Let the sunshine in

Hint, it ain't a grassroots movement, you guys. Who's funding the Conservative Movement?

Finally.

The US military has begun notifying the Red Cross of the identities of terror suspects being held at secret camps in Iraq and Afghanistan, reports say.

The Red Cross, which has lobbied the Pentagon for years to give its staff access to all detention facilities, declined to confirm the changes.

The policy reportedly took effect this month with no public announcement.

Correspondents say that the move represents a victory for human rights groups seeking more US transparency.

The new approach is said to be part of a broad review of US detention and interrogation practice launched by the Obama administration.

The special super extra double secret club of power

Makes one forget that the government works FOR the people.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon:

Part of what motivates this Beltway fixation on secrecy is an ignoble attribute of human nature, or at least an attribute of a certain common psyche. The more exclusive a club is, the more privileged someone feels to belong to it. The fewer people with access to certain information, the more special those who have been granted access to it -- Beltway insiders and source-pleasing journalists -- believe themselves to be.

Francis Bacon's now-clichéd-though-still-true observation that "knowledge is power" means that the more ignorant the rabble are kept about what Beltway rulers are doing, the more powerful Beltway rulers and their underlings become. Hence, Beltway insiders cherish their secrecy (and though it's amazing in one sense, it should thus come as no surprise that Miller is actually a career journalist -- someone who therefore, in theory, ought to cheer when government officials disclose what they see, not think of ways to empower political officials to legally suppress it).

As much as we need anything else, we need a massive reduction in government secrecy and a massive increase in transparency. Obama himself (as well as, ironically, CAP's President and Obama tranistion chief John Podesta) has repeatedly said as much:

"People from every State in this great Nation sent us to Congress to defend their rights and stand up for their interests," Sen. Obama said in a prepared floor statement. "To do that we have to tear down the barriers that separate citizens from the democratic process and to shine a brighter light on the inner workings of Washington."

It's our money you're spending now

So you corporate guys get to be accountable to us, right?:

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''

Hmmm. Okay, at least you'll rein in your profligate spending?:

AIG is hurting so bad that we just gave them another $40 billion, while execs live it up at another luxury junket, this one costing $343,000. KNVX uncovered another high-priced conference taking place at the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, AZ. They reported that AIG made efforts to disguise its presence, making sure no AIG iconography was out in the open. One hotel employee said that staff was forbidden from even saying the word AIG. AIG said seminars like this, which was for independent financial advisers who steer customers to AIG, are essential to its business. They also said that most of the seminar's costs would be picked up by other corporate sponsors. AIG said in a statement, "We take very seriously our commitment to aggressively manage meeting costs."

This 'conference' happened AFTER the pheasant shoot and the negative news AIG received from that. Slow learning curve or an incurable sense of entitlement?

McCain was for it before he was against it

Even if he was the one who sponsored the bills.

Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger Report:

That’s obviously quite a bit of evasion for Mr. “Straight Talk,” but it got me thinking: how many McCain-sponsored bills is McCain prepared to vote against?

Let’s see…

* He said this week that he’d vote against his own immigration plan.

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now, if the treaty comes to the Senate floor, he’s vowed to vote against it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, to make the far-right base happy, he voted against the bill he had taken the lead on.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he now opposes the measure he’d backed.

* McCain used to support major campaign-finance reform measures that bore his name. In June 2007 2006, McCain announced his opposition to a major McCain-Feingold provision.

It’s one thing to shift with the political winds, and I’ll gladly concede that there are worse qualities in a presidential candidate than changing one’s mind about a policy matter or two. Indeed, McCain has been in Congress for a quarter-century; he’s bound to shift now and then on various issues.

But these aren’t just random bills that McCain voted on — these are bills that he personally championed — recently. And now, after McCain sponsored the bills, he’s not even willing to vote for them anymore.

So... will they pass out flip flops at the convention? Will the media address this blatant reinvention of his core beliefs? Will they even notice?

Or will they talk about lapel pins?

Shades of Unka Dick!

If you love secrecy, dark sides, and undisclosed secret locations, vote for Giuliani!:

In a Republican presidential candidates‘ debate last week, Giuliani asserted: "My government in New York City was so transparent that they knew every single thing I did almost every time I did it. ... I can‘t think of a public figure that‘s had a more transparent life than I‘ve had."

"He ran a government as closed as he could make it," said attorney Floyd Abrams, a widely recognized First Amendment authority who faced off against city lawyers when Giuliani sought to shut the Brooklyn Museum of Art because the mayor considered a painting sacrilegious.

The litany of questions Giuliani has faced in recent weeks about undisclosed business clients and furtive billing practices for police security during trysts with then-girlfriend Judith Nathan are reminiscent of the dozens of lawsuits filed by news organizations to obtain public records, of the numerous state Freedom of Information Law requests that nonprofits like the Coalition for the Homeless were forced to file, of access to City Hall steps denied to protesters.

Wikileaks

How sad this has evolved as a way to make government and corporations honest.

"Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. Many governments would benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. Wikileaks will facilitate safety in the ethical leaking movement."