As if Iraq weren’t already riven enough with its own internecine antagonisms, prisoners there under U.S. military guard are siding with Minnesota in the bitter, cross-border gridiron rivalry between the two neighbor states.

The detainees clued into the Guard members’ loyalty to the Green and Gold after the soldiers repainted camp walls in those colors.

“They know Favre by name,” First Lieutenant Tim Boehnen said of the former Packers quarterback, in an interview with Milwaukee radio station WTMJ-AM.

“They obviously then started up the conversations and started talking about Brett Favre,” Boehnen said. “They soon learned about Favre going to the Vikings, and things just started going downhill from there.”

The abuse is apparently entirely verbal, and good-natured, according to Boehnen …

One of the big words they know now is shenanigan. They’ll constantly talk about “Favre shenanigans,” “He’s so good for the Vikings,” and “The Packers have got to really feel bad about that one.”

… unlike, say, the abuse of a goat in Winona that fans painted green and gold before shaving the number 4 into its side and stuffing it into the trunk of a car earlier this football season.

Photo: house.gov

On Thursday, Rep. Michele Bachmann condemned the Goldstone report, a United Nations-commissioned report on possible war crimes during the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Gaza strip in 2008 and 2009. But it is clear from her press release that she either didn’t read the report or is willfully misleading the public.

The U.S. House voted voted 344 to 36 last week to condemn the Goldstone report because it criticizes Israel’s actions in retaliation to Palestinian attacks. Reps. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum were the only two members of the Minnesota delegation to vote against condemning the report. The rest of the delegation supported the condemnation, except for Bachmann who was not present for the vote.

Bachmann praised the vote to condemn the report and in a press release on Thursday, wrote, “Indeed, while this report condemns Israel’s actions, it ignores the precipitating causes of Israel’s self-defensive behavior, concluding that Israel’s military operations were ‘deliberate and systematic,’ and directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, failing to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism, namely the thousands of rockets launched daily at its citizens.”

In fact, the report (pdf) doesn’t ignore “the thousands of rockets launched daily at its citizens.” It clearly calls those rockets attacks “a war crime,” and speculated further that they “may amount to crimes against humanity.”

The report’s section on the rocket attacks on Israel spans 20 pages which provide detail on lives lost, property damage, the groups responsible and the violation of Israeli rights.

On page 347, the report states, “Since April 2001, Palestinian armed groups have launched more than 8,000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into southern Israel.” It notes the “psychological trauma and the feeling of insecurity that living under rocket fire has caused” and the resulting “erosion of the economic, social and cultural life of these communities” in southern Israel.

The report describes the groups responsible, including “the ‘al Qassam Brigades’” which are the “the armed wing of the Hamas political movement.”

It notes that the rocket attacks by Palestinians are a violation of the rights of Israeli children. “The strikes had an adverse impact on the right to education of children and young adults in the affected communities in southern Israel.”

The report also identifies instances where Palestinian armed forces launched rockets from civilian areas thereby using civilians as shields against Israeli retaliation.

And the Goldstone report concludes,

From the facts available, the Mission finds that the rocket and mortars attacks, launched by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel and in Israel as a whole. Furthermore, it is the Mission’s view that the mortars and rockets are uncontrolled and uncontrollable, respectively. This indicates the commission of an indiscriminate attack on the civilian population of southern Israel, a war crime, and may amount to crimes against humanity. These attacks have caused loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians and damage to private houses, religious buildings and property and have eroded the economic and cultural life of the affected communities.

Pfc. Kham Xiong

At Ft. Hood Army Base today, President Obama honored the thirteen people killed Thursday in a shooting spree there, including St. Paul’s Pfc. Kham Xiong. Obama told of Xiong, a 23-year-old married father of three, who “came to America from Thailand as a small child” and later “followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service.” He was set to begin his first tour of duty in Afghanistan. Xiong will be buried with honors at Fort Snelling National Cemetery following a traditional three-day Hmong funeral ceremony.

A day before Veteran’s Day, Obama said that “as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us – every single American – must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before. We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.”

