresses this issue narrowly, requiring vetting only as it relates to association with terrorists or Iran. It says nothing about vetting for gross violations of human rights, as would be required for assistance for foreign security forces under the Leahy Amendment.

The Administration says we need to defeat ISIS. I don’t disagree. ISIS is a barbaric enterprise that has no respect for human life and poses a grave threat to anyone it encounters, including Americans. Yet that is what the previous White House said about al Qaeda. A dozen years and hundreds of billions of dollars and many American lives later, al Qaeda is a shadow of what it once was but is far from defeated.

Since 9/11, numerous offshoots of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have proliferated not only in South Asia but throughout the Middle East and into East and North Africa. And one of those groups, formerly affiliated with al Qaeda, is ISIS. Some say ISIS is worse than al Qaeda. If ISIS is defeated, who comes next?

Not long ago the President said the sweeping 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks should be repealed, yet the White House recently cited it as a basis for attacking ISIS. Alternatively, the White House says the President has the authority he needs under the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force to defeat Saddam Hussein. No objective reading of those resolutions supports that conclusion. Yet here we are about to embark on another open ended war against terrorism, albeit, thankfully, without U.S. ground troops.

We can help combat ISIS, and we must, but the governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others in that region – some of which have vast oil wealth – need to show they share that goal at least as much as we do, not just by their statements but by their actions.

They should take the lead. We can support them, although Saudi Arabia, besides being a major oil supplier, has one of the world’s most repressive governments and Saudi charities have been a steady source of revenue for extremist groups. One has to wonder whether such alliances help or hurt us in in the long run.

I have thought hard about this. It is far from black and white. I deeply respect the President. In the end, he may be right. But I worry about the slippery slope we may be starting down in the thick of a sectarian civil war. I am not prepared – on a stop-gap, short-term spending bill, containing authority drafted by the House of Representatives, in the waning hours of the day of adjournment, and with no opportunity for amendments – to endorse a policy that will involve spending hundreds of millions and almost certainly billions of dollars over multiple years to train and arm Syrian fighters who may or may not share our goals or values.

Not in a part of the world where past U.S. military interventions with similarly vague goals involving similarly questionable allies have consistently turned out very differently from the Pollyannaish predictions of former Pentagon and White House officials.

Time and again we have been assured of relatively quick and easy success, only to pay dearly over the course of protracted, costly wars that fell far short of their lofty goals and unleashed forces of hatred that no one predicted.

Year after year, the Administration asked Congress for billions of dollars to support former Iraqi President Malaki’s government. Yet the White House now concedes that his sectarian policies, and the widely reported abuses of the Iraqi army that the U.S. trained and equipped, were a cause of the resentment and divisions that contributed to the rise of ISIS and threaten to break Iraq apart.

The Iraq War was a disaster for this country. The families of Americans who gave their lives or were grievously injured will suffer the consequences for many years to come. It caused lasting damage to our national reputation and to the image and readiness of our armed forces. Yet I worry that other than trying to avoid another costly deployment of U.S. ground troops, we have learned little from that fiasco. The Middle East is no place to intervene militarily without a thorough understanding of the history and the centuries old tribal, religious, and ethnic rivalries that have far more relevance than anything we might think we can achieve.

Does that mean there is no role for the United States in that part of the world? Of course not. But rather than set goals that may or may not be realistic but will almost certainly have profound and potentially dangerous unintended and unanticipated consequences, let’s have a real debate that thoroughly considers all the options, all the costs, all the pros and cons. This is far too important a decision to be dealt with in such a cursory manner.

So I will vote no, with the hope that in November or December we will revisit this issue, and have the real debate we are avoiding today.

# # # # #

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/pr…

It's very interesting watching the election results coming in from Scotland. You can watch the live announcements here: 

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277

No glitz, just local officials standing at a podium reading a script for the vote totals, and the totals are based on total counts, not sampling. I'm actually enjoying that. 

