text:
(Bloomberg) Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM), VMware Inc. and Red Bend Software Inc. are working to give phones a split personality, seeking an edge in the emerging market for tools that let employees use their own gadgets on the job.
RIM in coming weeks will unveil an enhanced version of BlackBerry Balance, software to help employees seamlessly use their smartphones and tablets for work tasks without compromising their privacy. The software also promises to help businesses cut security risk and save money on hardware and device management.
VMware and Red Bend are also building products for the estimated 28 percent of workers who use personal electronics for work, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The market for such software and related products reached a projected $67.2 billion in 2011.
"We think there's a seismic shift in terms of usage paradigm," said Srinivas Krishnamurti, a senior director for mobile solutions at VMware. (VMW) "The old school of management of the devices doesn't quite work."
The stakes are especially high for RIM, which has been struggling to compete with Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Google Inc. (GOOG) in smartphones. The Waterloo, Ontario-based company, whose products were once the leader among corporations looking for the most secure system, saw total subscribers drop to 79 million in the quarter that ended Dec. 1, from 80 million in the previous period. RIM is introducing BlackBerry Balance as part of the new operating system that is set to be released on Jan. 30.
Double Identity
Dual-identity phone products have the potential to reduce the risk and cost to businesses of letting employees use their own phones and tablets for work. Monthly charges for these devices are typically 14 percent higher than for corporate- issued devices, an Aberdeen Group survey of 100 businesses found last year, and the use of personal devices can also expose companies to more security threats.
VMware's dual-use software runs on Google's Android mobile platform and will let one phone act as two: With the tap of an icon, the phone's home screen will switch from showing personal wallpaper, contacts, schedule and applications such as Facebook Inc. to a business screen, with only an employer's apps and contacts, all secured and managed by corporate engineers.
In addition to RIM and VMware, 13-year-old Red Bend also has a new software tool that it expects to be part of several phones labeled "enterprise-ready" and sold in carrier stores this year, Red Bend Executive Vice President Lori Sylvia said.
Segregated Data
The new tools all have the ability to segregate personal and business information on one device. They can restrict corporations' ability to access employees' personal data, such as texts, photos and posts on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter Inc., ensuring greater privacy. They also let companies wipe business data from the phones remotely -- when an employee resigns, for example -- without damaging personal content or apps on the device.
One potential downside for employees: if the phone breaks, it's still your personal phone, which means workers would be responsible for getting it fixed, unless the company has a repair or replacement policy.
Even so, installing dual-personality software may emerge as the most popular way to make devices serve both purposes, said Chenxi Wang, an analyst at Forrester Research.
Favored by VMware and Red Bend, the software approach works by putting business applications and data on a second, virtual operating system on the phone. Corporate data and apps are completely walled off from the rest of the device.
Still, this method means consumers may need to check two separate calendars and e-mail accounts. And for now, Red Bend's product and VMware's double-duty mobile software, called Horizon Mobile, will only work on Android devices. VMware is developing a version for Apple's iPhones and iPad tablets, Krishnamurti said.
VMware is working with Verizon Wireless, LG Electronics Inc. (066570) and Samsung Electronics Co. to bring Horizon Mobile to the U.S. market. The partners haven't disclosed when the first phones with the software will be available. Red Bend expects devices with its virtual operating system to hit stores this year, Sylvia said.
Such split-personality phone and tablet software -- just one piece of the spending by corporations and individuals to enable work-related use of mobile devices -- could spawn a new, $1 billion market in as little as five years, Wang said. Eventually, sales could rival the multibillion-dollar market for software used to let corporate engineers remotely manage a company's PCs, she said.
"It will empower more workers to bring their own phones," Wang said. "We could see a huge upswing in adoption."
Spending by corporations and employees on hardware, software and services related to personal devices used for work will reach $181.4 billion by 2017, more than doubling from 2011, according to researcher MarketsandMarkets.
VMware hasn't made the cost of Horizon Mobile public. Red Bend said it plans to charge device makers a royalty for preinstalling its software.
"We firmly believe dual-persona is what the market needs," said Ki S. Kim, corporate vice president of enterprise mobility solutions at LG. In the future, LG may preinstall the software on some of its phones, he said.