Full text of Obama’s remarks:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT MEMORIAL SERVICE AT FORT HOOD

Fort Hood – III Corps

Fort Hood, Texas

1:55 P.M. CST

THE PRESIDENT:  To the Fort Hood community; to Admiral Mullen; General Casey; General Cone; Secretary McHugh; Secretary Gates; most importantly, to family, friends and members of our Armed Forces.  We come together filled with sorrow for the 13 Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war.  Yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle.  They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great state and the heart of this great American community.  This is the fact that makes the tragedy even more painful, even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that’s been left.  We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers.  You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know:  Your loved ones endure through the life of our nation.  Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched.  Their life’s work is our security, and the freedom that we all too often take for granted.  Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — that is their legacy.

Neither this country — nor the values upon which we were founded — could exist without men and women like these 13 Americans.  And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician’s assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having had a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager.  But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment.  He’s survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and satellite communications operator.  He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and loving father.

After retiring from the Army as a major, John Gaffaney cared for society’s most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse.  He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a captain.  He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008, with the support of his family.  As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for.  He joined the Army after high school.  He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he reenlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience.  When her mother told her she couldn’t take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: “Watch me.”

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service — diffuse bombs — so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher.  He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play.  He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress.  He had extraordinary respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life.  He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army.  When she was killed she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans.  She was a single mom who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters.  She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child.  He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service.  He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country.  Some had long careers in the military.  Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11.  Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did.  Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity, the decency of those who serve, and that’s how they will be remembered.

For that same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering.  As was already mentioned, in those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pickup truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others, she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back.  Two police officers — Mark Todd and Kim Munley — saved countless lives by risking their own.  One medic — Francisco de la Serna — treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.  For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice — in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country.  In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis.  In Iraq, we’re working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon.  Theirs are the tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call — the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country.  In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility.  In an era of division, they call upon us to come together.  In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it.  We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We’re a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.  And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We’re a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal.  We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today.  We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality.  That’s who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day.  It’s a chance to pause, and to pay tribute — for students to learn the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes.  You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf.  But as we honor the many generations who have served, all of us — every single American — must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who’ve come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in the time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.  They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places.  They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains.  They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war.  They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and all stations — all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today’s wars, there’s not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops’ success — no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed.  But the measure of the impact of these young men and women is no less great — in a world of threats that no know borders, their legacy will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that’s extended abroad.  It will serve as testimony to the character of those who served, and the example that all of you in uniform set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to 13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home.  Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest — when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown — it will be said that this generation believed under the most trying of tests; believed in perseverance — not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity.  We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those that we have lost.  And may God bless the United States of America.

A photo from Rep. Ellison's Feb. 2009 trip to Gaza, via Flickr

Rep. Keith Ellison is urging members of Congress not to scrap the Goldstone report (pdf) on war crimes allegedly committed during the conflict culminating in December 2008 and January 2009 between Hamas and Israel. A resolution in Congress, backed by Republicans, would condemn the report, written by UN investigator Richard Goldstone, as unfriendly to Israel. Ellison penned a column in Politico on Tuesday saying the Goldstone report is as fair as can be expected considering the difficult circumstances in the region.

The report states that both sides — Hamas and Israel — should be investigated for war crimes in the conflict when Hamas launched missiles into Israel and Israel implemented a crippling blockade on the people in the Gaza strip.

In defending the report, Ellison recalled the situation he saw when he visited the region last winter.

I visited Sderot in southern Israel and saw the havoc and trauma created by Hamas rocket fire. Israelis there live with fear. I have condemned these attacks as war crimes and will continue to do so.

I also visited Gaza and witnessed the devastation wreaked by the recent war. I toured an American school and medical clinics devastated by Operation Cast Lead. A blockade keeps out items such as paper for textbooks and nutritious food. Gazans live in poverty, and most cannot drink their own water. These are cruel violations against the people of Gaza, 56 percent of whom are children.

Ellison says that Goldstone is a staunch supporter of human rights, and it’s dishonest to claim that Goldstone has a bias against Israel — he’s a self-proclaimed Zionist.

In a letter to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, on which Ellison sits, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee urged the committee to reject the Goldstone report.

“The notoriously anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Council commissioned and subsequently adopted this report which, according to the administration, had a mandate that was ‘unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable,’” the letter stated. “This report falsely charges that Israel committed war crimes and purposely targeted civilians.”

But, Goldstone and human rights groups say that’s not what the facts say. Human Rights Watch says that the resolution contains false information. Specifically, members of Congress claim that the report does not mention possible war crimes committed by Hamas. Goldstone points out that his report clearly does.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch urged Congress to support the Goldstone report. “Instead of denouncing the report, the US Congress should urge Israel and Hamas to break the cycle of abuse and impunity, which for too long has fueled hatred and hindered efforts at peace.”