The counts I've seen have been more strongly opposed to independence than I've been expecting. Contrary to late estimates, it's looking like a runaway for the status quo, about 56%-44%, although some big cities are yet to be reported.

I'm also struck by the high turnouts. Most of these reporting areas are coming in in the 85-90% range, with some over 90%. I would love to see turnouts like that here. (What would the city council in Ferguson, Mo., look with a 90% turnout, for instance?)

Finally, for Vermont local election officials, and I'm sure I'm not the only justice of the peace who reads GMD, I found it interesting to note that they have the same rule that we do here in Vermont: marking your ballot in a way that identifies the voter invalidates the ballot.

Stay tuned, but right now it looks like a No result. 

While Bernie is doing the right thing in DC, the ever pathetic Skip Vallee is trying to grab a little attention by harassing him about his wife’s severance pay from Burlington College.

I think referring to Skip Vallee as Bernie’s “nemesis” is pretty wide of the mark.  He’s more of a persistent oily carbuncle.

Mr. Vallee apparently doesn’t think women count as individuals.  He repeatedly calls on Bernie to return his wife’s severance pay (which would pale by comparison to that of any of Vallee’s own high rolling friends).

It isn’t Bernie’s money to begin with.  If Mr. Vallee had been paying any attention, he would have observed that the two Sanders’ maintain very separate careers (and more than likely) finances.

All Mr. Vallee has succeeded in doing here is demonstrating what a petty and chauvinistic fossil he is.

If Mr. Vallee wants to help Burlington College, why doesn’t he do so himself?  

I read with great satisfaction that Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders would vote against arming the so-called “moderate”  Syrian rebels.

Says Sanders,

“This is not just a question of whether young men and women in Vermont and across America should be putting their lives on the line in another Mideast war.  It is not just about whether the taxpayers of our country should once again pay for a war in the Middle East. It is about the reality that, long term, this struggle will never be won by the United States alone.  It must be won with the active participation of the Muslim countries in the region,” Sanders said.

Exactly right.  We can’t keep reprising John Wayne movies in our international relations.  It isn’t working; and it isn’t working worse and worse all the time.

At the root of ISIS’s power to gain recruits is sectarian conflict within the Muslim states. Repeated U.S. efforts at intervention have made us no better than pawns in a deadly game we do not really understand and are fundamentally barred from winning.

The same old arguments are being trotted out concerning the threat to homeland security as seduced us into shadow boxing in Iraq for a decade while a new generation of hate and menace was incubating in the heat from our own fires.

Every time we are drawn back into the web of violence and war on which jihadi extremists feed, the 9/11 bombers succeed once again in undermining the cultural and institutional values that have made us who we were as a nation prior to the attack.  

We are repeating the same strategic errors that countless formerly great nations have made before us.

Churchill said something about how we should fear fear itself.  It is fear (with a little help from defense lobbyists) that has lured us over and over again into a campaign of folly.

Bernie says he agrees with the President’s plan for airstrikes.

Personally, I would like to see the U.S. withhold even airstrikes until a sufficient body of interested regional nations agree to prosecute a ground war against ISIS by themselves under U.S. air support.  The immediate threat is at their doors. This should not be our war.

                                                                                                         

…and there’s ANOTHER meetin’ tonight.

By odd coincidence, both Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire have public meetings scheduled, not for “tonight”  but for Sept. 25, to discuss Vermont Yankee’s decommissioning.

In Vermont, the Citizens Advisory Panel on decommissioning VY is scheduled to meet next Thursday from 6-9 pm, at Brattleboro Union High School.

At exactly the same time, “various New Hampshire agencies” have booked a panel discussion and “informational meeting” at  Hinsdale Middle/High School for its own affected residents.