To address the issue of separate calendars and e-mail accounts, RIM has proposed a different technical approach with BlackBerry Balance. The tool combines personal and professional messages, calendars and contacts on the mobile device, instead of cordoning them off and making a user toggle back and forth.
No Walls
"If I know someone personally and professionally, I don't want to see them two or three times" on contact lists, said Jeff Holleran, senior director of enterprise product management at RIM.
The new products from RIM, VMware and Red Bend will also compete with offerings from Good Technology Inc., AirWatch LLC, MobileIron Inc., Citrix Systems Inc. (CTXS) and Enterproid Inc. Each company offers a different way to secure and manage corporate applications and data without creating a second, virtual operating system -- usually by having users download an app that grants corporate technology departments access to the device.
"People have single lives," said Alan Dabbiere, co- founder of AirWatch. In one configuration of AirWatch's software, users can download an app that lets corporate engineers set up a secure connection to business data, give access to company apps or detect hackers.
Multiple Solutions
While rivals in the burgeoning bring-your-own-device market are taking different tacks, the reality is that most corporations will need many types of software to manage their diverse mobile fleets, said Mobeen Khan, executive director for AT&T Advanced Mobility Solutions, which has agreements to resell mobile corporate software products from Enterproid, VMware and OpenPeak Inc.
"We are looking to take the best-of-breed solutions and integrate them," Khan said. "Outside of devices, this is one of the fastest growth areas for us."
Handset makers are also aiming to provide an array of mobile device-management software. LG, for example, works with a number of partners, including VMware and Open Kernel Labs Inc., which was acquired by General Dynamics Corp. (GD) in September. Open Kernel provides mobile-device security to public-safety and military customers.
With corporations likely to adopt a variety of technology approaches, consolidation in the industry may continue, said Ken Dulaney, an analyst at researcher Gartner Inc.
"I fully expect a number of the other players to combine," he said. "Companies don't want to buy a bunch of products from different little companies.


text:
!! History Commons Alert, Exciting News
We are planning some big changes! Please follow us to stay updated and be part of our community.
Project: US Civil LibertiesOpen-Content project managed by Paul, KJF, mtuck, paxvector
add event | references
A B-29 bomber similar to the one that crashed in Georgia. [Source: Global Security (.org)]A test flight for the Air Force's Project Banshee, located at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, is set for 8:30 a.m. Banshee is an attempt begun in 1946 to develop and deploy a long-range missile ahead of both the Soviet Union and rival US military branches. The airplane used in the test flight crashes less than an hour into its flight, killing 9 of the 13 aboard. Maintenance Problems - The plane assigned for the flight is a B-29 Stratofortress, a bomber made famous by its delivery of the atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. B-29s are notoriously difficult to fly and maintain: their four wing-mounted engines almost routinely overheat and catch fire, causing engine shutdowns, sudden drops in altitude, and, often, crashes. The engines' eighteen cylinders lack sufficient airflow to keep them cool, and the overheating often causes the crankcases, made of light but highly flammable magnesium, to burst into flames. Like so many of its brethren, the plane has suffered its share of maintenance issues, and is flying without numerous recommended maintenance and repair tasks being performed. Just five days before, it had been designated "red cross"—grounded and unfit for service. It was allowed to fly through an "exceptional release" signed by the squadron commander. Crew Difficulties - The flight is moved back to the afternoon after some crew members fail to show up on time, and to allow last-minute repairs to be made. By takeoff, the flight crew is assembled: Captain Ralph Erwin; co-pilot Herbert W. Moore; flight engineer Earl Murrhee; First Lieutenant Lawrence Pence, Jr, the navigator; Sergeant Walter Peny, the left scanner; Sergeant Jack York, the right scanner; Sergeant Melvin Walker, the radio operator; and Sergeant Derwood Irvin, manning the bombsight and autopilot. The crew is joined by civilian engineers assigned to Banshee: Al Palya and Robert Reynolds from RCA, William Brauner and Eugene Mechler from the Franklin Institute, and Richard Cox from the Air Force's Air Materiel Command. In violation of standard procedure, none of the crew or the civilians are briefed on emergency procedures, though Murrhee will later say that the crew were all familiar with the procedures; he is not so sure about the civilians, though he knows Palya and Reynolds have flown numerous test flights before. In another violation of Air Force regulations, none of the flight crew have worked together before. As author Barry Siegel will note in 2008, "The pilot, copilot, and engineer had never shared the same cockpit before." Engine Fire and Crash - Less than an hour into the flight, one engine catches fire and two others lose power, due to a combination of maintenance failures and pilot errors. The civilians have some difficulty getting into their parachutes as Erwin and Moore attempt to regain control of the aircraft. Four of the crew and civilians manage to parachute from the plane, but most remain on board as the airplane spirals into the ground on the edge of the Okefenokee Swamp, near Waycross, Georgia. Crew members Moore, Murrhee, and Peny survive, as does a single civilian, Mechler. Four others either jump at too low an altitude or die when their chutes foul the airplane; the other five never manage to leave the plane and die on impact. Widows File Suit - Several of the civilians' widows will file suit against the US Air Force, asserting that their husbands died because of Air Force negligence (see June 21, 1949). Their lawsuit will eventually become US v. Reynolds, a landmark Supreme Court case and the underpinning for the government's claims of state secrets privilege (see March 9, 1953). