The social-networking strategy that took an obscure senator to the doors of the White House.
By David Talbot
Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign manager and Internet impresario, describes Super Tuesday II--the March 4 primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island--as the moment Barack Obama used social tech­nology to decisive effect. The day's largest hoard of dele­gates would be contested in Texas, where a strong showing would require exceptional discipline and voter-education efforts. In Texas, Democrats vote first at the polls and then, if they choose, again at caucuses after the polls close. The caucuses award one-third of the Democratic delegates.

Hillary Clinton's camp had about 20,000 volunteers at work in Texas. But in an e-mail, Trippi learned that 104,000 Texans had joined Obama's social-­networking site, www.my.barackobama.com, known as MyBO. MyBO and the main Obama site had already logged their share of achievements, particularly in helping rake in cash. The month before, the freshman senator from Illinois had set a record in American politics by garnering $55 million in donations in a single month. In Texas, MyBO also gave the Obama team the instant capacity to wage fully networked campaign warfare. After seeing the volunteer numbers, Trippi says, "I remember saying, 'Game, match--it's over.'"

The Obama campaign could get marching orders to the Texans registered with MyBO with minimal effort. The MyBO databases could slice and dice lists of volunteers by geographic micro­region and pair people with appropriate tasks, including prepping nearby voters on caucus procedure. "You could go online and download the names, addresses, and phone numbers of 100 people in your neighborhood to get out and vote--or the 40 people on your block who were undecided," Trippi says. "'Here is the leaflet: print it out and get it to them.' It was you, at your computer, in your house, printing and downloading. They did it all very well." Clinton won the Texas primary vote 51 to 47 percent. But Obama's ­people, following their MyBO playbook, so overwhelmed the chaotic, crowded caucuses that he scored an overall victory in the Texas delegate count, 99 to 94. His showing nearly canceled out ­Clinton's win that day in Ohio. Clinton lost her last major opportunity to stop the Obama juggernaut. "In 1992, Carville said, 'It's the economy, stupid,'" Trippi says, recalling the exhortation of Bill Clinton's campaign manager, James Carville. "This year, it was the network, stupid!"

Throughout the political season, the Obama campaign has domi­nated new media, capitalizing on a confluence of trends. Americans are more able to access media-rich content online; 55 percent have broadband Internet connections at home, double the figure for spring 2004. Social-networking technologies have matured, and more Americans are comfortable with them. Although the 2004 Dean campaign broke ground with its online meeting technologies and blogging, "people didn't quite have the facility," says ­Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford law professor who has given the Obama campaign Internet policy advice (Lessig wrote The People Own Ideas! in our May/June 2005 issue). "The world has now caught up with the technology." The Obama campaign, he adds, recognized this early: "The key networking advance in the Obama field operation was really deploying community­-building tools in a smart way from the very beginning."

Of course, many of the 2008 candidates had websites, click-to-donate tools, and social-networking features--even John McCain, who does not personally use e-mail. But the Obama team put such technologies at the center of its campaign--among other things, recruiting 24-year-old Chris Hughes, cofounder of Facebook, to help develop them. And it managed those tools well. Supporters had considerable discretion to use MyBO to organize on their own; the campaign did not micromanage but struck a balance between top-down control and anarchy. In short, Obama, the former Chicago community organizer, created the ultimate online political machine.

The Obama campaign did not provide access or interviews for this story; it only confirmed some details of our reporting and offered written comments. This story is based on interviews with third parties involved in developing Obama's social-networking strategy or who were familiar with it, and on public records.

An Online Nervous System
A row of elegant, renovated 19th-century industrial buildings lines Boston's Congress Street east of Fort Point Channel. On any given day, behind a plain wooden door on the third floor of 374 Congress, 15 to 20 casually clad programmers tap away at computers. On the day I visited, the strains of Creedence Clearwater Revival filled the room; a Ping-Pong table dominated the small kitchen. This is the technology center for Blue State Digital, which means that it is also the nervous system for its two largest clients, the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Founded by alumni of the Dean campaign, Blue State Digital added interactive elements to Obama's website--including MyBO--and now tends to its daily care and feeding. The site's servers hum away in a Boston suburb and are backed up in the Chicago area.

Jascha Franklin-Hodge, 29, greeted me with a friendly handshake and a gap-toothed grin. He has a deep voice and a hearty laugh; his face is ringed by a narrow beard. Franklin-Hodge dropped out of MIT after his freshman year and spent a few years in online music startups before running the Internet infrastructure for the Dean campaign, which received a then-­unprecedented $27 million in online donations. "When the campaign ended, we thought, 'Howard Dean was not destined to be president, but what we are doing online--this is too big to let go away,'" he says. He and three others cofounded Blue State Digital, where he is chief technology officer. (Another cofounder, Joe Rospars, is now on leave with the Obama campaign as its new-media director.)

The MyBO tools are, in essence, rebuilt and consolidated versions of those created for the Dean campaign. Dean's website allowed supporters to donate money, organize meetings, and distribute media, says Zephyr Teachout, who was Dean's Internet director and is now a visiting law professor at Duke University. "We developed all the tools the Obama campaign is using: SMS [text messaging], phone tools, Web capacity," Teachout recalls. "They [Blue State Digital] did a lot of nice work in taking this crude set of unrelated applications and making a complete suite."

Blue State Digital had nine days to add its tools to Obama's site before the senator announced his candidacy on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, IL. Among other preparations, the team braced for heavy traffic. "We made some projections of traffic levels, contribution amounts, and e-mail levels based on estimates from folks who worked with [John] Kerry and Dean in 2004," recalls Franklin­-Hodge. As Obama's Springfield speech progressed, "we were watching the traffic go up and up, surpassing all our previous records." (He would not provide specific numbers.) It was clear that early assumptions were low. "We blew through all of those [estimates] in February," he says. "So we had to do a lot of work to make sure we kept up with the demand his online success had placed on the system." By July 2008, the campaign had raised more than $200 million from more than a million online donors (Obama had raised $340 million from all sources by the end of June), and MyBO had logged more than a million user accounts and facilitated 75,000 local events, according to Blue State Digital.

MyBO and the main campaign site made it easy to give money--the fuel for any campaign, because it pays for advertising and staff. Visitors could use credit cards to make one-time donations or to sign up for recurring monthly contributions. MyBO also made giving money a social event: supporters could set personal targets, run their own fund-raising efforts, and watch personal fund-­raising thermometers rise. To bring people to the site in the first place, the campaign sought to make Obama a ubiquitous presence on as many new-media platforms as possible.

The viral Internet offered myriad ways to propagate unfiltered Obama messages. The campaign posted the candidate's speeches and linked to multimedia material generated by supporters. A music video set to an Obama speech--"Yes We Can," by the hip-hop artist Will.i.am--has been posted repeatedly on YouTube, but the top two postings alone have been viewed 10 million times. A single YouTube posting of Obama's March 18 speech on race has been viewed more than four million times. Similarly, the campaign regularly sent out text messages (at Obama rallies, speakers frequently asked attendees to text their contact information to his campaign) and made sure that Obama was prominent on other social-networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace (see "New-Media King" chart above). The campaign even used the micro­blogging service Twitter, garnering about 50,000 Obama "followers" who track his short posts. "The campaign, consciously or unconsciously, became much more of a media operation than simply a presidential campaign, because they recognized that by putting their message out onto these various platforms, their supporters would spread it for them," says Andrew Rasiej, founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, a website covering the intersection of politics and technology (and another Dean alumnus). "We are going from the era of the sound bite to the sound blast."