The panel discussion slated for 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 25 will include officials from the departments of Resources and Economic Development, Environmental Services, and Homeland Security and Emergency Management; the Division of Public Health Services; members of the Southwest Regional Planning Commission and Gov. Maggie Hassan’s Working Group on the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning.

One would think that concerned folks on either side of the state line might wish to attend both meetings.  

I could not help wondering which meeting was consigned to the calendar first.  It would be a shrewd way to ensure that the well-organized effort that opposed Vermont Yankee’s continued operation would not have a full-strength presence in public discussions of decommissioning issues.

Or am I just being cynical?

Another VY head scratcher is who is behind the telephone poll asking Brattleboro residents some leading questions about how supportive they would be of nuclear energy emerging again in Vermont’s future?  

 According to the Recorder,

The 17-question poll, which was conducted on telephone lines based in Fairfax, Va., asked “Generally speaking, how supportive are you of nuclear energy as a reliable source of carbon-free electricity?”

From the poll:

“Because of the hearty winter last year, there is a much greater reliance on burning oil to generate power, which resulted in higher carbon emissions to produce Vermont’s energy,” one question stated. “In the future, as an alternative to oil-fired power plants, would you be more or less supportive of safe nuclear power generation along with wind, solar and other zero-carbon energy sources?”

…And, if a

“new, regionally-based energy generating company with more local management and governance operating Vermont’s power plants like Vermont Yankee?”

Vermont Yankee spokesman Martin Cohn denied any involvement with the poll, as did Green Mountain Power spokesperson, Dorothy Schnure.

Commissioner of the Dept. of Public Service, Chris Recchia first heard about it from a polled resident, but insists the idea of a VY resurrection is next to impossible.

So far, no one appears ready to ‘fess up…but has anyone given Yes Vermont Yankee a buzz?

_______________________________________________________________________

I am very proud to be associated with Fairewinds Energy Education in a non-technical capacity.  As always, the opinions I share on Green Mountain Daily are my own alone and not those of Fairewinds.

From Ernie McLeod at Vermont Freedom to Marry (where I saw it before I went out for a Free Press) comes this great news: two Vermont-connected lesbians are among the 20 MacArthur Foundation grant award winners for this year.

Mary Bonauto helped Beth Robinson and Susan Murray with the Baker v. State lawsuit that eventually resulted in the groundbreaking legislative recognition for same-sex couples that was civil unions. Vermont's was her first marriage equality case.  Bonauto lives in Maine and has worked on marriage equality in many states. Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer arguing for DOMA repeal on the Edie Windsor case against New york state in the Supreme Court, reportedly told The New York Times, "No gay person in this country would be married without Mary Bonauto."  

After her appearance in this morning's Burlington Free Press for her MacArthur Foundation fellowship grant, few Vermonters will need an introduction to Alison Bechdel, who has made her home in Bolton since 1991.

Bechdel is the creative genius behind Fun Home, a graphic memoir exploring her childhood and relationship with her possibly gay father. She followed that book with Are You My Mother?. And before that, for 25-plus years she drew and gave voice to a varied and diverse community of lesbians, bisexuals, and occasional gay, bi- or straight men in the syndicated comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For.  The MacArthur Foundation recognized Bechdel this way:

[Referring to Fun  Home] An impeccable observer and record-keeper, Bechdel incorporates drawings of archival materials, such as diaries, letters, photographs, and news clippings, as well as a variety of literary references in deep reflections into her own past. […]  As in Fun Home, the images in Are You My Mother? do not always correspond to or illustrate the words; rather, they mutually interpret or often tug against each other, creating a space between them that invites a multiplicity of interpretations.

 

Brava! to both women for well-deserved recognition and congratulations on the grant of funds ($625k) that help provide security on which to base future endeavors.

Did you notice the story in this morning's Free Press about how Brent Burns is no longer managing Scott Milne's gubernatorial campaign?

The strong implication is that what little money Milne has raised, possibly including the $25,000 he's already loaned himself, is all gone, and it's hard to keep employees on the payroll when there's no payroll.