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 3, 14-17, 33-49]
Entity Tags: Derwood Irvin, Barry Siegel, US Department of the Air Force, Walter Peny, William Brauner, Air Materiel Command, Richard Cox, Ralph Erwin, Robert Reynolds, Al Palya, Radio Corporation of America, Eugene Mechler, Earl Murrhee, Franklin Institute, Project Banshee, Melvin Walker, Lawrence Pence, Jr, Herbert W. Moore, Jr, Jack York
Category Tags: Expansion of Presidential Power, Government Acting in Secret, Government Classification, State Secrets
Initial Associated Press reports of a crash in Georgia of a B-29 that had been on a test flight for the Air Force's secret Project Banshee (see October 6, 1948) acknowledge that "the plane had been on a mission testing secret electronic equipment which RCA developed and built under an Air Force contract… Full details of the plane's mission were not disclosed.… The Air Force would say only that the bomber was engaged in 'electronic research on different types of radar…'" Local papers have a bit more detail, with survivor accounts hinting at confusion and some contradictions between their versions of events and that being given out by official Air Force spokesmen. Later reports from the Air Force will downplay the B-29's involvement in Project Banshee. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 56-58]
Entity Tags: Associated Press, US Department of the Air Force, Radio Corporation of America, Project Banshee
The Army Air Force's Air Materiel Command receives the initial report on an investigation of a B-29 crash in Georgia (see October 6, 1948). Perceptions of the crash are colored by the fact that the bomber was carrying equipment from Project Banshee, a secret Air Force missile development initiative. The initial report is meticulously factual, providing an almost minute-by-minute account of the events preceding the crash as told by the four survivors and intensive examination of the debris. The report concludes that it would benefit future B-29 pilots to have more training on flying the plane when it has lost both engines on one wing, and a general recommendation that the pilot and crew should give civilian passengers better instruction in emergency procedures. Though the report is circumspect in the extreme in finding fault with the pilot and military personnel for the crash, and gives only vague and generalized recommendations to help prevent future crashes, the Air Force will heatedly deny that the pilots or crew could have been in any way responsible for the crash. In 2008, reporter Barry Siegel will write, "Years later, this particular claim, in fact Air Materiel Command's entire position, would cause various veteran aviators to hoot." Pilot error causing the crash is obvious, they will conclude. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 62-65]
Entity Tags: US Department of the Air Force, Barry Siegel, Air Materiel Command, Project Banshee
Frank Folsom, the executive vice president of the Radio Corporation of America's RCA Victor Division, writes a letter to General Hoyt Vandenberg, the commander of the US Air Force. Folsom is inquiring about the deaths of two RCA employees in a recent B-29 crash in Georgia (see October 6, 1948). The plane had been on a secret test mission for the Air Force's Project Banshee, a missile development project in which RCA is heavily involved. Folsom believes that the Air Force is downplaying the likelihood that pilot error caused the crash (see October 18, 1948), and tells Vandenberg that "certain steps will [need to be taken] if we are to participate in the future in Air Force flight test programs." Folsom wants more pay and compensation for RCA employees participating in Air Force test programs, as well as newer and safer airplanes to be used in the test flights and a higher caliber of test pilots and crew members. Perhaps the portion of the letter that causes the most consternation among Air Force officials is Folsom's request to read over the official accident reports. "When a crash has occurred, a copy of the official report… must be made available promptly to us," he writes. "Needless to say, the report will not be disclosed except to those who are directly concerned." Folsom's letter will spark a new round of Air Force investigations into the crash, in hopes of mollifying Folsom. However, the report from this investigation will be classified at the highest level of security and not provided to RCA. Additionally, though the second investigation will find a strong likelihood of pilot error causing the crash, the Air Force will not admit any such findings to RCA. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 65-80] These accident reports will play a key role in the lawsuit filed against the US government by three widows of killed crew members (see June 21, 1949 and August 7-8, 1950).