Money flowed in, augmenting the haul from big-ticket fund-raisers. By the time of the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 2008, the Obama campaign had more than $35 million on hand and was able to use MyBO to organize and instruct caucus-goers. "They have done a great job in being precise in the use of the tools," Teachout says. "In Iowa it was house parties, looking for a highly committed local network. In South Carolina, it was a massive get-out-the-vote effort." MyBO was critical both in the early caucus states, where campaign staff was in place, and in later-­voting states like Texas, Colorado, and Wisconsin, where "we provided the tools, remote training, and opportunity for supporters to build the campaign on their own," the Obama campaign told Technology Review in a written statement. "When the campaign eventually did deploy staff to these states, they supplemented an already-built infrastructure and volunteer network."

Using the Web, the Obama camp turbocharged age-old campaign tools. Take phone banks: through MyBO, the campaign chopped up the task of making calls into thousands of chunks small enough for a supporter to handle in an hour or two. "Millions of phone calls were made to early primary states by people who used the website to reach out and connect with them," Franklin-Hodge says. "On every metric, this campaign has operated on a scale that has exceeded what has been done before. We facilitate actions of every sort: sending e-mails out to millions and millions of people, organizing tens of thousands of events." The key, he says, is tightly integrating online activity with tasks people can perform in the real world. "Yes, there are blogs and Listservs," Franklin-Hodge says. "But the point of the campaign is to get someone to donate money, make calls, write letters, organize a house party. The core of the software is having those links to taking action--to doing something."


Pork Invaders
If the other major candidates had many of the same Web tools, their experiences show that having them isn't enough: you must make them central to the campaign and properly manage the networks of supporters they help organize. Observers say that ­Clinton's campaign deployed good tools but that online social networks and new media weren't as big a part of its strategy; at least in its early months, it relied more on conventional tactics like big fund-raisers. After all, Clinton was at the top of the party establishment. "They [the Obama supporters] are chanting 'Yes we can,' and she's saying 'I don't need you,'" Trippi says. "That is what the top of that campaign said by celebrating Terry McAuliffe [the veteran political operative and former Democratic National Committee chairman] and how many millions he could put together with big, big checks. She doesn't need my $25!" The two campaigns' fund-raising statistics support Trippi's argument: 48 percent of Obama's funds came from donations of less than $200, compared with 33 percent of Clinton's, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Clinton's Internet director, Peter Daou, credits the Obama campaign with doing an "amazing job" with its online social network. "If there is a difference in how the two campaigns approached [a Web strategy], a lot of those differences were based on our constituencies," Daou says. "We were reaching a different demographic of supporters and used our tools accordingly." For example, he says, the Clinton campaign established a presence on the baby-boomer social-networking site Eons.com, and Clinton herself often urged listeners to visit www.hillaryclinton.com. But Andrew Rasiej says that the conventional political wisdom questioned the value of the Internet. "As far as major political circles were concerned," he says, "Howard Dean failed, and therefore the Internet didn't work."

While it's hard to tease out how much Clinton's loss was due to her Web strategy--and how much to factors such as her Iraq War vote and the half-generation difference between her and Obama's ages--it seems clear that her campaign deëmphasized Web strategy early on, Trippi says. Even if you "have all the smartest bottom-up, tech-savvy people working for you," he says, "if the candidate and the top of the campaign want to run a top-down campaign, there is nothing you can do. It will sit there and nothing will happen. That's kind of what happened with the Clinton campaign."

Republican Ron Paul had a different problem: Internet anarchy. Where the Obama campaign built one central network and managed it effectively, the Paul campaign decided early on that it would essentially be a hub for whatever networks the organizers were setting up. The results were mixed. On the one hand, volunteers organized successful "money bombs"--one-day online fund-raising frenzies (the one on November 5, 2007, netted Paul $4.3 million). But sometimes the volunteers' energy--and money--was wasted, says Justine Lam, the Paul campaign's Internet director, who is now the online marketing director at Politicker.com. Consider the supporter-driven effort to hire a blimp emblazoned with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul" to cruise up and down the East Coast last winter. "We saw all this money funding a blimp, and thought, 'We really need this money for commercials,'" Lam says.

Then there is McCain, who--somewhat ironically--was the big Internet story of 2000. That year, after his New Hampshire primary victory over George W. Bush, he quickly raised $1 million online. And at times last year, he made effective use of the Internet. His staff made videos--such as "Man in the Arena," celebrating his wartime service--that gained popularity on YouTube. But the McCain site is ineffectual for social networking. In late June, when I tried to sign up on McCainSpace--the analogue to MyBO--I got error messages. When I tried again, I was informed that I would soon get a new password in my in-box. It never arrived. "His social-networking site was poorly done, and people found there was nothing to do on it," says Lam. "It was very insular, a walled garden. You don't want to keep people inside your walled garden; you want them to spread the message to new people."

McCain's organization is playing to an older base of supporters. But it seems not to have grasped the breadth of recent shifts in communications technology, says David All, a Republican new-media consultant. "You have an entire generation of folks under age 25 no longer using e-mails, not even using Facebook; a majority are using text messaging," All says. "I get Obama's text messages, and every one is exactly what it should be. It is never pointless, it is always worth reading, and it has an action for you to take. You can have hundreds of recipients on a text message. You have hundreds of people trying to change the world in 160 characters or less. What's the SMS strategy for John McCain? None."


The generational differences between the Obama and McCain campaigns may be best symbolized by the distinctly retro "Pork Invaders," a game on the McCain site (it's also a Facebook application) styled after Space Invaders, the arcade game of the late 1970s. Pork Invaders allows you to fire bullets that say "veto" at slow-moving flying pigs and barrels.

But it's not that the campaign isn't trying to speak to the youth of today, as opposed to the youth of decades ago. Lately McCain has been having his daughter Meghan and two friends write a "bloggette" from the campaign trail. The bloggette site features a silhouette of a fetching woman in red high-heeled shoes. "It gives a hipper, younger perspective on the campaign and makes both of her parents seem hipper and younger," says Julie ­Germany, director of the nonpartisan Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet at George Washington University. The McCain campaign did not reply to several interview requests, but Germany predicts that the campaign will exploit social networking in time to make a difference in November. "What we will see is that the McCain online campaign is using the Internet just as effectively to meet its goals as the Obama campaign," she says. Over the summer, the McCain campaign refreshed its website. But Rasiej, for one, doubts that McCain has enough time to make up lost ground.

A Networked White House?
The obvious next step for MyBO is to serve as a get-out-the-vote engine in November. All campaigns scrutinize public records showing who is registered to vote and whether they have voted in past elections. The Obama campaign will be able to merge this data with MyBO data. All MyBO members' activity will have been chronicled: every house party they attended, each online connection, the date and amount of each donation. Rasiej sees how it might play out: the reliable voters who signed up on MyBO but did little else may be left alone. The most active ones will be deployed to get the unreliable voters--whether MyBO members or not--to the polls. And personalized pitches can be dished up, thanks to the MyBO database. "The more contextual information they can provide the field operation, the better turnout they will have," he says.