Eric Davis, the Sage of Middlebury, opined that without any money left the Milne campaign is going to have to depend on “free media”.

But you see, there's a problem with that. Free media, sometimes referred to as “earned media” depends on having a candidate do things that will attract attention, and unlike Dan Feliciano Milne has also fallen short on this aspect of the campaign.

 At least Feliciano has gotten it together to get some press coverage (“earned media”, get it?) by holding a press conference this week. By contrast, and I'm sure he's had his reasons, Milne decided to pass up a golden opportunity at free media by skipping at least one pre-primary debate. He said he didn't want to debate candidates who will be opposing the Republican candidate after the primary, but in case he hasn't noticed, now that the primary's over he is going up against what? A candidate who opposes the Republican candidate.

 Before he put in his papers, people were speculating that the Republicans might not have anyone at the top of the ticket this year. Now, they've got to be wondering if anybody could tell the difference.

Following is an open letter to VTDigger Co-Publisher, Anne Galloway. The Air Force provided the email correspondence between VTDigger and Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The full email correspondence, as provided by the Air Force (and annotated by me), can be downloaded by clicking here or on the link below.  

                                                                               September 16, 2014

RE: Banned by VTDigger

Dear Anne,                                            

On this, VTDigger’s fifth birthday, I would like to point out an important issue that hangs like a dark shadow over VTDigger’s credibility.

As you know VTDigger published 39 op-ed pieces that I authored or coauthored during the first four years of its existence. But on October 28, 2013 VTDigger published an article by Tom Brown announcing that it would no longer accept op-ed pieces from me based on an email communication from Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. Although no confidential source and no confidential information were involved, VTDigger refused to release the email communication from Stefanek that was the basis for its attack on me.

Air Force released email exchange under the FOIA

However, in response to my federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the Air Force sent me all the emails VTDigger exchanged with Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek.

Hurtful as it was to me, the reputation damage was not the most important failing. I write to you because the damage from your article and your banning effect thousands of innocent Vermont families who are in the flight path of F-35 basing and who need all voices speaking up.

Air Force spokeswoman never charged misrepresentation

The emails between VTDigger and Stefanek show that VTDigger made serious mistakes in its October 28, 2013 article, “F-35 opponent told Pentagon official he was a VTDigger freelancer.” The emails show that Stefanek said nothing disparaging about me and never charged me with, suggested, or hinted at any wrongdoing.

Federal law defines “freelancer” and provides for equal access to government information

As we shall see in this letter, federal law, the “Freedom of Information Act”  (FOIA), and an Order from the Secretary of the Air Force called “Freedom of Information Act Program,” which implements the federal law, define who is a “freelancer.” I fit perfectly under the federal and Air Force definition, and VTDigger was wrong in claiming that I had “misrepresented” myself in my communication with the Air Force. In addition, federal law provides equal access to information, and VTDigger was wrong that my motive was “to gain information [about projected F-35 fleet flight hours before basing in Vermont] that might not be available to a member of the general public.”

The Order and the law have identical wording defining “a freelancer.” Under the law, among the ways the Air Force may regard an information requester as a freelancer for a news-media entity is whether the requester can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity. The government can make that determination based on the requester’s “past publication record for that news-media entity.” Other ways, of course, include being on staff, being on assignment, and being paid by the news-media entity for articles.

Here is what the federal law and the Air Force Order both say:

A freelance journalist shall be regarded as working for a news-media entity if the journalist can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity, whether or not the journalist is actually employed by the entity. A publication contract would present a solid basis for such an expectation; the Government may also consider the past publication record of the requester in making such a determination.

