News Releases

In 2003, Katharine Gun was a 28-year-old Mandarin specialist at the UK Government Communications Headquarters, the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. She leaked what Daniel Ellsberg, who himself leaked the Pentagon Papers, has called “the most important and courageous leak I have ever seen. … No one else — including myself — has ever done what Katharine Gun did: tell secret truths at personal risk, before an imminent war, in time, possibly, to avert it.”

MARCIA MITCHELL, [email]
Mitchell is co-author of The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War: Katharine Gun and the Secret Plot to Sanction the Iraq Invasion. She said today: “This is a story that simply will not go away. The British government has launched a new investigation into events leading up to the Iraq invasion, with Katharine Gun testifying before Parliament. There is no question that interest remains strong abroad. The book telling her story was named to a ‘best book list’ in the UK, and it was just optioned for film. Since her release in 2004, Katharine has given birth to a daughter, taught Chinese in the UK, and has spent part of her life living in Turkey with her husband, whom she married shortly before her 2003 arrest.”

MARTIN BRIGHT, [email] Bright is one of the reporters who broke the story of the leak 10 years ago. He just wrote “Katharine Gun: Ten years on what happened to the woman who revealed dirty tricks on the UN Iraq war vote?” He writes that Gun “had received an email … asking her and her colleagues to help in a vast intelligence ‘surge’ designed to secure a UN resolution to send troops into Iraq. She was horrified and leaked the email to the Observer. As a result of the story the paper published 10 years ago this weekend, she was arrested, lost her job and faced trial under the Official Secrets Act.

“The memo from Frank Koza, chief of staff at the ‘regional targets’ section of the National Security Agency, GCHQ’s sister organisation in the U.S., remains shocking in its implications for British sovereignty. Koza was in effect issuing a direct order to the employees of a UK security agency to gather ‘the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.’ This included a particular focus on the ‘swing nations’ on the security council, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, ‘as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.’

“The story went around the world and the leak electrified the international debate during the weeks of diplomatic deadlock. Most directly, it bolstered opposition to the U.S. position from Chilean and Mexican diplomats weary of American ‘dirty tricks.’ The same countries demanded immediate answers from the British government about its involvement in the spying. With the operation blown, the chances of George W. Bush and Tony Blair getting the consensus for a direct UN mandate for war were now near zero. …

“Gun had hoped the leak would prick the conscience of the British public, large sections of which were already taking to the streets in opposition to the war. Surely, she thought, when people realized that the UK was being asked to collaborate in an operation to find out personal information that could be used to blackmail UN delegates, they would be outraged and the UK government would halt its slide into war. She failed. …

“Now there is the possibility that Gun’s singular life will be made into a movie. … As for her own story, she recognizes that 10 years on it scarcely registers with the public. I sensed a slight flash of anger as she said: ‘It’s not even a footnote in the history of Iraq.’ But she said she would still be prepared to give evidence to the [ongoing] Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. …

“Although the story made headlines around the world at the time of the leak and later at the time of her trial, which collapsed after the prosecution withdrew its evidence, it remains largely missing from the official narratives of the build-up to the Iraq war. …

“In leaking it to the Observer, she was also doing something unprecedented in the history of espionage. Not only was the cable the most sensitive ever to be disclosed on either side of the Atlantic, it was also unique in its timing. Most whistleblowers leak after the event to expose perceived wrongdoing. Gun disclosed details of the spying operation as it was happening to stop something she viewed as terrible happening in the future. …

“As it was, a second UN resolution directly to authorize war against Iraq never materialized and air strikes began on March 19, 2003. Katharine Gun did not stop the war, but was it all entirely in vain? It is probably still too early to tell.”

See: Background on the Katharine Gun case.