If Obama is elected, his Web-oriented campaign strategy could carry over into his presidency. He could encourage his supporters to deluge members of Congress with calls and e-mails, or use the Web to organize collective research on policy questions. The campaign said in one of its prepared statements that "it's certain that the relationships that have been built between Barack Obama and his supporters, and between supporters themselves, will not end on Election Day." But whether or not a President Obama takes MyBO into the West Wing, it's clear that the phenomenon will forever transform campaigning. "We're scratching the surface," Trippi says. "We're all excited because he's got one million people signed up--but we are 300 million people in this country. We are still at the infancy stages of what social-­networking technologies are going to do, not just in our politics but in everything. There won't be any campaign in 2012 that doesn't try to build a social network around it."


Lessig warns that if Obama wins but doesn't govern according to principles of openness and change, as promised, supporters may not be so interested in serving as MyBO foot soldiers in 2012. "The thing they [the Obama camp] don't quite recognize is how much of their enormous support comes from the perception that this is someone different," Lessig says. "If they behave like everyone else, how much will that stanch the passion of his support?"

But for now, it's party time. At the end of June, after ­Clinton suspended her campaign, MyBO put out a call for the faithful to organize house parties under a "Unite for Change" theme. More than 4,000 parties were organized nationwide on June 28; I logged in and picked three parties from about a dozen in the Boston area.


My first stop was a house party in the tony suburb of ­Winchester, where several couples dutifully watched an Obama-supplied campaign video. Host Mary Hart, an art professor in her 50s, said that Obama and his website made her "open my house to strangers and really get something going." She added, "I'm e-mailing people I haven't seen in 20 years. We have this tremendous ability to use this technology to network with people. Why don't we use it?"

Next stop was a lawn party in the Boston neighborhood of Roxbury, whose organizer, Sachielle Samedi, 34, wore a button that said "Hot Chicks Dig Obama." She said that support for the Obama candidacy drew neighbors together. At the party, Wayne Dudley, a retired history professor, met a kindred spirit: Brian Murdoch, a 54-year-old Episcopal priest. The two men buttonholed me for several minutes; Dudley predicted that Obama would bring about "a new world order centered on people of integrity." Murdoch nodded vigorously. It was a fine MyBO moment.

My evening ended at a packed post-collegiate party in a Somerville walk-up apartment. Host Rebecca Herst, a 23-year-old program assistant with the Jewish Organizing Initiative, said that MyBO--unlike Facebook--allowed her to quickly upload her entire Gmail address book, grafting her network onto Obama's. "It will be interesting to see what develops after this party, because now I'm connected to all these people," she shouted over the growing din. Two beery young men, heading for the exits, handed her two checks for $20. Herst tucked the checks into her back pocket.

David Talbot is Technology Review's chief correspondent.

Labels: marketing, politics, Science

By Thomas Frank
USA TODAY

BALTIMORE — Body-scanning machines that show images of people underneath their clothing are being installed in 10 of the nation's busiest airports in one of the biggest public uses of security devices that reveal intimate body parts.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently started using body scans on randomly chosen passengers in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Denver, Albuquerque and at New York's Kennedy airport.

Airports in Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas and Miami will be added this month. Reagan National Airport in Washington starts using a body scanner today. A total of 38 machines will be in use within weeks.

"It's the wave of the future," said James Schear, the TSA security director at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, where two body scanners are in use at one checkpoint.

Schear said the scanners could eventually replace metal detectors at the nation's 2,000 airport checkpoints and the pat-downs done on passengers who need extra screening. "We're just scratching the surface of what we can do with whole-body imaging," Schear said.

The TSA effort could encourage scanners' use in rail stations, arenas and office buildings, the American Civil Liberties Union said. "This may well set a precedent that others will follow," said Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project.

Scanners are used in a few courthouses, jails and U.S. embassies, as well as overseas border crossings, military checkpoints and some foreign airports such as Amsterdam's Schiphol.

The scanners bounce harmless "millimeter waves" off passengers who are selected to stand inside a portal with arms raised after clearing the metal detector. A TSA screener in a nearby room views the black-and-white image and looks for objects on a screen that are shaded differently from the body. Finding a suspicious object, a screener radios a colleague at the checkpoint to search the passenger.

The TSA says it protects privacy by blurring passengers' faces and deleting images right after viewing. Yet the images are detailed, clearly showing a person's gender. "You can actually see the sweat on someone's back," Schear said.

The scanners aim to strengthen airport security by spotting plastic and ceramic weapons and explosives that evade metal detectors and are the biggest threat to aviation. Government audits have found that screeners miss a large number of weapons, bombs and bomb parts such as wires and timers that agents sneak through checkpoints.

"I'm delighted by this development," said Clark Kent Ervin, the former Homeland Security inspector general whose reports urged the use of body scanners. "This really is the ultimate answer to increasing screeners' ability to spot concealed weapons."

The scanners do a good job seeing under clothing but cannot see through plastic or rubber materials that resemble skin, said Peter Siegel, a senior scientist at the California Institute of Technology.

"You probably could find very common materials that you could wrap around you that would effectively obscure things," Siegel said.

Passengers who went through a scanner at the Baltimore airport last week were intrigued, reassured and occasionally wary. The process took about 30 seconds on average.

Stepping into the 9-foot-tall glass booth, Eileen Reardon of Baltimore looked startled when an electronic glass door slid around the outside of the machine to create the image of her body. "Some of this stuff seems a little crazy," Reardon said, "but in this day and age, you have to go along with it."

Scott Shafer of Phoenix didn't mind a screener looking at him underneath his shorts and polo shirt from a nearby room. The door is kept shut and blocked with floor screens. "I don't know that person back there. I'll never seem them," Shafer said. "Everything personal is taken out of the equation."

Steinhardt of the ACLU said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. "It all seems very clinical and non-threatening — you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end," he said.

Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

Magazine-size signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them.

Darin Scott of Miami was annoyed by the process.

"If you don't ask questions, they don't tell you anything," Scott said. When he asked a screener technical questions about the scanner, "he could not answer," Scott said.

TSA spokeswoman Sterling Payne said the agency is studying passenger reaction and could "get more creative" about informing passengers. "If passengers have questions," she said, "they need to ask the questions."

Passengers can decline to go through a scanner, but they will face a pat-down.

Schear, the Baltimore security director, said only 4% of passengers decline.

In Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, where scanners have been tested since last year as an alternative to pat-downs, 90% of passengers choose to be scanned, the TSA says.

"Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do."

Labels: politics, Society, Stuff

By Dick Morris

The real message of Tuesday’s primaries is not that Hillary won. It’s that she didn’t win by enough.

The race is over.

The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then? But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates? No way. They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.

John McCain’s nomination guarantees that the superdelegates wouldn’t dare. A perfectly acceptable alternative for most Democrats, McCain would harvest so large a proportion of Obama’s votes if Hillary steals the nomination that he would probably win. Even putting Obama on the ticket would not allay the anger of his supporters; it would just make him complicit in the robbery.