The intent of Congress in passing this law with its broad definition of “freelancer for a news media entity” is clear: Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act to make government information widely available to the public. Thus, the sole government interest (in granting a fee waiver for searching for the requested documents) is whether the requester can demonstrate a solid basis for publication through a news-media entity. As expressly provided in the law, past publication record works for that demonstration. What VTDigger may view as of primary importance, being on staff or being on assignment and being paid, are merely other good ways of demonstrating satisfaction of the government interest in wide dispersal of the information sought. Nor does the law distinguish on the basis of the label given to the past publications by the freelancer, so long as they show publication of information. The law includes no restriction as to whether the publications are called news, feature, or opinion.

The 39 op-ed pieces that I authored or coauthored on various subjects that VTDigger published during its first 4 years of existence–and I thank you for publishing them and for keeping them posted on the VTDigger web site–provided a “past publication record” that provided a “solid basis for expecting publication through VTDigger.” Until I was banned.

Based on this past publication record on VTDigger–and many more published during the past few years on Truthout, Counterpunch, Mondoweiss, and Oped News, as well as oped pieces published years ago in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Burlington Free Press, among others, a good case could be made that I fit the federal law definition of freelance journalist. (Of course, I also fit the ordinary Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, “a person who acts independently without being affiliated with or authorized by an organization.”)

It was not just the large number of fact-filled op-ed pieces of mine that would have qualified me as a “freelancer for VTDigger” under the Air Force and federal government standard. Also a large readership: A VTDigger article, “Recap 2012: Readers’ top stories”  notes that one of my oped pieces, about “smart meters,” was among the five most read VTDigger op-eds in 2012.

Let’s assume for the moment that Stefanek’s 5-word summary of what I said was perfectly accurate. Let’s assume that Stefanek had precisely quoted me representing myself as “a freelancer for your publication.” Had I actually said precisely that, I would still have been 100% accurate under the operative definition when speaking with the Air Force (or any other federal agency). This because of my past publication record for VTDigger (39 op-ed pieces). Thus, even if Stefanek had quoted me precisely, which she did not (and VTDigger’s second email to Stefanek shows that even VTDigger felt she had not quoted me precisely), and even if she otherwise also knew that I was not “on assignment” from VTDigger, and even if she also knew I was not paid for my articles, she would not have regarded me as “misrepresenting myself.” This is because under the above quoted federal law and the Order to Air Force personnel issued by the Secretary of the Air Force my past publication record on VTDigger would qualify me as a freelancer for VTDigger.

However, what I actually told Ann Stefanek during our phone call was a little different than what Stefanek said in her email to VTDigger: As I wrote in an email to VTDigger the day before VTDigger published its October 28, 2013 article, “I told Ann Stefanik that I write articles for VTDigger. She asked if I was on staff. I said no, I write articles for VTDigger freelance or that I was a freelancer.” VTDigger’s article failed to include any quote from me at all.

So why did VTDigger launch its wrongful attack?

21 of the 39 op-ed pieces of mine that VTDigger published exposed defects in the plan to base F-35 fighter/bombers in Burlington. The articles provided the public with information not provided in other media outlets:

o Corruption in the F-35 basing decision making process under pressure from Senator Patrick Leahy.

o Air Force acknowledgment of serious degradation of the health and safety of thousands of Vermont families from noise and crash risk if the F-35 was based in Burlington.

o How Vermont commercial real estate developers had already used the intense noise of the F-16 to get the federal government to pay for the removal of hundreds of families and demolish more than 100 affordable homes near the airport entrance so they could acquire that valuable land for commercial development and how the louder F-35 would facilitate that plan.

The October 28, 2013 VTDigger article misled readers into thinking that it was Stefanek who contacted VTDigger to level the charge that I had misrepresented myself. The emails show that Stefanek never leveled any charge against me. The charge of misrepresentation was authored solely by VTDigger. Not only that. The emails actually show that it was VTDigger trying to persuade Stefanek to agree with the charge of misrepresentation. But she never did.