The Daily Beast reports in “Senators Press Resolution To Green-Light Israeli Attack On Iran,” that a resolution “by Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC) and Robert Menendez (NJ), a Republican and Democrat, respectively, declares U.S. support for an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. The resolution, which expresses the sense of the Congress, will be supported by the thousands of delegates to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee annual conference that will stream through the Capitol this weekend. With prominent liberal Democrats already signing on, AIPAC’s lobbying heft will likely propel a bill that, in Congressional sentiment at least, commits the U.S. to active support of a potential Israeli attack that experts think could have consequences as grave as further destabilization in the region, adverse global economic consequences, and even a hardening of Iranian resolve to get a weapon. …

“The resolution, while affirming increasingly harsh sanctions, also ‘urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.’ Tempering some fears about the bill, the authors added that the resolution shouldn’t ‘be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war’ by the U.S. Though the caveat will surely placate some members of Congress, it seems potentially at odds with a pledge of ‘military … support’ in the event of an attack — language that, though unlikely for now, if actuated into policy could suggest the U.S. would be dragged into a war based on an Israeli decision to strike.”

JAMAL ABDI, [email]
Policy director at the National Iranian American Council, Abdi reports that the resolution has just been introduced. He said today: “These Senators are now on the record that they want U.S. to go to war on behalf of Israel if Netanyahu says it’s go time. Ceding the decision of whether to go to war to a foreign leader is the height of irresponsibility from this Congress. But they know the President, the military, and the American public would not stand for another disastrous war of choice, so instead they are trying to open a backdoor to war with Iran. … It’s a backdoor because instead of a public debate about committing U.S. troops and money to military action decided by Congress or the President, they are handing off the decision to Netanyahu and writing him a blank check.”

Bradley Manning stated at his hearing Thursday: “I believe that if the general public had access to the information, this could spark a domestic debate as to the role of the military and foreign policy in general. … I felt I accomplished something that would allow me to have a clear conscience.” He has been held in prison for just over 1000 days, much of it in solitary confinement.

Liveblogging and tweeting at the proceedings are:

NATHAN FULLER, [email], @nathanLfuller, @SaveBradley
Fuller is with the Bradley Manning Support Network. He liveblogged Manning’s statements yesterday, “updates from Ft. Meade where Bradley Manning to explain guilty plea and WikiLeaks releases.”

KEVIN GOSZTOLA, [email], @kgosztola
Gosztola is co-author of Truth & Consequences: The U.S. vs. Bradley Manning. See on his website dissenter.firedoglake.com several recent pieces including “Huffington Post Live Segment: Manning Contacted Other Outlets Before WikiLeaks,” “The U.S. Press Failed Bradley Manning” and “Bradley Manning Describes ‘Collateral Murder’ Video as ‘War Porn,’” which states: “As part of a 35-page statement read in court, Manning mentioned that a fellow soldier in his division, the Tenth Mountain division, had been discussing a video depicting several individuals being engaged by an air weapons team. …

“The video ‘troubled’ Manning. He conducted research because he wanted to know what had happened. Through a Google search, he found the event by ‘its date and general location.’ Two Reuters employees had been killed.

“He found a story that explained Reuters had requested a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act. Reuters wanted the video ‘in order to understand what happened and improve safety practices in combat zones.’ Despite a FOIA request, Manning said CENTCOM replied that they could not give a time frame for considering the request and the video ‘might not exist.’ The request was still being reviewed, but Reuters had received no written response. The fact that CENTCOM would not ‘voluntarily release’ the video ‘troubled’ him ‘further.’

“The attack had happened because the air weapons team had ‘mistakenly identified’ individuals as a ‘threat,’ Manning stated. The van was not a threat but had ‘Good Samaritans.’

“‘Most alarming’ was the ‘bloodlust’ of the air weapons team. ‘They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging.’ He was struck by what the soldiers were saying in the audio. Also, one individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety was not helped. ‘Instead of calling for medical attention,’ the soldiers asked for the wounded person to pick up weapons so they could fire at this individual. Manning also mentioned how they called the targets ‘dead bastards.’”

The Huffington Post reports: “The Violence Against Women Act is finally heading to the president’s desk this week after a dragged-out political fight over expanding protections to Native American, LGBT and immigrant victims of abuse.”

LISA BRUSH, [email]
Brush is author of Poverty, Battered Women, and Work in U.S. Public Policy and professor of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh.She said today: “Congressional (especially House) Republicans object to VAWA’s covering several specific groups: Native American women, immigrant women, and what one might generically term sexual minority and gender non-conforming people. This objection is an unconscionable instance of discrimination against some of the most vulnerable people in the country. The jurisdictional issues the House Republicans invoke regarding Native American women are stunningly close to the states’ rights rhetoric of 19th and 20th century racism.