Will Hillary win Pennsylvania? Who cares? Even if she were to sweep the remaining primaries and caucuses by 10 points, she would move just 60 votes closer to Obama’s total of elected delegates. And she won’t sweep them all. Even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania, the largest prize up for grabs, Obama will probably win North Carolina, which is almost as large. He’s likely to win Mississippi and Wyoming and has a good shot in Oregon and Indiana. The most likely result of these coming contests is that Obama will be roughly where he is now, about 140 elected delegates ahead of Hillary.

Suppose that Hillary will carry those states by enough to offset Obama’s delegate lead. The proportional representation system makes a knockout impossible and so mutes relatively narrow victories as to make them almost inconsequential. Little Vermont, with 600,000 people, gave Obama a net gain of four delegates, half of what Hillary won from the Texas primary, a state with 20 million residents. Even after Hillary won big-state victories in Ohio and Texas, she drew only 20 closer to Obama’s total of elected delegates.

Hillary won’t withdraw. That much is for sure. The tantalizing notion that 800 insiders can offset a season of primaries and caucuses will drive both Clintons to ever-escalating rhetoric. Will their attacks hurt Obama? Likely all they will achieve is to give him needed experience in the cut and thrust of media politics.

Left out of the entire equation is poor John McCain. Unable to get a word in edgewise and unsure of which Democrat to attack, he will have to watch from the sidelines as Hillary and Obama hog the headlines. If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to Hillary in the dead of night without leaving fingerprints at the crime scene, McCain’s nomination will be worth having. If Obama prevails, it won’t be worth the paper on which it is written. The giant killer, Obama will have soared to new heights of popularity and McCain won’t be able to bring him back to Earth in the nine weeks that will remain.

Suggestion for Obama:

The next time Hillary uses the recycled red phone ad, counter with one of your own. When the phone rings in the middle of the night, have a woman’s voice, with a flat Midwestern accent, answer it and say, “Hold on” into the receiver. Then she should shout, “Bill! It’s for you!”

Because with Hillary’s complete lack of any meaningful experience in foreign affairs, and her lack of the “testing” that she boldly claims, she’ll be yelling for Bill.

Labels: politics

Frisk Management
How the NYPD's blackly grim stop-and-frisk numbers got whitewashed
by Sean Gardiner
December 11th, 2007 7:58 PM


When NYPD cops fired 50 times and killed unarmed Sean Bell a year ago, they called it "contagious fire." When they shot and killed troubled teen Kheil Coppin last month, mistaking a hairbrush for a gun, it was spun as "suicide by cop."
Now, thanks to a RAND Corporation study that it commissioned, the NYPD has a surprising explanation of the huge and disproportionate number of stop-and-frisks of black and Latino New Yorkers. What it boils down to is the RAND report's conclusion, which the institute banners as this: "NYPD Pedestrian Stop Patterns Mostly Racially Neutral, with Some Trouble Spots."

The RAND report was released just before Thanksgiving to mostly positive reviews in the press. However, the report is hardly an independent analysis. Not only was it commissioned by the NYPD, but its scope was specifically limited by the police, an interview with the study's author reveals.

Prompted years ago by criticism in the wake of the shooting death of Amadou Diallo, the NYPD started requiring its officers to fill out reports on their stop-and-frisks. Just this year, the NYPD released a year's worth of stats under pressure. After an outcry about what the stats revealed, it hired RAND to analyze the figures.

Make of the RAND conclusion what you will, but the raw data released in the report can leave many New Yorkers feeling raw: In 2006, city cops reported making 508,540 pedestrian stops, ostensibly to question people suspected of criminal behavior—yes, half a million. Fewer than 10 percent of the stops resulted in arrests or summonses, according to the NYPD's own stats.

A stunning 89 percent of those stopped were minorities, including 267,000 black people. In other words, 55 percent of the stop-and-frisks were of black people—more than double their percentage of the city's population. A total of 145,000 Latinos were stopped.

Not that this is any surprise to black or Latino New Yorkers, but 45 percent of those who were stopped were frisked, compared with only 29 percent of whites. Police used force about 50 percent more often on blacks than whites—despite the fact that, percentage-wise, cops found guns, drugs, or stolen property on whites about twice as often as they did on black suspects. That suggests less rigorous search standards used by cops against white people.

Whatever term you choose—racial bias, selective enforcement, racial profiling—the numbers seem to support the notion that the NYPD unfairly targets minorities, especially blacks.

No, says RAND statistician Greg Ridgeway, who conducted the study. Arguing in statistician lingo that there are unconsidered variables that skew the results and actually lead to paradoxical conclusions, Ridgeway's study determines that the racial disparities of police stops are "much smaller than the raw statistics would suggest."

In fact, he says, the argument could be made that black New Yorkers weren't stopped enough.

As Ridgeway puts it, black New Yorkers were "understopped by about 20 percent relative to their representation of criminal- suspect descriptions."

The RAND study, for which the department's Police Foundation paid $120,000, concludes that no major changes should be made in the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policies. There's nothing paradoxical about that to the NYPD's critics.

Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union calls the report "not only a whitewash, but a racist whitewash." Dunn, the NYCLU's associate legal director, adds: "To suggest that stopping blacks in large numbers is acceptable because more blacks commit violent crimes is outrageous, especially when one realizes that 90 percent of those stopped are law-abiding people who were neither arrested nor given a summons."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE NYPD'S STOP-AND-FRISK statistics dates back to the 1999 Diallo case, in which the unarmed black African immigrant was gunned down in a hail of 41 shots while reaching for his wallet after police tried to stop and question him in the Bronx.

As part of the continuing fallout from that incident, the City Council required in 2001 that the NYPD provide quarterly reports detailing the racial breakdown of stop-and-frisk reports. The police department provided reports for 2002 and data for the first three quarters of 2003 but then stopped. In November 2006, the NYCLU formally requested that Police Commissioner Ray Kelly comply with the law. There was no response from the NYPD until it learned last January that The New York Times was preparing to do a story about the department's refusal to comply, according to a lawsuit that the NYCLU recently filed.

This past February 2, on the eve of the story's publication, the NYPD gave the City Council the stop-and-frisk reports for 2006. Those reports showed that the number of stops had quintupled over 2002, the last full year from which data were supplied, and that blacks were being stopped at a rate twice their percentage of the population.

To quell the subsequent shitstorm, Kelly announced three weeks later that RAND would analyze the NYPD's data.

RAND released its report last month. But the report did not include all of the NYPD's raw data, so there's no way to check Ridgeway's work or to see how else the numbers could be crunched.

And the NYPD has, of course, refused to release the data. The NYCLU, after attempting to obtain the stop-and-frisk database provided to Rand through a Freedom of Information request, filed a lawsuit in November to try to pry the information from the NYPD. Similar requests from the City Council have also been turned down by the NYPD. The NYCLU's suit is pending.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each study of the data would of course be different, but there were peculiarities about how RAND conducted its study. Unlike the reviews that RAND conducted of other police departments, most notably in Cincinnati and Oakland, its analysis of the NYPD sought no comment from community organizations, politicians, those who believe they were unjustly stopped, civil-rights groups, or the police union.

Had Ridgeway spoken with the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, for instance, the union officials would have told him that officers are required to reach quotas of stop-and-frisks, which could very well explain the huge number of stops. Each such stop gets entered on a form known as the "UF250."