Entity Tags: Hoyt Vandenberg, Frank Folsom, Project Banshee, Radio Corporation of America, US Department of the Air Force
Phyllis Brauner and Elizabeth Palya, who both lost their husbands in the "Project Banshee" B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948), file a civil action lawsuit against the US government in regards to the crash. The lawsuit claims that the US Air Force, in the person of the pilot and military crew members of the B-29, caused the deaths of their civilian husbands by "the negligence and wrongful acts and omissions of the officers and employees" of the US. The widows' lawyer, Charles Biddle, asks the government for $300,000 per family. A third widow, Patricia Reynolds, will join the lawsuit in September 1949. One of the biggest issues surrounding the case is the lawsuit's request that Biddle and his lawyers be given access to the official accident reports, which the government will claim cannot be revealed because they may contain classified information (see October 18, 1948 and August 7-8, 1950). Biddle's promise that no one else will see the reports makes no impression on the government's lawyers. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 100-101]
Entity Tags: Elizabeth Palya, Charles Biddle, Patricia Reynolds, Phyllis Brauner, US Department of the Air Force, Project Banshee
A federal judge orders the Air Force to turn over copies of its classified accident reports about a B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948) as part of a lawsuit filed by three of the widows of crew members killed in the crash (see June 21, 1949). Claiming that the reports may contain classified information about a secret missile development project, Project Banshee, the Air Force not only refuses to turn over the accident reports to the widows' lawyer, it refuses to allow even the attorney general to view the documents (see August 7-8, 1950). The lawyer for the widows, Charles Biddle, will continue to press for the release of the accident reports. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 120-123]
Entity Tags: Charles Biddle, Project Banshee, US Department of the Air Force
The Air Force refuses to meet the court-imposed deadline to turn over accident reports of a 1948 B-29 crash in Georgia (see October 6, 1948) to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the government (see July 26, 1950). Instead, the Justice Department argues before the court that because the accident reports might contain "state secrets" that might imperil "national security" if made available to anyone outside the Air Force, the reports cannot be made available. "[T]he aircraft in question, together with the personnel on board, were engaged in a highly secret mission of the Air Force," the government lawyers argue. "The airplane likewise carried confidential equipment on board and any disclosure of its mission or information concerning its operation or performance would be prejudicial to this department and would not be in the public interest." Such a claim—that the production of the reports would "seriously hamper national security"—renders the reports "beyond judicial authority," the Justice Department lawyers claim. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 124-126]
Entity Tags: US Department of the Air Force, US Department of Justice
Weeks after the Justice Department refused to make accident reports of a 1948 B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948) available to the plaintiffs in an ongoing wrongful death lawsuit against the government (see July 26, 1950) because the reports are so highly classified that their disclosure might "seriously hamper national security" (see July 26, 1950 and August 7-8, 1950), the Air Force, in a routine review, drastically lowers the classification of the accident reports from top-level "Secret" to third-level "Restricted." Whereas "Secret" documents supposedly contain information that "might endanger national security" if revealed, "Restricted" documents are "for official use only" and should not be disclosed "for reasons of administrative privacy." The Air Force apparently no longer considers the documents a threat to national security. However, neither the plaintiffs' lawyers, the judge hearing the lawsuit, or even the Justice Department lawyers are aware of the reports' reduction in status. They continue to argue the merits of releasing the reports as if they are still highly classified. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 133]
Federal judge William H. Kirkpatrick rules that the US government must turn over the disputed, and supposedly highly classified (see September 14, 1950), accident reports from a 1948 B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948)—not to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the crash (see July 26, 1950), but to Kirkpatrick himself. He wishes to review the reports to determine if they contain any information that might threaten national security, and, before turning the documents over to the plaintiffs' lawyers, will personally remove that information. In mid-October, when the government again refuses to turn over the documents, Kirkpatrick will find in favor of the plaintiffs (see October 12, 1950). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 133-134]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, William H. Kirkpatrick