“The lack of protections for immigrant women is a key point of their vulnerability to physical violence, emotional blackmail, and other forms of coercive control; denying immigrant women the protections and resources of VAWA makes immigrant status an additional source of leverage for abusive men. Excluding lesbians, bisexual women, and transwomen from the resources and protections of VAWA makes Republican legislators collaborators in the physical violence and other abuse used to punish and extort people who are all the more vulnerable because they do not conform to convention – the very minorities a democracy should be at pains to protect from bigotry.”

TIFFANY WILLIAMS, [email]
Williams is advocacy director with the Break The Chain Campaign at the Institute for Policy Studies, which “seeks to prevent and address the abuse and exploitation of migrant women workers.”

She said today: “As advocates for women who have been trafficked and abused, we are relieved that the House ‘substitute’ was defeated and that the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act was passed in the House today.The Senate version of the bill, which passed with bipartisan support and the vote of every woman Senator, also included the full text of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, an equally significant bill that would have undoubtedly languished in the House were it not attached to this bill by Senator Leahy. This final bill expands protections to the most vulnerable members of our society including Native American women and LGBT victims.

“Each time that VAWA and TVPA are reauthorized, they typically include small fixes in the bill that come from on-the-ground experience of advocates who are working with abused and assaulted women day in and day out. While several House Republicans made provocative statements about the need to protect survivors of violence through the TVPA, the version their party offered was weak and not inclusive or representative of the needs expressed by women across the country. We were relieved to see that, in the end, the Senate version of the bill passed with a healthy majority and bipartisan support, indicating that on issues as serious as domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, Congress can overcome politics and do the right thing. We are looking forward to President Obama’s swift signature on this bill.

“In our work at Break the Chain Campaign, we are seeing a growing number of workers being exploited systematically by employers who use immigration status as a means of control. This, combined with the existing need to protect immigrant survivors of violence and crime, has meant that the cap on U-Visas needs to be raised. The U visa, a non-immigrant status offered to help stabilize victims of violence and crime so that they can cooperate with law enforcement and pursue justice, is capped at 10,000 and has consistently met this cap months early each year. Last year’s VAWA included a provision that would have raised this cap so that more victims could be covered, but it did not make it into this year’s version. Our groups will be pushing for an increase in the cap as part of immigration reform, since lack of immigration status remains a primary vulnerability that leaves victims unable to come forward and seek help.”

CNN reports: “The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s sweeping electronic eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists and spies.

“The 5-4 … majority concluded the plaintiffs — which included attorneys and journalists — lacked ‘standing’ or jurisdiction to proceed, without proof that suspects have been eavesdropped upon. The super secret National Security Agency has in turn refused to disclose specifics, which detractors call ‘Catch-22′ logic.”

SHAHID BUTTAR, [in D.C.][email]
Buttar is executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, which said in a statement that the court “effectively invites the government to continue spying on law-abiding Americans en masse, renders the judiciary institutionally complicit in constitutional violations, and places the National Security Agency above the law. …

“Having previously prompted threats of a mass resignation by Justice Department officials under the Bush administration, the program was sensibly struck down as unconstitutional by multiple federal courts, only to be reversed on appeal. Today’s decision allows government surveillance to continue in secret, without meaningful checks and balances.

“While five Justices claimed that alternative sources of review are available, their finding buries the court’s head in the sand. For instance, SCOTUS defers to the secret FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court, which according to the Director of National Intelligence, has previously found parts of the NSA’s program unconstitutional. Yet despite repeated requests, even Congress does not know the details of that judicial decision, let alone whether and how the program has been modified to satisfy constitutional limits.

Buttar just wrote the piece “Clapper v Amnesty: Courts and Congress v Our Constitution,” which states: “Tuesday’s decision by the Supreme Court in Clapper vs Amnesty International reflects judicial formalism at its worst. The decision abandons fundamental rights and the courts’ constitutional mandate, while placing government agencies above the law, so long as they commit their abuses in secret.”