"It's our view that the UF250s are an important tool, but once they're subjected to a quota they not only become illegal, they become dangerous," says PBA spokesman Al O'Leary.

In the past, Kelly has denied that the NYPD has quotas of any kind but says that it does have productivity goals. He has said that the difference between goals and quotas, which are illegal in police work, is that officers aren't punished for not meeting the goals. O'Leary contends that there are quotas and that punitive action is common for not meeting them. "It happens all the time," he says. "We end up defending our people on it all the time. It's a real problem."

Even Ridgeway's study, which goes soft on the department, notes the pressure on officers to do more stops of people. The stop-and-frisk reports are tracked and evaluated at the NYPD's weekly CompStat meetings, at which commanders are grilled about their precinct's crime statistics. "NYPD's CompStat focus," Ridgeway's report says, "gives officers a strong incentive to generate UF250s. An officer's UF250 numbers suggest productivity. A precinct captain can use UF250 numbers to show that the precinct's officers are active in the areas that are generating complaints and where crimes occur."

Despite that acknowledgment, the RAND analyst says he spoke with only one officer about the issue. He says he was told that although supervisors push officers to file UF250s to ensure that cops aren't loafing, there are no hard quotas.

In addition to analyzing the data, Ridgeway interviewed seven training officers and a handful of recruits to see if they understood the stop-and-frisk policy, and then was escorted by police for an eight-hour tour watching cops write up UF250s.

Ridgeway spent the rest of his time crunching the stats. Critics see the lack of comment and evidence besides the stats as a fatal weakness of the RAND report. "From the beginning," says Dunn, "the police department excluded the community from any participation in the project. As a result, this report raises many more questions than it answers and will do nothing to help sooth police-community relations. I think the police department really missed a big opportunity here."

And that apparently was the NYPD's intention. Ridgeway praises the collaborative process in Cincinnati and Oakland, saying, "I think it was very effective." But he adds: "That's just not the approach the NYPD wanted to take with this report."

The RAND analyst, who is based in California, seems taken aback by the stinging criticism of the report but equally surprised by the predominantly positive spin the media gave it when it was released in mid-November. "The NYPD should not take these numbers to indicate that there are no problems," he says.

For instance, RAND flagged 15 officers who they found to be "seriously over-stopping minorities." Those cops should be immediately reviewed and then monitored, he says. The racial disparities in the stops made by Staten Island cops "stood out in just about every outcome": frisks, searches, arrests, and force used. The police department has to address that problem, Ridgeway says.

And he insists that even though his study found that the racial differences in those numbers weren't as glaring as the raw data suggest, "there still are differences. But they're on the order of five percentage points, as opposed to twice as much."

Ultimately, Ridgeway declares that his report "does not absolve the NYPD of the need to monitor the issue, but it also implies that a large-scale restructuring of NYPD [stop-and-frisk] policies and procedures is unwarranted."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THAT CONCLUSION OF RIDGEWAY'S COULD BE SEEN AS unwarranted if you look at the stats in the report. Not all of the startling stop-and-frisk numbers are explained away.

Even using "the most liberal assumptions" about the national average when it comes to the rate of the public's contact with police officers, the study notes, New York should have had "roughly 250,000 to 330,000 stops rather than the 500,000 stops actually recorded." The report states: "The number of stops appears to be quite large."

Here are some other highlights of the report:


Of the 506,491 stops in 2006 that Rand analyzed, only 49,328—or 9.7 percent—resulted in arrests or summonses.

Whites were stopped on suspicion of possessing a weapon at a rate lower than the number of whites subsequently arrested. Blacks were stopped on suspicion of possessing a weapon at a rate greater than their weapon-possession arrest rate, suggesting that cops more readily—and more often unjustifiably—stopped black people on suspicion of having weapons.

A total of 2,756 cops filed 54 percent, or approximately 274,000, of all stop-and-frisk reports in 2006. Of that group, 15 percent, or about 413 officers, stopped no whites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Residents of Brownsville's 73rd Precinct and Harlem's 28th Precinct had a 30 to 36 percent chance of being stopped and questioned by police in 2006. Citywide, the average was about 6 percent.

Even using the study's statistical churning of "similarly situated" groups of people, if blacks were frisked at the same rate as nonblacks there would have been 5,350 fewer black people—almost 15 a day—frisked last year.

If black suspects were subjected to the use of force by the police at the same rate as nonblacks, they would have experienced 2,000 fewer use-of-force incidents in 2006. Oddly, the report speculates that "if black suspects are likelier to flee or resist, the observed difference in rates of use of force may not be due to officer bias."
Given the generally positive news coverage that greeted the report, perhaps these negative findings got lost in the translation. The report relies on a methodology that leaves some professors who deal in this type of research scratching their heads.

RAND ruled out comparing population-to-stop ratios because the census "doesn't indicate who is out there on the street," Ridgeway tells the Voice. Population numbers, he says, also fail to take into account participation rates in crime.

Many of the results in the RAND study are difficult to compare with other reports, but the findings in general are in contrast to a December 1999 report by then–Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. That study, which analyzed 15 months' worth of stop-and-frisk reports, about 175,000 in total, found that based on respective arrest percentages, there was a huge racial difference in stops.

Eight years later, the RAND report—which doesn't include the supporting raw data—says that's no longer the case, that the racial differences in the figures are practically negligible.

Another benchmark that RAND compared to the stop ratio was suspect- description figures. That test was the basis for Ridgeway's statement that black pedestrians were actually being "understopped," and it's also the NYPD's favorite fallback line. But the stop-to-suspect description analysis is based only on descriptions for violent-crime suspects. Suspect descriptions for other crimes were not available to him, Ridgeway says.

Having ruled out the census comparison, RAND determined that, based on the arrest and suspect-description benchmarks, black pedestrians were not overstopped.

The majority of the RAND analysis relies on an obtuse formula of "similarly situated" cases to assess if there were differences in the post-stop treatment—frisking, searches, summons, arrests, and use of force—for blacks, whites, and Latinos. Ridgeway describes his method in the report as trying to compare "pedestrians who were stopped in similar situations, in the same places, at the same times, and for the same reasons."

Columbia Law School professor Jeffrey Fagan, who was a lead researcher on Spitzer's stop-and-frisk report, says that in a city like New York, where many of the neighborhoods are racially segregated, figuring out numbers of "similarly situated" groups can be difficult. "You have to wonder what is being lost," he says of the numbers crunched in the RAND report.

In one of RAND's comparisons, for example, the pool of blacks similarly situated to white suspects was only 25,679, or 9.6 percent, out of the approximate 267,000 who were stopped by police last year. In another, RAND used only 8,260, or about 15 percent, of the approximately 55,000 stops involving whites they found similarly situated to black-pedestrian stops.

"If you lose too many cases, you have what is called a 'selection bias' in your sample," Fagan says—and that can distort the results.

Officials at the Center for Constitutional Rights point out what they believe is a major shortcoming in the RAND analysis: "It fails to acknowledge and factor in that the majority of stops are based on subjective criteria and are not tied to alleged criminality."

Noel Leader, the co-founder of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care and a recently retired sergeant who spent 20 years on the NYPD, says cops call that "going fishing."