VTDigger asked for and failed to get more precision

After failing to get Stefanek to agree with the charge, in the next email from VTDigger to Stefanek VTDigger asked her for more precision about what I had said to her:

as precisely as possible recall what James Leas said to you when he represented himself as a freelance writer for VTDigger.org. Did he use the word freelance writer? And anything else you might remember. I need to confront him on this and want to make sure I know as precisely as possible what words he used.

In asking for more precision about what I had said, VTDigger admitted that it did not think what it already had from Stefanek was sufficiently precise.

But Stefanek gave nothing more precise. Yet the article omits mention of VTDiggers own dissatisfaction with her precision. On what basis did VTDigger level its charge of “misrepresentation” if even VTDigger did not feel that Stefanek could provide what I had said precisely enough?

A comparison of the emails with the article also shows that VTDigger also threw several additional negative points into the article that Stefanek never said in any of her emails and that had no basis in fact.

VTDigger misled readers about its sole source

The emails also show that VTDigger misled its readers not just about what Stefanek said but also about who Stefanek is. In the article, VTDigger identified Stefanek as an authoritative figure, a spokeswoman for the Air Force, which is true. But VTDigger omitted mention that Stefanek self-identifies on her Facebook page as a supporter of Green Ribbons for the F-35-the local Vermont organization that was leading the campaign in support of F-35 basing in Burlington. Thus, VTDigger relied exclusively on the word of an avowed partisan for banning someone on the other side, and never let its readers know of her affiliation.

This was not only a matter of improper reporting. And misleading readers. In addition, because what VTDigger published was false and reputation damaging, its article put VTDigger on the wrong side of Vermont law regarding defamation.

Banned five weeks before the Air Force F-35 basing announcement

VTDigger published its personal-attack piece when the Air Force announcement selecting Burlington for F-35 basing was imminent. VTDigger announced the silencing of my voice in its statewide forum just 5 weeks before the December 3, 2013 Air Force announcement that Burlington was selected.

VTDigger effectively silenced me from VTDigger’s statewide audience at the most crucial time for the politicians and commercial real estate developers seeking to foist this immense danger onto Vermont communities–the same politicians and commercial real estate developers my articles were exposing. The silencing based on false charges facilitated the play book of those politicians and developers. The silencing allowed them to proceed without having to defend their conduct in this statewide forum.

Ann Stefanek, of course, bears some responsibility, too. She failed to correct VTDigger’s obviously wrong statements in its emails to her about who the Air Force regards as a freelancer. She failed to correct VTDigger’s wrong statements about who may receive Air Force documents. And in her emails she failed to divulge to VTDigger her Facebook association with the pro-F-35 basing organization in Vermont, “Green Ribbons for the F-35”.

If the motive don’t fit

The very release of the emails by the Air Force to me–even after VTDigger’s personal attack article–demonstrates that VTDigger was wrong about my supposed motive for “misrepresenting” myself. In the article, VTDigger explained how motive was crucial to its attack on me:

We believe he was attempting to leverage the privilege granted him by VTDigger to have his anti-F-35 opinions published on our site and that he used that connection to gain information that might not be available to a member of the general public.

VTDigger’s charge that I had “misrepresented” myself depended on its “belief” as to my motive for doing so, that the information “might not be available to a member of the general public.” However, under federal law and an Air Force Order, government information, including Air Force information, is equally available to members of the general public as it is to paid reporters.

The Order from the Secretary of the Air Force, “Public Affairs Responsibilities and Management,” 18 August 2010 provides no distinction between news media and private citizen regarding what documents will be provided. The Order also provides no distinction between news media and private citizen regarding the time for response from the Air Force. Even “expedited processing” is available to both news media and private citizens if requested and a “compelling need” is established. The Order states:

DOD makes available timely and accurate information so that the public, Congress, and the media may assess and understand the facts about national security and defense strategy. Requests for information from organizations and private citizens shall be answered in a timely manner. In responding to requests, the following guidelines apply:

1.10.1. Information will be fully and readily available, consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements and exemptions. The provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act will be supported in both letter and spirit.