Roll Call has just reported: “The Senate Intelligence Committee is all but certain to vote Feb. 28 on the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the CIA, and the panel’s chairwoman predicted the committee would vote to support him. … Feinstein said she still was not sure if the committee would receive some of the additional legal memos the panel was seeking prior to Thursday’s vote. These memos lay out the legal justification for the targeted killings — such as with armed drones — of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism.”

Talks begin today in Kazakhstan on Iran’s nuclear program. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on drones (see below).

A group of intelligence veterans have sent a memorandum to Sen. Feinstein. It states:

We write to urge you to ensure due diligence regarding John Brennan’s fitness to become CIA director before you make the next-to-the-worst mistake of your tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee by endorsing Brennan. Your worst — perhaps you will now agree — was your vote to authorize war on Iraq. With your vote in October 2002 on Iraq, you oddly parted company with most of your Democratic colleagues on the committee, including chairman Bob Graham. They saw through the flimsy intelligence. …

Brennan Now Taking Aim at Iran? This recent history is highly relevant because, at the time, John Brennan had a ringside seat for this unconscionable charade as it was being acted out. … Of still more importance are recent signs that Mr. Brennan intends to ape his discredited mentor, former CIA Director George Tenet, by slanting intelligence to “justify” an even more catastrophic attack — this time, on Iran. …

Former CIA colleagues who served under Brennan before and during the Iraq war tell us that, since he was such a close confidant of Tenet, Brennan almost certainly knew chapter and verse about the deliberate corruption of the intelligence on Iraq. … It is not too late for you to look into what role John Brennan played in these key events. …

First, please find out what evidence John Brennan is relying upon for his assertion that Iran is “bent on pursuing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems.” Does he know something others should know? Or are we beginning to see the makings of another consequential hoax?

Second, please look closely into the role Brennan played at his mentor’s side, as George Tenet corrupted the intelligence process to service White House lust for war on Iraq. See what you can find out. Under Tenet, CIA analysts were instructed to conjure up faux intelligence — later described as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent,” by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, your predecessor as chair of the Intelligence Committee. Did Tenet keep Brennan in this fraudulent loop (as CIA’s torture aficionados did for their enterprise)? If so, the fact that Brennan did not blow the whistle is enough, in our view, to remove him from consideration as CIA director.

You began Brennan’s confirmation hearing by stating that the number of civilian deaths caused by U.S. drone strikes each year has “typically been in the single digits.”

 This brought to mind the extraordinary public claim Mr. Brennan made on June 29, 2011, that “nearly for the past year there hasn’t been a single collateral death” as a result of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan.

Could Brennan have forgotten the widely reported drone strike just three months earlier (on March 17) that killed 42 Pakistanis, most of them civilians? Could he have forgotten the strong protest that the Pakistani government lodged decrying those killings in the town of Datta Khel?

[On Feb. 20], Sen. Lindsey Graham publicly put at 4,700 the total number of those killed by U.S. drone strikes in the past decade. This is the first time a United States official has provided a casualty figure for U.S. drone attacks. Interestingly, Graham’s estimate is very close to the high side of the estimated range given by the UK-based Bureau for Investigative Journalism for “total reported killed”in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia: 4,756.

What does John Brennan say about these inconsistencies? Have you checked back with those who told you the annual kill-rate for civilians has “typically been in the single digits?” We suggest that you ask Mr. Brennan to try to resolve these discrepancies before your committee takes further action on his nomination.

See the full statement.

Some signers are available for interviews:

Ray McGovern [email]
U.S. Army Infantry/Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA, retired
McGovern also recently wrote the piece “Eyes Wide Shut on the Iraq War.”

Coleen Rowley [email]
Former Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI
Rowley also just wrote the piece “Senators Must Not Let John Brennan Dodge Serious Legal Questions,” which states: “This coming Wednesday, Feb. 27, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on “Drones and the War On Terror: When Can the U.S. Target Alleged American Terrorists Overseas?” Unfortunately, besides being framed in a completely leading way, the only witnesses that will testify — all four — were drawn from the same Lawfare blog. Lawfare founder Benjamin Wittes even gloats about it. Have you ever heard of a congressional hearing that calls all of its ‘experts’ from one certain pro-war agenda-driven blog?!”