"If you stop 50 people," he says, "somebody's going to have something—a bag of weed, a warrant, a gun, something you can arrest them for. But my training taught me we're hunters, not fishers. Hunters go after specific targets: people you think are doing crimes. Fishermen throw a net out there and whatever he catches, he catches."

"Going fishing" is something that wouldn't reveal itself in the data, says Ridgeway

Labels: African Americans, Police, politics

From: Tim Wu

At the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity—say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon.

It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you'd see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like "false statements" (a felony, up to five years), "obstructing the mails" (five years), or "false pretenses on the high seas" (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: "prison time."

As this story suggests, American law is underenforced—and we like it that way. Full enforcement of every last law on the books would put all of us in prison for crimes such as "injuring a mail bag." No enforcement of our laws, on the other hand, would mean anarchy. Somehow, officials must choose what laws really matter.

This series explores the black spots in American law: areas in which our laws are routinely and regularly broken and where the law enforcement response is … nothing. These are the areas where, for one reason or another, we've decided to tolerate lawbreaking and let a law—duly enacted and still on the books—lay fallow or near dead.

Why are there dead zones in U.S. law? The answer goes beyond the simple expense of enforcement but betrays a deeper, underlying logic. Tolerated lawbreaking is almost always a response to a political failure—the inability of our political institutions to adapt to social change or reach a rational compromise that reflects the interests of the nation and all concerned parties. That's why the American statutes are full of laws that no one wants to see fully enforced—or even enforced at all.

This political failure can happen for many reasons. Sometimes a law was passed by another generation with different ideas of right and wrong, but the political will necessary to repeal the law does not exist. Sometimes, as we'll see with polygamy or obscenity, the issue is too sensitive to discuss in rational terms. And sometimes the law as written is a symbol of some behavior to which we may aspire, which nevertheless remains wholly out of touch with reality. Whatever the reason, when politics fails, institutional tolerance of lawbreaking takes over.

There will, of course, always be some lawbreaking that goes unpunished simply because law enforcement is expensive—not every shoplifter is caught, and it's not worth expending the resources to catch every kleptomaniac. But the areas we will look at here are different: What's going on here is that the parties all know the law is being broken, accept it, and—while almost never overtly saying so—both the "criminals" and law enforcement concede that everyone likes it better that way. The law in question thus continues to have a formal existence, and, as we shall see, it may become a kind of zoning ordinance, enforced only against very public or flagrant behavior. But few, except sometimes a vocal minority, actually think we'd be better off if the law were fully enforced.

The importance of understanding why and when we will tolerate lawbreaking cannot be overstated. Lawyers and journalists spend most of their time watching the president, Congress, and the courts as they make law. But tolerance of lawbreaking constitutes one of the nation's other major—yet most poorly understood—ways of creating social and legal policy. Almost as much as the laws that we enact, the lawbreaking to which we shut our eyes reflects how tolerant U.S. society really is to individual or group difference. It forms a major part of our understanding of how the nation deals with what was once called "vice." While messy, strange, hypocritical, and in a sense dishonest, widespread tolerance of lawbreaking forms a critical part of the U.S. legal system as it functions.

The motto of the Web site Erowid Experience Vaults is "You Cannot Deny the Experiences of Others." Erowid is the Web's best known site for recording drug experiences. Thousands of contributors describe in vivid detail their experiences with this or that pharmaceutical, creating something like a Zagat Guide for the discriminating drug user.

Erowid makes for an engaging read, if you've ever wondered what taking PCP is like ("began to feel weird. … my head detached and wriggled itself backward through some plants"). There are some surprises, such as the commonly noted observation that heroin is "overrated." But what's particularly interesting about the Experience Vaults is how many of the drugs reviewed there aren't actually classic "illegal drugs," like heroin or cocaine, but rather pharmaceuticals, like Clonazepam.

That's because over the last two decades, the pharmaceutical industry has developed a full set of substitutes for just about every illegal narcotic we have. Avoiding the highly charged politics of "illegal" drugs, the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, and citizens have thus quietly created the means for Americans to get at substitutes for almost all the drugs banned in the 20th century. Through the magic of tolerated use, it's actually the other drug legalization movement, and it has been much more successful than the one you read about in the papers.

Since 1970 and the beginning of Nixon's war on drugs, the Justice Department has regulated drugs likely to be abused under the Controlled Substances Act, which categorizes such drugs into five "Schedules." Those in Schedule I—the most tightly controlled—are supposed to have a "high potential for abuse," and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment." These drugs cannot be prescribed by a doctor. Those in Schedules II through V can be prescribed, and that is what makes all the difference.

Since the beginning of the war on drugs, the "formal" drug decriminalization movement has focused on trying to change the status of marijuana, often through state referendums. While in the late 1970s and late 1990s advocates were quite hopeful, the extent of real legal change they've achieved must be described as relatively minor. Certainly, several states have passed medical marijuana laws, which provide doctors and patients with an immunity when the drug is used for medical purposes. And some cities, like Seattle, do not arrest people for possessing small amounts. But there's been no significant change in federal drug laws, or in the political conversation surrounding them, in decades. A leading presidential candidate from either party endorsing a "free weed" movement seems unimaginable. And beyond marijuana, the drug legalization movement barely even makes an effort.

That's why drug legalization is happening in a wholly different way. Over the last two decades, the FDA has become increasingly open to drugs designed for the treatment of depression, pain, and anxiety—drugs that are, by their nature, likely to mimic the banned Schedule I narcotics. Part of this is the product of a well-documented relaxation of FDA practice that began under Clinton and has increased under Bush. But another part is the widespread public acceptance of the idea that the effects drug users have always been seeking in their illicit drugs—calmness, lack of pain, and bliss—are now "treatments" as opposed to recreation. We have reached a point at which it's commonly understood that when people snort cocaine because they're depressed or want to function better at work, that's drug trafficking; but taking antidepressants for similar purposes is practicing medicine.

This other drug legalization movement is an example of what theorists call legal avoision. As described by theorist Leon Katz, the idea is to reach "a forbidden outcome … as a by-product of a permitted act." In a classic tax shelter, for instance, you do something perfectly legal (like investing in a business guaranteed to lose money) in order to reach a result that would otherwise be illegal (evading taxes). In the drug context, asking Congress to legalize cocaine or repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is a fool's errand. But it's far easier to invent a new drug, X, with similar effects to cocaine, and ask the FDA to approve it as a new antidepressant or anxiety treatment. That's avoision in practice.

Are the new pharmaceuticals really substitutes for narcotics? The question, of course, is what counts as a substitute, which can depend not just on chemistry but on how the drug in question is being used. But as a chemical matter the question seems simple: In general, pharmaceuticals do the same things to the brain that the illegal drugs do, though sometimes they do so more gently.

As many have pointed out, drugs like Ritalin and cocaine act in nearly the exact same manner: Both are dopamine enhancers that block the ability of neurons to reabsorb dopamine. As a 2001 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, Ritalin "acts much like cocaine." It may go further than that: Another drug with similar effects is nicotine, leading Malcolm Gladwell to speculate in The New Yorker that both Ritalin and cocaine use are our substitutes for smoking cigarettes. "Among adults," wrote Gladwell, "Ritalin is a drug that may fill the void left by nicotine." Anecdotally, when used recreationally, users report that Ritalin makes users alert, focused, and happy with themselves. Or as one satisfied user reports on Erowid, "this is the closest pharmaceutical *high* to street cocaine that I have experienced." In the words of another, "I felt very happy, and very energetic, and I had this feeling like everything was right with the world."