Notwithstanding the additional handicap posed by the reputation-damaging article VTDigger published, the Air Force decision to release to me the email correspondence between VTDigger and Stefanek demonstrates in action the equal access to information.

Thus, VTDigger published a motive for its charge of “misrepresentation”–a motive that was central to the case made by VTDigger against me–that was flat wrong.

The author of the October 28, 2013 VTDigger article, Tom Brown, effectively admitted that the motive presented in his article was wrong in a comment he posted to the article the morning after his article appeared. In the comment Brown said “the Pentagon PIO cannot handle inquiries from all citizens and therefore grants a higher priority to legitimate media requests, a privilege upon which Leas was trying to capitalize. Case closed.” Thus, the motive for “misrepresenting” myself, was no longer “to gain information that might not be available to a member of the general public.” Necessity to gain the information was now replaced by mere “priority.” Thus, Brown himself acknowledged that what he had published one day earlier was wrong.

Nor did Brown explain why a reader should believe that the new motive presented in his comment was any more accurate than the one he had errantly tossed into the article. Nor did he let readers know that the FOIA and the Air Force Order broadly define what he calls “legitimate media” to include as “freelancers” people like me, who write opinion pieces without employment, assignment, or deadline but who have a substantial past publication record. As to priority, nor did he let readers know that the FOIA expressly provides for “expedited processing,” and that both reporters and members of the general public are entitled to expedited processing if they can show “compelling need.” To meet that standard a reporter would have to show “urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” The emails from Stefanek show no request by me for “expedited processing” or any other priority. Nor did I ask for priority in making my request.

Nor did Brown mention in his article or in his subsequent comment to the article that nothing in the emails from Stefanek or in the law supports either his original guess as to my motive, (necessity to get otherwise unavailable information), nor his replacement guess, (priority).

VTDigger attempted to lead Stefanek but failed

The emails also show that VTDigger fixed up the reputation-damaging personal attack from the start and attempted, but failed, to lead Stefanek toward VTDigger’s conclusion. And, as new information became available to the members of the commenting public that demolished one aspect of VTDigger’s story after another, VTDigger acknowledged nothing and corrected nothing. Amazingly, after some of the 123 comments posted to the article showed serious flaws in the article and its conclusion you, VTDigger’s co-publisher,  posted a comment repeating the charge of “misrepresentation.” Thus, VTDigger cannot deny that it knowingly published a defamation.

Certain supporters of F-35 basing in Vermont have extensively used personal attack in anonymous comments they have posted in response to articles on the Burlington Free Press. The VTDigger article was the first time a mainstream media organization in Vermont had effectively legitimized and put names to this personal attack mode.

Reaffirm appropriate standards

A posted correction by VTDigger is essential to unambiguously reaffirm appropriate standards for the ongoing debate on this issue and all other issues. And to assure readers that silencing opponents of powerful political and economic interests in Vermont will not be allowed unless an independent and impartial review demonstrates a solid basis for this sanction.

As every American knows, the fundamental job of our news organizations is to question authority and hold the government to account. Instead, in this case, VTDigger did the opposite.

VTDigger’s personal attack publication was made with reckless disregard for the truth, showed ill will, showed VTDigger acting with complete disregard for its duty to verify and for its duty to support the right of the one being attacked to answer the attack–as provided in ordinary journalist ethics. VTDigger’s article included statements that had no support whatsoever in the emails but just added to the insult, and VTDigger must have known they had no basis and were false at the time it first published them. Worst of all, VTDigger put itself in the position of being viewed as obsequious to politicians and real estate developers rather than in its proper role as a watch dog over government action and powerful private interests with influence over government, and unabashedly for the public interest.