Category Tags: Court Procedures and Verdicts, Expansion of Presidential Power, Government Acting in Secret, Government Classification, State Secrets
Federal judge William H. Kirkpatrick rules in favor of the plaintiffs in a wrongful death lawsuit against the US government (see October 6, 1948, June 21, 1949, and July 26, 1950), after the government refuses to turn over classified accident reports that have a direct bearing on the plaintiffs' case (see September 21, 1950). Judge Kirkpatrick orders the government to pay the plaintiffs, three widows who lost their husbands in a 1948 plane crash, a total of $225,000. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Charles Biddle, expects the government to balk at paying out the money, and to instead continue to challenge the court's attempt to compel it to turn over the accident reports (see October 19, 1951). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 134-139]
Entity Tags: Charles Biddle, William H. Kirkpatrick
The government, represented by a team of Justice Department lawyers, appeals the recent ruling against it in the 'Banshee' B-29 plane crash lawsuit (see June 21, 1949). In the Third US Circuit Appeals Court, the government argues that the lower court had no business demanding that the Air Force turn over classified accident reports about the crash, because the reports may contain information that would potentially compromise national security (see October 12-18, 1948 and September 14, 1950). The government had twice defied court orders to produce the documents, and as a result had lost the lawsuit (see October 12, 1950). The Justice Department's arguments come down to the assertion that the judiciary has no constitutional right to compel the executive branch to turn over documents it considers privileged. In 2008, author Barry Siegel will write, "For the first time in the B-29 litigation, the government directly argued that the judiciary could not review [the government's] claim of privilege." The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Charles Biddle, counters that the executive branch has no such sweeping claim of privilege, and that a judge should be allowed to review documents in dispute to determine both their bearing on a case and the possibility that releasing those documents could jeopardize national security (see September 21, 1950). Three weeks later, the appeals court will rule unanimously against the government (see December 11, 1951). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 149-153]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Charles Biddle, Barry Siegel
A three-judge federal appeals court unanimously rejects the government's claim of unfettered executive privilege and secrecy in regards to classified documents (see October 19, 1951). In an opinion written by Judge Albert Maris, the court finds that the government's claim that the judiciary can never compel the executive branch to turn over classified documents to be without legal merit. The plaintiffs in the case, three widows who lost their husbands in the crash of a B-29 bomber carrying classified materials (see June 21, 1949), had a compelling need for the documents in question, the downed B-29 accident reports, to further their case, Maris writes (see October 12, 1950). No Legal Basis for Claim of Privilege - Maris goes further than the parameters of the single lawsuit, writing: "[W]e regard the recognition of such a sweeping privilege… as contrary to a sound public policy. The present cases themselves indicate the breadth of the claim of immunity from disclosure which one government department head has already made. It is but a small step to assert a privilege against any disclosure of records merely because they might prove embarrassing to government officials. Indeed, it requires no great flight of imagination to realize that if the government's contentions in these cases were affirmed, the privilege against disclosure might gradually be enlarged… until as is the case in some nations today, it embraced the whole range of government activities.… We need to recall in this connection the words of [Revolution-era jurist] Edward Livingston: 'No nation ever yet found any inconvenience from too close an inspection into the conduct of its officers, but many have been brought to ruin, and reduced to slavery, by suffering gradual imposition and abuses, which were imperceptible, only because the means of publicity had not been secured.'" He also quotes Revolutionary War figure Patrick Henry, who said, "[T]o cover with the veil of secrecy the common routine of business is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man and every friend to his country." Rejecting Claim of 'State Secrets' - Maris is even less respectful of the government's claim of a "state secrets" privilege. He notes that the government did not make that claim until well into the lawsuit proceedings (see October 19, 1951), indicating that it was a "fallback" argument used after the original government arguments had failed. Maris is also troubled, as author Barry Siegel later writes, in the government's "assertion of unilateral executive power, free from judicial review, to decide what qualified as secret." The lower court judge's ruling that he alone should be given the documents for review adequately protected the government's security interests, Maris writes: "[But] the government contends that it is within the sole province of the secretary of the Air Force to determine whether any privileged material is contained in the documents and that his determination of this question must be accepted by the district court without any independent consideration.