Larry Johnson [email]
Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Department of State; consultant, Department of Defense

Other signatories to the memorandum:

Phil Giraldi, Directorate of Operations, CIA, retired
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., retired Lt. Col., USAF
David MacMichael, Ph.D, CIA & National Intelligence Council (NIC) analyst
Tom Maertens, Foreign Service Officer and NSC Director for Non-Proliferation
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, NIC
Ann Wright, Col., U.S. Army Reserve (ret.), former Foreign Service Officer, Department of State

Yesterday, “Argo” won the Oscar for best picture. On Tuesday talks begin in Kazakhstan about Iran’s nuclear program. The following Iran analysts are available for a limited number of interviews:

WILLIAM O. BEEMAN, [email]
Author of The ‘Great Satan‘ vs. the ‘Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other, Beeman said today: “If it were a piece of fiction, I’d say that ‘Argo’ was great entertainment. But I was in Iran during the revolution and knew many of the people portrayed. A huge part of what’s depicted in the movie is fictionalized. Jimmy Carter himself acknowledged that the Canadians were responsible for 90 percent of getting the six embassy workers out. Tony Mendez [portrayed by Ben Affleck] was only in Iran for a day and a half.

“The danger of this for the American public is that it paints things as black and white with Americans and the CIA as the good guys and Iranians as bad guys out to kill any American they see. In fact, there were quite a few Americans living in Iran. The embassy workers were targeted because many of the Iranian revolutionaries were convinced that the U.S. was trying to re-install the Shah as it had done in 1953. …

“The P5 plus 1 talks start on Iran’s nuclear program tomorrow. How many Americans know that the Iranian nuclear program was started with U.S. encouragement 40 years ago?”

NIMA SHIRAZI, [email], @WideAsleepNima
On Saturday, Shirazi posted the piece “Oscar Prints the Legend: Argo’s Upcoming Academy Award and the Failure of Truth,” which states: “Over the past 12 months, rarely a week — let alone a month — went by without new predictions of an ever-imminent Iranian nuclear weapon and ever-looming threats of an American or Israeli military attack. Come October 2012, into the fray marched ‘Argo,’ a decontextualized, ahistorical ‘true story’ of orientalist proportion, subjecting audiences to two hours of American victimization and bearded barbarians, culminating in popped champagne corks and rippling stars-and-stripes celebrating our heroism and triumph and their frustration and defeat. Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir aptly described the film as ‘a propaganda fable,’ explaining as others have that essentially none of its edge-of-your-seat thrills or most memorable moments ever happened. O’Hehir sums up:

The Americans never resisted the idea of playing a film crew, which is the source of much agitation in the movie. (In fact, the ‘house guests’ chose that cover story themselves, from a group of three options the CIA had prepared.) They were not almost lynched by a mob of crazy Iranians in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, because they never went there. There was no last-minute cancellation, and then un-cancellation, of the group’s tickets by the Carter administration. (The wife of Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor had personally gone to the airport and purchased tickets ahead of time, for three different outbound flights.) The group underwent no interrogation at the airport about their imaginary movie, nor were they detained at the gate while a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard telephoned their phony office back in Burbank. There was no last-second chase on the runway of Mehrabad Airport, with wild-eyed, bearded militants with Kalashnikovs trying to shoot out the tires of a Swissair jet.

“One of the actual hostages, Mark Lijek, noted that the CIA’s fake movie ‘cover story was never tested and in some ways proved irrelevant to the escape.’ The departure of the six Americans from Tehran was actually mundane and uneventful.”

CHRIS HELLMAN, [email]
Hellman is military budget specialist and senior research analyst at the National Priorities Project. He said today that while many have focused on looming reductions to military spending, “in fact, the Pentagon is in a better position to absorb these cuts because of sizable growth in [its] spending over the past decade.”

The group recently released the report “Sequestration, the Pentagon and the States,” which finds: “Sequestration cuts discretionary spending to reduce the deficit. The military accounts for over half of all discretionary spending (57 percent). Military spending has grown by 35 percent since 2002, 48 percent if you include war costs. Domestic discretionary spending grew by only 8 percent over that period.