Ellison echoed a similar sentiment. “The Goldstone report does not assign blame. It lays out the facts, as best as Goldstone could ascertain them, and offers recommendations for the future,” wrote Ellison. “Congress should use this report as a resource to understand a critical part of the world and to grasp fully the devastating human costs of the status quo.”

He continued, “Instead, Congress is poised to oppose the Goldstone report without holding a single hearing on a document that few members of Congress, if any, have read.”

“Mulitiple sources” both inside the beltway and in defense-contracting circles tell Stein that Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii and chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, may water down or remove the provision, due to pressure from defense-industry lobbyists who fear contractors will be susceptible to lawsuits.

“The defense contractors have been storming his office,” said a source with knowledge of the situation. “Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR’s (or other contractors’) own terms — with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely.”

Franken’s amendment, however, also has opposition from within the Obama administration. Earlier this week, the Defense Department noted its concerns, stating, “Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract. It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse.”

Franken’s office tells the Minnesota Independent it won’t be making a public comment on the issue. The bill is expected to be sent out of the appropriations committee sometime next week.

Paktika Province, Afghanistan (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Micah E. Clare)

WASHINGTON — As President Obama and his advisers debate strategy for the Afghanistan war and its related crisis in Pakistan, a factor that so far has not intruded on their discussions is emerging: the antiwar movement is showing signs of strength.

In Congress and around the country, a segment of the progressive movement that helped elect Obama is coalescing around a critique of the eight-year war. That cohort, of unknown size as yet, is skeptical of an open-ended commitment; willing to provide Obama with friendly criticism; unwilling to accede to a second escalation of U.S. troops under the new administration; and searching for an exit strategy. Powerful progressive groups and members of Congress that quietly accepted Obama’s infusion of 21,000 new troops for Afghanistan this spring, however uncomfortably, are finding their footing to oppose the current one, even if they are not yet demanding fixed dates for troop withdrawals. It is unclear what effect they will ultimately have on the debate, but, buoyed by polls demonstrating the war’s unpopularity, they complicate Obama’s decisionmaking.

Progressives are “asking ourselves what we’ve not accomplished in last eight years that we could possibly accomplish over the next eighty,” said Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a favorite of liberals and an opponent of the Afghanistan war, “and more and more, the answer is: nothing.”

That hope is frustrated by the present debate. For the past two weeks, cabinet-level officials and military commanders have met with the president at the White House to consider whether to continue with an expansive military-led effort in Afghanistan aimed at weakening al-Qaeda’s insurgent allies through bolstering the Afghan government or whether to focus the mission around harassing al-Qaeda directly in its tribal Pakistan safehaven. While officials have stated to reporters that all assumptions are subject to examination, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday, said withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is not under consideration. That means the baseline resource commitment under discussion is 68,000 U.S. troops, the highest troop deployment America has ever sent to the beleaguered central-Asian country.

Grayson is hardly the only Afghanistan skeptic in Congress, even varieties of congressional skepticism are still inchoate within the Democratic caucus. After a meeting at the White House on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rolled her eyes when her Senate counterpart, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), pledged support for Obama’s ultimate decision. “Whether we agree with it, [and] vote for it, remains to be seen,” she said. Two days later, Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), the chief House appropriator, called a counterinsurgency strategy “futile” and expressed doubt that the U.S. could reverse Taliban advances at acceptable cost.

In the Senate, Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has called for a “flexible timetable” for withdrawal. While the influential Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), remains a supporter of the war, he has balked at a call for a second troop increase this year, preferring to accelerate the training of Afghan security forces instead. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, also remains a cautious supporter of the war, although he has backed away from what he once called a “global counterinsurgency” by holding a series of recent hearings in which he raised probing questions about the prospects for successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.

Late last month, the antiwar movement received an infusion of support from a pillar of the new progressive online infrastructure: MoveOn.org, the progressive netroots organization with over 5 million members, and a staunch ally of Obama’s. Despite staying largely out of the spring debate on escalation, MoveOn, which ardently opposed the Iraq war, began emailing supporters to urge the president to adopt a “clear exit strategy” for Afghanistan, and on Sept. 29, sent out a request to its members to host country-wide screenings for filmmaker Robert Greenwald’s antiwar documentary “Rethink Afghanistan.”