VTDigger suppressed news gathering vital to public safety

Notwithstanding VTDigger’s notice, later added to the article, that it will continue to report on both sides of the F-35 issue, VTDigger failed to follow up on its own to obtain and provide the facts about the anticipated fleet flight hours for F-35 jets in 2020 (the year the so-far unqualified fighter/bombers are scheduled to arrive in Burlington under the decision announced by the Air Force on December 3, 2013). The F-16 had more than a million fleet flight hours before it was deemed to have a safety record sufficient for basing in a residential area. VTDigger has suppressed not just the speech of a single individual but also suppressed publication of vital safety information that would by now be available to the public if not for VTDigger interference.

Neither continued harsh repetition of the defamation nor denial nor silence will work to remove the deep shadow over VTDigger’s journalistic integrity that its October 28, 2013 article produced.

Readers and supporters of VTDigger have a right to request (a) prompt correction of each and every one of the statements in the article that it knows have no basis in fact, and (b) VTDigger promptly agreeing to a fully independent and impartial investigation as to how and why this bogus article was published so the public can regain confidence that this type of abuse will never happen again, particularly when public health and safety are at risk and particularly when the beneficiaries are rich and powerful commercial real estate developers, politicians at the highest level in our state and in the US Senate, and the military-industrial complex. And when the people being severely shafted are thousands of Vermont families living in modest housing in Winooski, Burlington, Williston, Colchester, and South Burlington.

A change is needed, and this fifth VTDigger birthday provides the time for VTDigger to announce the sunshine of an independent and impartial investigation and that VTDigger will make appropriate correction so the dark shadow may be lifted.

Thank you very much for considering this. I look forward to your response.

                                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                                   James Marc Leas

Crossposted at The Vermont Political Observer.

The most dramatic moment of Saturday’s first gubernatorial debate had nothing to do with the 2014 campaign or the positions of the four candidates. Instead, it emerged from former Governor Jim Douglas’ new memoir, “The Vermont Way.” At about the 36-minute mark, moderator Mark Johnson asked Governor Shumlin about a passage in the book.

Here is the direct quotation from Douglas’ book, as read by Johnson:

“The Senate leader, who succeeded me in the governorship, was a strong proponent of gay marriage. Since he was nominated by a scant 200 votes in the Democratic primary, their support may well have provided the margin of victory. He later reciprocated by appointing one of the leading lobbyists of the movement to the Vermont Supreme Court.”

Am I the only one who is shocked by that?

Jim Douglas is accusing Peter Shumlin of public corruption at the highest level – of giving away a seat on our state’s highest court as part of a political deal. By doing so, he implies that the recipient of Shumlin’s putative largesse, Beth Robinson, is unqualified to be on the Court.

Jim Douglas has said repeatedly that he isn’t in the business of criticizing his successor. He sure has a funny way of showing it.

Not only did Douglas think this, not only did he say it – he committed it to writing in his own official account of his years in office. (His editor/publisher, Democratic State Senator Chris Bray, allowed it to stand. What was he thinking?)

This is despicable, and Douglas deserves full criticism for it. And it is certainly not, in the words of his self-aggrandizing title, “The Vermont Way.”

Funny thing, though: Every media outlet in the state produced stories about the Douglas memoir. As far as I know, not a single one mentioned this passage, in which Jim Douglas accuses Peter Shumlin of public corruption. A crime.

Mark Johnson was the first, and only, media person to report this.

Most of the media accounts of the Douglas memoir (aside from Paul Heintz’ hard-hitting review in Seven Days) were softball affairs. They sorta mentioned Douglas’ long-held grudges against the media, but otherwise downplayed anything that might be controversial or reflect badly on Douglas. That is a remarkable failure by our watchdogs of the Fourth Estate.

By the way, the other three candidates for Governor recognized a white-hot potato when they saw it. None expressed the tiniest bit of criticism for Shumlin or Robinson. They all, including Republican Scott Milne, backed away from the question as fast as they could. None even mentioned the name “Jim Douglas.” A wise choice.