Foreign Policy In Focus | Chomsky on World Ownership

Foreign Policy In Focus | Chomsky on World Ownership: "I saw recently in the Christian Science Monitor, something like “New Study of Foreign Fighters in Iraq.” Who are the foreign fighters in Iraq? Some guy who came in from Saudi Arabia. How about the 160,000 American troops? Well, they’re not foreign fighters in Iraq because we own the world; therefore we can’t be foreign fighters anywhere. Like, if the United States invades Canada, we won’t be foreign. And if anybody resists it, they’re enemy combatants, we send them to Guantanamo."

Kauai heart of darkness

The Kauai County Council in its unrelenting effort to keep the people they represent totally in the dark may have found the magic bullet to end the toothless misery of the State Office of Information Practice (OIP), and put another bullet through the heart of a citizen's right to know ("County prevails in executive session suit", The Garden Island, Feburary 11, 2008, A1).

This new magic bullet is called the "Intertwine" and it sounds as dangerous as it is. The Intertwine bullet spins erratically structuring the meeting discussion in such a manner that Judge Watanabe summed up the situation like this "... minutes were so intertwined with other portions that redaction would be impractical."

"Let's hold all our executive meetings using the Intertwine and then we can keep all our deeds done in the dark secret from those we represent," gleefully exclaimed a Kaua`i government official under condition of anonymity.

Surely the deployment of the Intertwine will become a great urban legend retold and intertwined in executive sessions through the State. It is a tale of how the Kauai County Council discovered a way to keep what happens in executive session secret from those they represent -- forever.

Pardon my analysis, but isn't the common use meaning of a rambling discussion termed a "BS session"?

Finally unless I have one of those "intentionally altered government documents" that Kaua`i County Council members seem to see everywhere now before me, there has been an OIP opinion released since former OIP director Les Kondo was appointed to the Public Utilities Commission in July (contrary the Garden Island Article. The advisory opinion is S Memo-G 08-6, dated January 28, 2008. The opinion was requested by the Kaua`i County Attorney. The OIP opined that contrary to the assertion of the Kaua`i County Attorney, Section 307.E of the Kauai County Charter (which only allows the Council to close a meeting to discuss "claims" with it's attorney) does not violate State Sunshine Law, and in fact is a partial wavier of the attorney-client privilege. True to form the Kaua`i County Council to date has refused to release the County Attorney's opinion on this matter and continues to meet in executive session in violation of the County Charter.

Dirty deeds done in dark?

According to the State of Hawaii Office of information Practices Jan. 28, 2007 formal opinion the Kauai County Charter section 307.E supersedes and is compliant with Hawaii State Sunshine Law. Section 307.E reads in relevant parts;

E. The council shall meet regularly...With the exception of deliberations relating to confirmation of appointees or consultations with the county attorney on claims, all county council and committee meetings shall be open to the public.

The OIP opinion further found;

the charter provision does not cause a violation of attorney client privilege, but instead acts as a partial waiver of the privilege by the County as the client.

Now I'm not a lawyer but it appears the County Charter section 307.E supersedes and is compliant with State Sunshine Law and furthermore 307.E partially waives the attorney-client privilege.

Short conclusion: The County Council committed numerous violations of the County Charter, and the only people refusing to release the county attorney's opinion is the county council. Please note in the opinion of OIP the charter already partially waives this prividlege so it appears only the county council itself stands in the way of making the opinion public. Contrary to the Garden Island Newspaper headline "County protects legal opinion" it appears council members are just protecting themselves.

Dirty deeds done in dark? Read the opinion and you decide.

1. County attorney request for opinion to OIP
2. OIP Opinion to County Attorney

Vote Repugnacan or Demorat?

The seven dwarfs always left to go work in the mine early each morning.
As always, Snow White stayed home doing her domestic chores. As lunchtime approached, she would prepare their lunch and carry it to the
mine.

One day, as she arrived at the mine with the lunch, she saw that there had been a terrible cave-in. Tearfully, fearing the worst, Snow White began calling out, hoping against hope that the dwarfs had somehow survived.

"Hello, hello!" she shouted. "Can anyone hear me? Hello!"

For a long while, there was no answer. Snow White again
shouted, "Hello! Is anyone down there?"

Just as she was about to give up calling, there came a faint voice from deep within the mine.

"Vote Republican or a Democrat! Vote for a Republican or a Democrat!"

Snow White fell to her knees and cried out to the heavens, "Oh, thank you, God! At least Dopey is still alive!"

Kauai County Council - model of transparency?

Years ago when Robert Kennedy Jr. visited Kauai he told me, "Democracy not only gives people the right to ask a question, but more importantly get an answer." I guess his visit was not long enough to really get to know Kauai and how things are done around here. Illustrative of how things are done here is the the article "County protects legal opinion" (TGI 20/01/2008, A1) which can be summarized as follows;

1. A citizen asks if a county council action was in error as a matter of law.
2. The council member Fafuro assures the citizen he will get the citizen an answer and asks for a opinion from the county attorney.
3. The County attorney issues an opinion.
4. The Council refuses to release the opinion to the public.
5. A citizen asks the County Board of Ethics for an opinion.
6. The County Ethics Board refuses to give an opinion.
7. The County Council continues it's questionable action while council member Yukimura hopes people understand the council actions are taken with the "highest intentions."