Ilyse Hogue, MoveOn’s director of political advocacy and communications, explained that the organization’s membership, so far, wanted “to understand what the plan is” in Afghanistan. “Escalation with no exit strategy is all too familiar to them” from the Iraq debate, Hogue said, as are policy prescriptions “ramrodded from hawks outside and inside” an administration. The overall decline in public support for the Afghanistan war is reflective of MoveOn’s supporters, Hogue added. Recent polls have found that only 47 percent of the country thinks the war is worth fighting, and up to 70 percent of Democrats oppose it.

Escalation in Afghanistan comes as an anomaly to many Democrats. Obama on Friday received an unexpected Nobel Peace Prize, yet he campaigned for the presidency on a platform of recommitting to the Afghanistan war and increased troop levels by almost half within weeks of taking office. “One of the reasons [progressives] supported his campaign is because they believe in his multilateral approach to foreign policy issues,” Hogue said, including an increased reliance on diplomacy and a “clear plan on the ground” for the war.

Accordingly, the Obama administration’s Afghanistan critics are reluctant ones. Hogue said the progressive pressure on him was “to support Obama” by ensuring that the drift over the war doesn’t overtake his broader agenda and so he can explain to the country “how he’s going to achieve goals, what we’ll achieve, and how we’re going to get out.” MoveOn’s supporters, like many Democrats, are not yet at the point of demanding a concrete date for withdrawal, preferring at this point to insist Obama articulate a plausible plan for Afghanistan that includes an exit strategy.

Similarly, Greenwald said he was encouraged by Obama’s Afghanistan strategy review, particularly as it, reportedly, begins to distinguish between al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies while setting the goals for the war. “Why would you occupy a country for 100 [al-Qaeda] evildoers? It just doesn’t make sense to me if security is primarily the issue for our country” in Afghanistan, the filmmaker said shortly after premiering his film in Washington D.C. last week. While Greenwald said he would like the review to be “tougher, smarter and broader,” he said he hoped it would address the “implicit assumption” that “sending more troops will help our country.”

Greenwald, who has worked with MoveOn on previous anti-Iraq war and Fox News-hounding projects during the Bush years, said it was “great to have the most effective, efficient, smartest and biggest online group working with us and using the film.” His documentary — much of which was shot in Afghanistan — had reached about 600 screenings in people’s homes and from student groups and unions in its first three weeks of full release, after being available in installments for months on his website and primarily not yet available in theaters.

The next steps, Greenwald said, would be to target screenings to progressive members of congress’ districts and “invite congressmen and -women and staffers to come to the screening.” At the screenings, he hopes to present members or their staffs with concrete figures about how the costs of the war, an estimated $228 billion over eight years, has impacted specific districts in terms of measurements like lost jobs.

It will not be easy to predict how the emerging antiwar movement impacts the president’s decisions, particularly as much of the overlapping progressive infrastructure views the healthcare reform fight as its primary effort — and there the Obama administration is a crucial ally. While MoveOn can “walk and chew gum at the same time,” Hogue said “I’m not going to lie to you, we’re in the middle of a huge health care fight” and MoveOn had placed “enormous resources into that.”

Yet Grayson and another beloved progressive member of Congress, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), attended Greenwald’s Washington premiere last Tuesday and spoke at a panel afterwards. “The war itself is destructive, not constructive,” Grayson said at the panel.

In an interview just after Obama’s Nobel Prize was announced, Grayson combined support for Obama with opposition to the war Obama may decide to escalate. “Logically,” he said, “if you win the Nobel Peace Prize then you’re a man of peace. I think ultimately the commander-in-chief will make up his mind to end the war and bring our troops home. I hope it happens sooner rather later but I think it’s inevitable. I don’t think we’ll be in Afghanistan in the year 2089.”

Spencer Ackerman is national security reporter for the Washington Independent.

Nelson-Pallmeyer, assistant professor of justice and peace studies at the University of St. Thomas, sees Obama’s prize as a symbol and symptom of the “great relief” felt by people in America and around the world that what he terms “the period of the Great Revulsion” — the Bush administration — is over.