“Despite a modest 2.6 percent decrease projected in FY2013 — the first such cut in over a decade — Pentagon spending will continue to grow over the next five years if sequestration does not occur. U.S. military spending accounts for 43 percent of the global total, five times more than China, the second largest military budget. A $1 billion federal investment in health care would create 2.4 times more jobs than investing it in the Pentagon. Cutting Pentagon spending will not affect veterans’ benefits.”

JO COMERFORD, [email]
MATTEA KRAMER, [email]
Comerford is executive director and Kramer is senior research analyst with the National Priorities Project. Comerford said today: “The federal government will reduce or delay needed investments in education, food safety, and infrastructure projects. And some two million people will lose their jobs.”

The group reports: “More than $700 million will be cut from Title I grants for disadvantaged public schools, affecting 1.2 million students. At the same time, 70,000 children will lose their slots in Head Start. … Furloughs for public health officials will mean roughly 2,100 fewer food safety inspections and the potential for public health problems and shortages of some foods, as reduced inspections will slow production schedules. … Treatment for adults and children with serious mental illnesses will be cut back, denying treatment for an estimated 373,000 patients. …

“A $50 billion cut in Pentagon spending could fund five years of Community Development Block Grants AND five years of Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) AND four years of Homeless Assistance Grants.”

ROB RICHIE, [email]
Richie is the executive director of FairVote. He said today: “Academy members get to express their true preference in a way that allows them to vote their heart and their head — allowing a degree of nuance we all should have.

“Whenever an election for a single seat has more than two candidates, a majority of voters can strongly oppose the ‘winner’ in the plurality system Americans often use. To embrace voter choice without fear of ‘spoilers,’ a growing number of cities and colleges are moving to instant runoff voting, also called ranked choice voting or RCV. Minneapolis and St. Paul will elect their mayors with RCV this November, as have cities like San Francsco, Oakland and Portland, Maine. RCV is also used to pick the Best Picture Oscar and is now under serious consideration for statewide elections, with new legislation in Maine to use RCV for the governor’s race garnering widespread support. RCV is simple. All you need to do is ask voters to indicate their backup choices. With those rankings we can simulate a runoff between the top candidates if no candidate wins a majority of first choices. There’s no need to ask people to return to the polls — ranking candidates allows us to know how people would vote in a race between the top two.”

DIANE RUSSELL, [email]
A representative in the Maine legislature who is sponsoring a bill for ranked choice voting with over 40 co-sponsors, Russell said today: “Ranked choice voting allows for a diverse set of candidates with a diverse set of ideas without the threat of a ‘spoiler’. The last several years have been difficult in Maine because the independent Eliot Cutler and the Democrat Libby Mitchell split the vote, electing instead Republican Paul LePage with 38 percent of the vote. He has governed as though he has a mandate, despite more than 60 percent of the public actively voting against him.

“Now, people are openly discussing who should and should not run to avoid the same scenario. In any other area of life, it would be absurd (and rude!) to suggest someone not go after a goal. We don’t tell movie directors not to make a movie because another director might lose their Oscar, do we? Ranked choice voting basically fixes this problem, allowing voters to list second and third choices and better ensuring the views of the public are reflected at the ballot box.”

Reuters is reporting President Obama will nominate Ernest Moniz “to head the Department of Energy as early as this week, according to a source familiar with the process.”

MITCH JONES, via Kate Fried, [email]
Jones is the director of the common resources program at Food & Water Watch, which put out this statement: “Mr. Moniz is a known cheerleader for exploiting our reserves of natural gas using a highly controversial and polluting practice known as hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’). His appointment to the DOE could set renewable energy development back years. If we pursue our fossil fuel addiction by expanding fracking, which Mr. Moniz will likely advocate, the oil and gas industry will thrive while true energy efficiency and renewable solutions languish. Our water, public health and climate would suffer.

“Mr. Moniz is affiliated with the industry-backed MIT Energy Initiative, so we shouldn’t be surprised about his favorable position on fracking. But President Obama could do a lot better. Appointing Mr. Moniz would be a nail in the coffin for one of his most lauded inaugural speech promises: a commitment to focus on climate solutions.”

See “What Is Fracking and Why Should It Be Banned?”