Perhaps the council should spend less time protecting a secret "legal opinion" and try protecting a citizen's right to get an answer.

--- 30 ---

How to Make Our Ideas Clear

How to Make Our Ideas Clear

Kauai County Animal Farm?

It was Martin Luther King Jr. Day and I was reading a public (and appropriate) apology from a citizen who had sent a threatening email to a developer, turned himself in, was arrested, released on bail and is currently facing charges of harassment. (Lessons of protest. A4, letters, Monday, January 21, 2008).

The sad conclusion I reached on a day celebrating Martin Luther King's struggle for social justice is we have a long way to go when you compare the treatment a citizen receives for sending a threatening email and the treatment a Kauai County Police Officer receives for the same offense committed against a citizen for speaking in public.

Just a week before I received this letter from the County of Kauai Board of Ethics:

January 14, 2008

Thank you for your letter of December 3,2007. The Board refuses to reconsider complaint 06-­004 and it further declines to cite specific pages, paragraphs and sentences of the County Council minutes of June 15,2006 in order to justify its decision to you.
This concludes the matter of your request for reconsideration.

Mark Hubbard
Board of Ethics Chair

What is complaint 06-004? It is complaint I filed in 2006 with the Ethics Board after receiving this threating unsolicited email from one R. Asher whom the Ethics Board assumed to be from Kauai Police Officer Lt. Roy Asher.

Original Message
Subject: Furthering the deception
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:26:22 -1000
From: R. Asher asher@hawaii.rr.com>
To:

Be very careful. For what you are conveying could be interpreted as furthering the fraud. One may pursue conspiracy charges. For what you have offered is not accurate and just perpetuates the deception.

You know that the "2" page version on the web-site reflects the second page to be of a different seized font then that of the first. This I suspect or suggest to you was done so that the third page signature could be fitted on the second page, less of course all verbiage contained on page three (of original letter).

Be careful my friend.

Do not risk your integrity and reputation promoting a fraud.

My complaint to the Ethics Board was that this email was a threat in which Asher suspected me of fraud and was considering pursuing conspiracy charges against me for public statements I had made in the media. I had stated in public my belief that the document was unintentionally altered as the result of a sheet mis-feed error.

After a six month investigation at the request of the County of Kauai Prosecutors Office the State Attorney General refused to prosecute former Kauai Police Chief Lum for intentionally altering a government document. The AG investigation revealed Lum had nothing to do with the alteration and my analysis was correct. The missing paragraph was a sheet feed error (an error not even made by Lum, but by a Honolulu paralegal).

My complaint to the Ethic Board was that if Police Lt. Roy Asher was the author of this email as the Ethics Board assumed, then Asher had violated Kauai County Charter, ARTICLE XX, CODE OF ETHICS, Section 20.02, B which states;

No officer or employee of the county shall:
B. Disclose information which, by law or practice, is not available to the public and which he acquires in the course of his official duties or use such information for his personal gain or for the benefit of anyone.

The Ethics Board concluded that Asher had not violated the County Charter because based upon the Ethics Board review of the June, 15 2006 County Council meeting minutes what Asher had disclosed in his email to me had already been made public.

After a line by line review of those County Council minutes upon which the Ethics Board based its conclusion of no wrongdoing, I asked the Ethics Board for reconsideration because nowhere could I find mention in those minutes that R. Asher or the Kauai Police Department publicly disclosed they thought I was furthering a fraud and may pursue conspiracy charges against me.

So after more than a year of "investigation" the Ethics Board refused to reconsider my complain and it further declines to cite specific pages, paragraphs and sentences of the County Council minutes in order to justify its decision to me.

The problem is the Ethics Board's conclusion is not supported by the County Council Minutes as they assert and those minutes are proof the Ethics Board erred in it's conclusion. Don't take my word for it read the Kauai County Council minutes for yourself. You will find that what the Ethics Board asserts was publicly disclosed and what they based their conclusion on cannot be found in the council minutes!

The County of Kauai Board of Ethics erroneous conclusion (and their stonewall refusal to reconsider) provides indisputable evidence that our county government believes it is acceptable behavior for a Kauai Police Officer to use email to disclose information acquired in the course of his official duties to threaten a citizen for speaking in public.

The Ethics Board decision stands as testament that the County of Kauai has a long way to go to achieve King's dream of equal treatment for all. The current belief of Kauai County government officers (both Ethics Board members and Kauai Police) is that some people are above the law and more equal that others.

On Kauai we are a long way from justice for all, and with such tacit endorsement of police threatening citizens the Kauai Board of Ethics is moving us all ever closer to an Orwellian Animal Farm.