But the president so far hasn’t measured up to the broad hopes he stirred, Nelson-Pallmeyer told the Minnesota Independent via email:

Obama’s message of hope and change resonate with many, but the desire for authentic hope and real change are deeper than Obama’s words and far deeper than his actions to date. The Nobel Committee may be attempting to encourage the President to act more boldly.

As a politician, Nelson-Pallmeyer twice pressed peace and other progressive issues all the way to DFL Party endorsing conventions — for Congress in 2006 and U.S. Senate in 2008, before finally giving way to Keith Ellison and Al Franken, respectively.

By the time Obama took office, Nelson-Pallmeyer was already worried that progressive efforts to influence his position on war in Afghanistan were too late. The announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama finds Nelson-Pallmeyer still holding out a little hope:

Escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan based on inflating the almost non-existent threat of al Qaida will continue to bankrupt the country morally and financially. … One can only hope that receiving the prize will encourage Obama to fundamentally change the direction of U.S. foreign policies under his watch. Without such a change in course, the period of hope following the Great Revulsion will likely give way to the period of the Great Disappointment.

Sen. Patrick Leahy. Photo: WDCpix

Republicans and Democrats have been sniping about the USA Patriot Act ever since Congress passed the law in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks to try to forestall another such disaster. But now, it’s the Democrats who are sniping among themselves about it. While some lawmakers, like Sens. Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin, have insisted that Congress must amend the law to rein in the FBI’s powers to snoop into innocent private activities, other Democratic lawmakers, such as Senators Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, have resisted significant reforms.

Three provisions of the law will expire by the end of this year if they’re not renewed, and have been the subject of recent hearings. Those are: the “roving wiretap” provision, which allows the government to tap  phones and other electronic devices used by any person suspected of involvement in terrorism; section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to obtain a broad range of business records and other tangible things, including library records, subscription information and credit card statements, so long as the FBI shows these are “relevant” to some terrorist investigation; and the so-called “lone wolf” provision, which allows the government to wiretap any suspect believed to be involved in terrorism, even if that person has no connection to any known terrorist organization.

The other controversial provisions include the FBI’s authority to issue National Security Letters, or NSLs, which seek a broad range of information from businesses about their customers but do not require a warrant or any other court order; and the “sneak and peak law”, which allows the FBI to search a suspect’s home without informing the target that they’ve been searched.

Civil liberties advocates insist these provisions are all too broad as currently written, and allow the FBI to abuse its authority to conduct wide-scale “data mining” of the general population, searching innocent people’s records and personal information while the government tries to root out wrongdoing. Because in many cases it’s not clear how the government is using its broad authority and who gets access to the information, privacy advocates worry that the government could retain such information and use it in ways unconnected to terrorism investigations.

A 2007 report from the FBI Inspector General concluded that the FBI had issued almost 150,000 NSL requests between 2003 and 2005, often collecting information about people not even suspected of having done anything illegal. The Inspector General also found that the FBI’s record-keeping was so poor that it often didn’t know how many letters it has issued, and requested information it wasn’t entitled to receive.

Advocates worry that many sections of the Patriot Act allow similar abuses. “The concern is that the changes the Patriot Act made were such that so long as the FBI agent certifies that the information they’re seeking is relevant to a terror investigation, they can get it,” explained Farhana Khera, Executive Director of Muslim Advocates, which recently sued the government for more information about FBI surveillance practices. “We argue that’s way too broad. It should be tied to a suspected terrorist or terrorist activity.” The FBI’s current authority “has unleashed concerns about the FBI getting access to data on literally millions and millions of Americans,” she said.

Advocates for Muslim-Americans also worry that the laws are being used to target and harass law-abiding American muslims, landing them on no-fly lists, preventing them from getting hired for federal jobs, or deterring them from contributing to legal charitable organizations that assist needy Muslims in other countries.

To address these problems, in mid-September, Feingold and Durbin, both of whom have long expressed concerns about the Patriot Act, introduced the JUSTICE Act (Judiciously Using Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts), which would renew section 215 and the roving wiretap provisions, but would require the government to provide more justification for using them, and to specify more clearly the targets of their investigation.

The bill would also rein in the FBI’s authority to issue National Security Letters by requiring the government to specify what it’s looking for and how the information is relevant to an ongoing national security investigation. Meanwhile, it would repeal the part of the FISA Amendments Act that immunized telecommunications companies such as AT&T that assisted the government in its warrantless wiretapping program.

