If you're looking for footage from the February 15, 2003 Protest In San Francisco -- you'll want to take note that I've moved all of the "My Little Adventure In Hacktivism" footage from that day into its own category.
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country......until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security...
...this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
...Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
John Brady Kiesling
Here is the full text of the letter and article in case the link goes bad:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml
Print This Story E-mail This Story
EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story which reports on this remarkable event can be found after Kiesling's letter. - wrp
Go to Original
t r u t h o u t | Letter
U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has “oderint dum metuant” really become our motto?
I urge you to listen to America’s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America’s ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
John Brady Kiesling
Go to Original
U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'
By Felicity Barringer
New York Times
Thursday 27 February 2003
UNITED NATIONS — A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq.
The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."
Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision.
He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues.
"No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the war."
Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said he had no information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was department policy not to comment on personnel matters.
In his letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the diplomat wrote Mr. Powell: "We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners."
His letter continued: "Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests."
It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat, immersed in the State Department's culture of public support for policy, regardless of private feelings, to resign with this kind of public blast. From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy.
Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game — we have a very strong premium on loyalty."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Print This Story E-mail This Story
So these as-yet-unnamed energy companies conspired to create the appearance of network congestion so that the state would have to purchase energy from "alternative" suppliers at exorbitant prices.
One more time: Allegedly, (no one's been convicted in a court of law, yet), most or all of the power companies involved in the California power grid misrepresented to the people, businesses and goverment of California that higher-priced energy was needed, due to demand, when it, in fact, was not.
(They lied to make a bunch of money.)
Energy report claims vast cheating of state
Evidence to feds cites $7.5 billion in overcharges
By Mark Martin and Christian Berthelsen for SF Gate.
Among the discoveries:-- Internal memos from several companies show power traders developed complicated trading strategies that resemble some of the schemes Enron used in California. In separate proceedings, two Enron traders have pleaded guilty in federal court to wire fraud over the company's colorfully named market games like "Death Star" and "Get Shorty." Several strategies involved zapping megawatts around the West Coast to create transmission congestion -- or the appearance of congestion -- and volatility in the marketplace, driving up prices.
Some companies partnered with municipal utilities within California on the gaming strategies, the report shows.
-- Electricity generators purposely shut down power plants in California to take advantage of shortages and earn more money selling alternative megawatts. Two companies -- Reliant Resources and Williams Cos. -- have been forced to turn over money after tape recordings revealed power plant operators and traders discussing turning off plants to boost profits, and a source said the state had uncovered other examples similar to cases brought against Reliant and Williams.
-- Energy market manipulation between May 2000 and June 2001 allowed power companies to earn more than $7.5 billion in profits they wouldn't have seen under fair market conditions.
And what kind of garbage is this below? Why should these people be able to remain nameless and faceless after they ripped us off? So they can go and do it all again?:
The report, due to FERC on Monday, will not be made public unless the commission decides to reverse a protective order. Sources familiar with the report refused to name which companies are accused of wrongdoing.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/01/MN215702.DTL
Energy report claims vast cheating of state
Evidence to feds cites $7.5 billion in overcharges
Mark Martin, Christian Berthelsen, Chronicle Staff Writers Saturday, March 1, 2003
A report to be delivered to federal energy regulators Monday will provide new and extensive evidence backing up claims that a wide range of power companies manipulated California's energy markets and reaped at least $7. 5 billion in unfair profits, sources told The Chronicle.
Compiled by a team of California lawyers who have had unprecedented access to internal company records for the last three months, the report will show that power traders used Enron-style manipulation strategies to gouge the state during the energy crisis. Costs to the state's consumers also soared because power plants were deliberately idled to drive up prices, according to the report, which will be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Sources said the evidence backs up many claims California officials have made since the beginning of the energy crisis, which caused blackouts throughout the state in 2000 and 2001 and led to record-high rate increases that Californians are still paying.
It may provide a strong rebuttal to a FERC judge's ruling in December that the state actually owed money to generators over unpaid bills stemming from the crisis.