The Ritalin/cocaine intersection is but one example. Other substitutes are opoid-based drugs available in somewhat legalized versions, with names like Vicodin and OxyContin.* Clonazepam and valium may not be exact substitutes for marijuana, but they all seem to attract users seeking the same mellowing effects and loss of some forms of anxiety. In short, the differences between pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs may ultimately be much more social than chemical.

So, as the FDA has licensed chemical substitutes for what were once thought to be dangerous drugs, does that mean roughly the same thing as the legalization of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin? Not exactly. Drugs prescribed are usually taken differently than recreational drugs, of course, even if at some level the chemical hit is the same. More broadly, the current program of drug legalization in the United States is closely and explicitly tied to the strange economics of the U.S. health-care industry. The consequence is that how people get their dopamine or other brain chemicals is ever more explicitly, like the rest of medicine, tied to questions of class.

Antidepressants and anxiety treatments aren't cheap: A fancy drug like Wellbutrin can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $2,400 a year. These drugs also require access to a sympathetic doctor who will issue a prescription. That's why, generally speaking, the new legalization program is for better-off Americans. As the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports, rich people tend to abuse prescription drugs, while poorer Americans tend to self-medicate with old-fashioned illegal drugs or just get drunk.

The big picture reveals a nation that, let's face it, likes drugs: Expert Joseph Califano estimates that the United States, representing just 4 percent of the world's population, consumes nearly two-thirds of the world's recreational drugs. In pursuit of that habit, the country has, in slow motion, found ways for the better-off parts of society to use drugs without getting near the scary drug laws it promulgated in the 20th century. Our parents and grandparents banned drugs, but the current generation is re-legalizing them. That's why Rush Limbaugh, as a drug user, is in a sense a symbol of our times. He, like many celebrities, is a recovering addict. But with Limbaugh being somewhat outside of the 1960s drug culture, the medical marijuana movement was not for him. Instead, Limbaugh, the addicted culture warrior, has become the true poster child of the new drug legalization program.

Correction, Oct. 15, 2007: The original article suggested these drugs were opium-based. And a punctuation error initially listed Clonazepam and valium as opium-based drugs rather than marijuana substitutes. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Labels: politics

CorpWatch, October 17, 2007
Title: “A US Fortress Rises in Baghdad: Asian Workers Trafficked to Build World’s Largest Embassy”
Author: David Phinney
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14173

Student Researcher: Kristen Kebler and Angela Purcaro
Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Roth, Ph.D.

The enduring monument to US liberation and democracy in Iraq will be the most expensive and heavily fortified embassy in the world—and is being built by a Kuwait contractor repeatedly accused of using forced labor trafficked from South Asia under US contracts. The $592 million, 104-acre fortress equal in size to the Vatican City is scheduled to open in September 2007. With a highly secretive contract awarded by the US State Department, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting has joined the ranks of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq by using bait-and-switch recruiting practices. Thousands of citizens from countries that have banned travel or work in Iraq are being tricked, smuggled into brutal and inhumane labor camps, and subjected to months of forced servitude—all in the middle of the US-controlled Green Zone, “right under the nose of the US State Department.”

Though Associated Press reports that, “The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the embassy are far more numerous than at any other US mission worldwide,”1 there is no mention in corporate media of the 3,000 South Asian laborers working for contractors in dangerous and abysmal living and working conditions.

One such contractor is First Kuwaiti Trading and Contracting. FKTC has procured several billion dollars in US construction contracts since the war began in March 2003. Much of its work is performed by cheap labor hired from South Asia. The company currently employs an estimated 7,500 foreign laborers in theaters of war.
American FKTC employees report having witnessed the issuance of false boarding passes to Dubai, and passport seizure from planeloads of South Asian workers, who were instead routed to war-torn Baghdad. Former US Embassy construction manager for FKTC, John Owen, disclosed to author David Phinney that the deception had all the appearance of smuggling workers into Iraq.

On April 4, 2006, the Pentagon issued a contracting directive following an investigation that officially confirmed that contractors in Iraq, many working as subcontractors to Halliburton/KBR, were illegally confiscating worker passports, using deceptive bait-and-switch hiring practices, and charging recruiting fees that indebted low-paid migrant workers for many months or even years to their employers.
Section 1. (U) of the Pentagon directive states, “An inspection of contracting activities supporting DoD in Iraq revealed evidence of illegal confiscation of worker (Third Country National) passports by contractors/subcontractors; deceptive hiring practices and excessive recruiting fees, substandard worker living conditions at some sites, circumvention of Iraqi immigration procedures by contractors/subcontractors and lack of mandatory trafficking in persons awareness training. This FRAGO [fragmentary order] establishes responsibilities within MNF-1 for combating trafficking in persons.”

An April 19, 2006 memorandum from Joint Contracting Command in Baghdad to All Contractors again states that, “Evidence indicates a widespread practice of withholding employee passports to, among other things, prevent employees ‘jumping’ to other employers. All contractors engaging in the above mentioned practice are directed to cease and desist in this practice immediately.”
The Pentagon has yet to announce, however, any penalty for those found to be in violation of US labor trafficking laws or contract requirements.
In a resignation letter dated June 2006, Owen told FKTC and US State Department officials that his managers at the US Embassy site regularly beat migrant workers, demonstrated little regard for worker safety, and routinely breached security. He also complained of poor sanitation, squalid living conditions and medical malpractice in labor camps where several thousand low-paid migrant workers, recruited from the Philippines, India, and Pakistan lived. Those workers, Owen noted, earned as little as $10 to $30 for a twelve-hour workday.
Rory Mayberry, a medic subcontracted to FKTC to attend construction crews at the Embassy, shares similar complaints about treatment of migrant laborers. In reports made available to the US State Department, the US Army, and FKTC, Mayberry called for the closure of the onsite medical clinic, listing dozens of serious safety hazards, unsanitary conditions, as well as routine negligence and malpractice. He furthermore called for an investigation into deaths that he suspected resulted from medical malpractice. Mayberry is not aware of any follow-up on his allegations.
Owen says that State Department officials supervising the US Embassy project are aware of abuse, but apparently do nothing. He recalls, “Once when seventeen workers climbed the wall of the construction site to escape, a State Department official helped round them up and put them in virtual lockdown.”
Phinney says that more FKTC employees are stepping forward to say that Owen’s and Mayberry’s testimonies “only begin to scratch the surface” of the conditions workers are forced to endure in building this monument to US liberation and democracy in Iraq.

Citation:
1. Associated Press, “New US Embassy in Iraq Cloaked in Mystery,” MSNBC, April 14, 2006.

UPDATE BY DAVID PHINNEY
When I first heard that Project Censored would recognize this story on the low-wage migrant laborers from South Asia building the US embassy in Baghdad, I admit I felt the story was a failure. Allegations of forced labor, lousy treatment of workers and beatings struck me as something that should rise to the level of torture at Abu Ghraib. Despite what appears to be a whitewash review of the embassy project by the State Department Inspector General that exonerated the contractor—even though more than a dozen sources on the site say conditions were abysmal—I am now encouraged by a recent effort at the US Justice Department to investigate allegations of labor trafficking and other matters. But the problem of labor abuse has been found to be “widespread” among contractors in the theater of war in Iraq. Unfortunately, not one contractor has been penalized—in fact, many are being rewarded with new US-funded contracts. That is a crime to humanity that may haunt the United States for years to come.