… We cannot accede to this proposition. On the contrary, we are satisfied that a claim of privilege against disclosing evidence… involves a justiciable question, traditionally within the competence of the courts.… To hold that the head of an executive department of the government in a [law]suit to which the United States is a party may conclusively determine the government's claim of privilege is to abdicate the judicial function to infringe the independent province of the judiciary as laid down by the Constitution." Fundamental Principle of Checks and Balances - Maris continues: "The government of the United States is one of checks and balances. One of the principal checks is furnished by the independent judiciary which the Constitution established. Neither the executive nor the legislative branch of the government may constitutionally encroach upon the field which the Constitution has reserved for the judiciary.… Nor is there any danger to the public interest in submitting the question of privilege to the decision of the courts. The judges of the United States are public officers whose responsibilities under the Constitution is just as great as that of the heads of the executive departments." Government Appeal - The Justice Department will appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court (see March 1952 and March 9, 1953). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 153-156]
Entity Tags: Albert Maris, US Department of Justice, Barry Siegel, US Supreme Court
The Justice Department appeals the ruling of the US Appeals Court in the B-29 "Banshee" case (see December 11, 1951). The appellate judges found that the executive branch of government could not unilaterally refuse to hand over classified documents requested during the course of a trial, and justify its decision merely by its own say-so (see October 12, 1950). Solicitor General Philip Perlman argues that the appellate ruling erroneously interprets the law "so as to permit encroachments by the judiciary on an area committed by the Constitution to executive discretion." The claim of "state secrets," "executive privilege," and, ultimately, "national security" must trump judicial concerns, Perlman argues, and he goes on to say that the judiciary should not be allowed to "substitute its judgment for the judgment of the executive." The case will be labeled United States of America v. Patricia Reynolds, Phyllis Brauner, and Elizabeth Palya, and will usually be shortened to the more colloquial US v. Reynolds. The Vinson Court - In 2008, author Barry Siegel, in his book Claim of Privilege, will note that the recent ascension of Fred Vinson as the Supreme Court's Chief Justice does not bode well for the plaintiffs in the case. President Truman placed Vinson, whom Siegel calls Truman's "poker and drinking buddy," as Chief Justice to try to achieve consensus between the two contentious blocs of justices on the Court. Siegel notes that Vinson is widely considered an intellectual and legal lightweight, with a tendency to take the side of the government on issues in which he lacks a full understanding. Siegel will write that in many instances, Vinson functions "as part of the executive branch." 'Dennis' Case Preview of Court's Tendency to Favor Executive Branch - Vinson had written the opinion in a 1951 ruling, Dennis et al v. United States, where the Court had upheld a lower court ruling that twelve acknowledged American Communists were sent to jail under the Smith Act—not for breaking the law, but for "teaching and advocating," in the words of the original indictment. Siegel will call that ruling "the nadir of the Vinson Court." According to Siegel, the Dennis ruling showed the Court's predisposition to give the government, and particularly the executive branch, plenty of leeway in its findings in subsequent cases such as Reynolds. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 157-162]
Entity Tags: Fred Vinson, Elizabeth Palya, US Supreme Court, US Department of Justice, Barry Siegel, Harry S. Truman, Phyllis Brauner, Philip Perlman, Patricia Reynolds
Lawyers make their opening arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of US v Reynolds, the lawsuit that finds the government had no overarching right to unilaterally refuse to deliver classified documents in the course of a wrongful death lawsuit against the government (see December 11, 1951). The government has appealed the appellate court ruling to the Supreme Court (see March 1952). Because four of the nine justices had voted not to hear the case—in essence to let the appellate court ruling stand—the defense is cautiously optimistic about the Court's decision. Judiciary Has No Right to Interfere with Powers of the Executive, Government Argues - Acting Solicitor General Robert Stern tells the Court that the appellate judges' decision, written by Judge Albert Maris, "is an unwarranted interference with the powers of the executive," and that the decision forced the government to choose "whether to disclose public documents contrary to the public interest [or] to suffer the public treasury to be