The federal commission will consider the judge's ruling, the state's report and rebuttals from power companies when it makes a final ruling on California's claim that it is owed billions in refunds. That decision could come as early as this month.
BENDING, BREAKING RULES
New evidence will show that companies took advantage of tight energy supplies and a disastrously designed market to bend and break rules to bolster profits, a source who is familiar with the state's report said.
"The market misconduct was widespread. It involved most participants in the California energy market," the source said.
The new evidence has been amassed during a special discovery period granted by FERC that has allowed lawyers from three state agencies and two utilities to depose power company officials, listen to tape-recorded conversations among energy traders and pore over thousands of pages of company documents. The team,
among other things, has questioned employees of big power companies like Reliant Resources and Mirant Corp., subpoenaed information from a Montana utility and interviewed officials with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
All of that will be submitted Monday in what may be California's last chance to convince FERC that a primary cause of the state's power woes was unscrupulous corporate behavior.
Among the discoveries:
-- Internal memos from several companies show power traders developed complicated trading strategies that resemble some of the schemes Enron used in California. In separate proceedings, two Enron traders have pleaded guilty in federal court to wire fraud over the company's colorfully named market games like "Death Star" and "Get Shorty." Several strategies involved zapping megawatts around the West Coast to create transmission congestion -- or the appearance of congestion -- and volatility in the marketplace, driving up prices.
Some companies partnered with municipal utilities within California on the gaming strategies, the report shows.
-- Electricity generators purposely shut down power plants in California to take advantage of shortages and earn more money selling alternative megawatts. Two companies -- Reliant Resources and Williams Cos. -- have been forced to turn over money after tape recordings revealed power plant operators and traders discussing turning off plants to boost profits, and a source said the state had uncovered other examples similar to cases brought against Reliant and Williams.
-- Energy market manipulation between May 2000 and June 2001 allowed power companies to earn more than $7.5 billion in profits they wouldn't have seen under fair market conditions.
-- For at least part of the crisis, market manipulation led to energy prices that were double what they should have been, according to one source. From May to October 2000, the average price California paid for power was $100 per megawatt hour, when fair market conditions should have had power going for $50.
COMPANIES UNIDENTIFIED
The report, due to FERC on Monday, will not be made public unless the commission decides to reverse a protective order. Sources familiar with the report refused to name which companies are accused of wrongdoing.
Some of the biggest energy providers in California continued to insist Friday that they had behaved properly during the crisis.
"We look forward to seeing what they file," said Duke Energy's Pat Mullen. "We have and always will operate within the market rules."
Most companies, including Duke, have told FERC they did not utilize the same schemes Enron employed in California. And several past attempts by the state to show a widespread effort to shut down power plants for profit have not provided definitive proof.
How FERC will handle the new report remains to be seen.
Generators will have until March 20 to submit rebuttals to the state's case.
The commission's first meeting after that date is March 26, and a FERC spokesman said there could be some decision on the refund issue then or at meetings in April.
In a preliminary decision in December, a FERC judge concluded that California had been overcharged by $1.8 billion between October 2000 and June 2001. But the judge also ruled the state owed energy companies $3 billion.
The ruling was a stunning blow to Gov. Gray Davis, who has said the state is owed about $8.9 billion for unjust prices between January 2000 and June 2001.
The judge's decision did not take into account market manipulation, however,
and dealt with a narrower time frame.
E-mail the writers at markmartin@sfchronicle.com and cberthelsen@sfchronicle.com.
Lots of incredible developments over the weekend on the Peace front.
Turkey said no to 6 billion dollars and a Major U.S. Diplomat sent his resignation letter to Colin Powell.
We also found out here in California that several energy companies conspired together to fake power congestion so they could sell us power from other sources at higher prices.
Meanwhile, I've got highlights from last weekend's Spectrum Policy conference at Stanford, last week's DRM conference at UC Berkeley, more footage from the Feb 15 protest (really cool footage and MP3s of the mix from the rave that went down on the corner of Polk/Grove all afternoon).