Labels: Media, politics

Oxfam International, March 2007
Title: “Singing Away The Future”
http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/briefingpapers/bp101_regional_trade_agreements_0703

IPS coverage of Oxfam Report March 20, 2007
Title: “Free Trade Enslaving Poor Countries”
Author: Sanjay Suri
http://ipsnews.org/news.asp?idnews=37008

Student Researcher: Ann Marie O’Toole
Faculty Evaluator: Peter Phillips, Ph.D.

The Oxfam report, “Signing Away the Future,” reveals that the US and European Union (EU) are vigorously pursuing increasingly destructive regional and bilateral trade and investment agreements outside the auspices of the WTO. These agreements are requiring enormous irreversible concessions from developing countries, while offering almost nothing in return. Faster and deeper, the US and EU are demanding unprecedented tariff reductions, sometimes to nothing, as the US and EU dump subsidized agricultural goods on undeveloped countries (see story #21), plunging local farmers into desperate poverty. Meanwhile the US and EU provide themselves with high tariffs and stringent import quotas to protect their own producers. Unprecedented loss of livelihood, displacement, slave labor, along with spiraling degradation of human rights and environments are resulting as economic governance is forced from governments of developing countries, and taken over by unaccountable multinational firms.

During 2006, more than one hundred developing countries were involved in FTA or Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) negotiations. “An average of two treaties are signed every week,” the report says, “Virtually no country, however poor, has been left out.”

Much of the recent debate and controversy over trade negotiations has revolved around the increasingly devastating trade-distorting practices of rich countries versus the developing countries’ needs for food security and industrial development. The new generation of agreements, however, extends far beyond this traditional area of trade policy—imposing a damaging set of binding rules in intellectual property, services, and investment with much deeper consequences for development and impacts on the poor.
Double standards in the intellectual-property rights chapters of most trade agreements are glaring. As new agreements limit developing countries’ access to patented technology and medicines—while failing to protect traditional knowledge—the public-health consequences are staggering. The US-Colombia FTA is expected to reduce access to medicines by 40 percent and the US-Peru FTA is expected to leave 700,000 to 900,000 Peruvians without access to affordable medicines.
US and EU FTAs also require the adoption of plant-breeder rights that remove the right to share seeds among indigenous farmers. The livelihood of the world’s poorest farmers is thus made even more vulnerable, while profit margins of the world’s largest agribusinesses continue to climb. US FTAs are now pushing for patents on plants, which will not only limit the rights of farmers to exchange or sell seeds, but also forbid them to save and reuse seed they have grown themselves for generations. Under US FTAs including DR-CAFTA, US–Peru and US–Colombia FTAs, developing-country governments will no longer be able to reject a patent application because a firm fails to indicate the origin of a plant or show proof of consent for its use from a local community. As a result, communities could find themselves forced to pay for patented plant varieties based on genetic resources from their own soil.

New rules also pose a threat to essential services as FTAs allow foreign investors to take ownership of healthcare, education, water, and public utilities.
Investment chapters of new FTAs and BITs allow foreign investors to sue for lost profits, including anticipated future profits, if governments change regulations, even when such reforms are in the public interest. These rules undermine the sovereignty of developing nations, transferring power from governments to largely unaccountable multinational firms. A growing number of investment chapters and treaties further tip the scales of justice by preventing governments from screening or regulating foreign investment—banning the use of all ‘performance requirements’ in all sectors including mining, manufacturing, and services.
More than 170 countries have signed international investment agreements that provide foreign investors with the right to turn immediately to international investor-state arbitration to settle disputes, without first trying to resolve the matter in national courts. Such arbitration fails to consider public interest, basing decisions exclusively on commercial law.

Not only is the legal basis for investment arbitration loaded against public interest, so are the proceedings. Despite the fact that many arbitration panels are hosted at the World Bank and the United Nations, the investment arbitration system is shrouded in secrecy. It is virtually impossible to find out what cases are being heard, let alone the outcome or rationale for decisions. As a result, there is no body of case decisions to inform governments of developing countries when drafting investments agreements.

Oxfam notes that the only group privy to this information is an increasingly powerful select group of commercial lawyers, whose fees often place them out of reach of developing-country governments. These lawyers, according to the Oxfam report, are eager to advise foreign investors regarding opportunities to claim compensation from developing countries under international investment agreements.
Strong opposition is growing to the political asymmetry inherent in these bilateral trade and investment agreements (see stories #8, #19, and #21). As Oxfam notes, “It is in nobody’s long-term interest to have a global economy that perpetuates social, economic, and environmental injustice.”

UPDATE BY LAURA RUSU OF OXFAM INTERNATIONAL
While real progress toward achieving a development-friendly outcome in the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round is still quite elusive, the negotiation of bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) that would undermine development continues at an unabated pace.
In the United States, the new Democratic leadership in Congress recently negotiated changes in the areas of labor, environment, and intellectual property in regard to access to medicines that are to be incorporated into the completed FTAs awaiting Congressional ratification. If implemented as agreed, these changes would mean important progress in enforcing core International Labor Organization standards and multilateral environmental agreements, and in promoting public health over private profits by reducing onerous protections for pharmaceutical monopolies. Still, more must be done in these areas, and harmful provisions remain in several other areas that will adversely affect developing countries, particularly the poor.
Without further changes, the FTAs create a profoundly unfair situation in which the US provides massive domestic agricultural supports and subsidies that allow products to be exported below their cost of production, while developing country trading partners are left with no means of protection. With large portions of their populations dependent upon agriculture for their livelihoods, the FTAs provide no effective safeguard to protect poor farmers from unfair competition. In addition, investment rules in the FTAs will hinder local and national governments from directing foreign investment so that it contributes to sustainable development. The investment chapter will give foreign companies leeway to challenge investment regulations, such as laws to protect the environment and public health. These and other provisions would deny developing countries the policy space needed to further their own development.
The US Administration hopes to bring FTAs with Peru, Panama, Colombia and Korea to a vote this year, although it remains doubtful whether there would be sufficient Congressional support to move the latter two. Congressional leadership is insisting that Colombia must also address its serious problems of violence and impunity, particularly as suffered by trade unionists, and has raised market-access concerns with regard to South Korea.
In a similar vein, the European Union has proceeded with FTA negotiations with African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries by pushing forward negotiating texts that will undermine the ability of poor countries to effectively govern their economies, protect their poorest people, improve livelihoods, and create new jobs. Going beyond the provisions negotiated at a multilateral level, the EU is making requests that would impose far-reaching, hard-to-reverse rules in the areas of market access, agriculture, services and intellectual property. At the same time, the EU is proceeding to open formal negotiations with Central American countries for an FTA that would impose similar rules that undermine development. A similar agreement with Andean countries is expected to follow, and plans have been announced to open negotiations with ASEAN, India, and South Korea. In all of these negotiations, the EU, like the US, is failing to put development first.
For more information, please see http://www.oxfamamerica.org.

Labels: Media, politics