But a week later, to the dismay of many civil libertarians, Sen. Leahy introduced the USA Patriot and Sunset Extension Act. Cosponsored by Sens. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), it would extend the expiring provisions with only minor modifications, and would leave the “lone wolf” and “roving wiretap” provisions intact. It also would not include any reforms to the FISA Amendments Act.

By the time of the Senate markup session last week, Sen. Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, had produced a substitute version of his bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Intelligence subcommittee. This bill became the basis for the markup, effectively destroying the chances for adoption of the JUSTICE bill, although pieces of it could still be introduced as amendments.

Civil liberties advocates quickly expressed their disappointment. The American Civil Liberties Union called it “a watered-down version” of the original Leahy bill. Kevin Bankston of Electronic Frontier Foundation similarly described it as having “even fewer PATRIOT reforms than the original Leahy bill.”  Although Feingold and Durbin offered amendments, the only one that succeeded was one amending the “sneak and peak” provision. The amendment would require the government to notify the subject of a search within seven days, instead of 30, as the law stands now. An amendment offered by Senator Durbin to narrow the broad Section 215 powers, which now allows the government to gain access to “any tangible thing,” failed.

Even Sen. Al Franken, who at the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing took the time to read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to Justice Department official David Kris, voted to support the Leahy-Feinstein substitute bill, and against the Durbin and Feingold amendments.

Feingold has repeatedly expressed concern that the government is not providing enough information for the public to know how the Patriot Act is being used.

“I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act remains classified,” said Feingold at a recent hearing, noting that he believes that much of that classified information “would have a significant impact on the debate.” Although the Justice Department recently acknowledged that the “lone wolf” authority has never been used, said Feingold, “there also is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know.”

Some representatives in the House, where they’re also debating changes to the Patriot Act and will eventually put forward their own bill, feel the same way. Earlier this week, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for more information about how Section 215 orders have been used to help inform the House debate. (Eventually, the House and Senate bills to amend the Patriot Act will have to be reconciled before they go to the President for his signature.)

Although Feinstein has cited classified information as her reason for supporting the re-authorization of section 215 as is, Feingold disagrees. The Feingold amendment would have limited what kinds of records could be obtained under section 215, and required that the government show that those records are related either to terrorist activities, or to people in contact with a terrorist.

Interestingly, notes Michelle Richardson, legislative consultant to the ACLU, during the Patriot Act reauthorization process in 2005, “Democrats and Republicans supported amendments to section 215 to limit it to terrorist activities,” she said. “But now they don’t.”

The problem with reauthorizing many of these provisions, says Richardson, is that “we don’t know what information they’re getting, how much, and who has access,” she said. “But we believe that anytime you get the information, it’s a violation. These are principles over 200 years old in this country, that government should not be getting this information about you unless they have reason to believe you’ve done something wrong.”

That principle is increasingly being discarded. Attorney General Guidelines issued at the end of the Bush administration, for example, eliminated the requirement that the FBI must have reason to believe the target of an investigation has committed a crime before initiating that investigation.

“Who knows if the information comes back to haunt you,” said Richardson. “If you apply for federal student aid, for a federal job, or end up on a no-fly list. We don’t know who has access to the information, and where it’s supposed to go. That’s not how things are supposed to work in this country.”

On Thursday, the markup session will continue in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as specifics on the bill get hammered out. Much of the critical information necessary to determine how it’s working, though, will remain secret.

In September, 9 A.D., Hermann, whose statue (shown in photo before assembly) towers over New Ulm, triumphed in a running battle through Germany’s Teutenborg Forest over Tiberius’ forces, who were left in urgent need of medical services.

Here’s how the battle looked as captured on YouTube:

Ludeman’s corps may be able to avoid such treatment if they enter Germany singing the theme song from his 1986 race for Minnesota governor: “Cal LUUUdeman, He’s WUUUnderbar!”

Photo: Kenya Police

A man killed in an attack in the Somali desert by U.S. Special Forces last week had trained recruits from Minneapolis to join the ranks of the al-Shabaab anti-government terror group, according to National Public Radio.

The man, Salah Ali Nabhan, also linked Al-Qaida in Pakistan to the Somali militia. Last spring, boys who came back to Minneapolis identified him from an FBI mugshot as their trainer from military camps in Somalia.

U.S. officials say DNA tests may yet show that others killed in the attack last week are Minneapolis recruits.