penalized" (a reference to the decision to award the plaintiffs monetary damages—see October 12, 1950). The judiciary "lack[s] power to compel disclosure by means of a direct demand [as well as] by the indirect method of an order against the United States, resulting in judgment when compliance is not forthcoming." Executive Has No Right to Unilaterally Withhold Information, Defense Counters - Stern's arguments are countered by those of the plaintiffs' lawyer, Charles Biddle, who writes, "We could rest our case with confidence on the clear opinion of Judge Maris," but continues by arguing that if the government asserts a claim of executive privilege on the basis of national security, it must make the documents available to the Court for adjudication, or at least provide enough information for the Court to judge whether the documents present in fact a threat to national security if disclosed. This is particularly true, Biddle argues, "where there is no showing that the documents in question contain any military secret" (Biddle is unaware that the documents' classification status had been reduced two years before—see September 14, 1950). "The basic question here is whether those in charge of the various departments of the government may refuse to produce documents properly demanded… in a case where the government is a party (see June 21, 1949), simply because the officials themselves think it would be better to keep them secret, and this without the Courts having any power to question the propriety of such decision.… In other words, say the officials, we will tell you only what we think it is in the public interest that you should know. And furthermore, we may withhold information not only about military or diplomatic secrets, but we may also suppress documents which concern merely the operation of the particular department if we believe it would be best, for purposes of efficiency or morale, that no one outside of the department, not even the Court, should see them." No Basis for Claims of Military Secrets - Biddle argues that because of responses he has received to his demands over the course of this lawsuit, he is relatively sure there are no military secrets contained within them. "[T]he proof is to the contrary," he says, and goes on to say that had the Air Force disclosed from the outset that the plane crash, the fatal accident that sparked the original lawsuit (see October 6, 1948), was probably caused by pilot error and not by random chance, the plaintiffs may have never needed to ask for the disclosure of the documents in question, the accident reports on the crash (see October 18, 1948). "The secretary [of the Air Force]'s formal claim of privilege said that the plane at the time was engaged in a secret mission and that it carried confidential equipment," Biddle says, "but nowhere was it asserted that either had anything to do with the accident. The whole purpose of the demand by the respondents was for the purpose of finding out what caused the accident.… They were not in the least interested in the secret mission or equipment." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 165-170]
Entity Tags: US Supreme Court, Albert Maris, Robert Stern, US Department of the Air Force, Charles Biddle
In their regular Saturday conference, the nine Supreme Court justices discuss the issues and arguments surrounding US v Reynolds (see October 21, 1952). According to the notes from the discussion, Chief Justice Fred Vinson, a strong advocate for expansive executive powers (see March 1952), says the case "boils down to Executive Branch determine privilege." Other notes by Justice William O. Douglas suggest that Vinson isn't convinced that the US must "be forced to pay for exercising its privilege" (see October 12, 1950). A straw vote taken at the end of the discussion shows five justices in favor of the government's position to unilaterally withhold classified documents—overturning the appellate court decision (see December 11, 1951), and four in favor of allowing the decision to stand. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 171]
Entity Tags: Fred Vinson, US Supreme Court, William O. Douglas
Chief Justice Fred Vinson. [Source: Kansas State Historical Society]The US Supreme Court upholds the power of the federal government's executive branch to withhold documents from a civil suit on the basis of executive privilege and national security (see October 25, 1952). The case, US v Reynolds, overturns an appellate court decision that found against the government (see December 11, 1951). Originally split 5-4 on the decision, the Court goes to 6-3 when Justice William O. Douglas joins the majority. The three dissenters, Justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, and Robert Jackson, refuse to write a dissenting opinion, instead adopting the decision of the appellate court as their dissent. 'State Secrets' a Valid Reason for Keeping Documents out of Judicial, Public Eye - Chief Justice Fred Vinson writes the majority opinion. Vinson refuses to grant the executive branch the near-unlimited power to withhold documents from judicial review, as the government's arguments before the court implied (see October 21, 1952), but instead finds what he calls a "narrower ground for defense" in the Tort Claims Act, which compels the production of documents before a court only if they are designated "not privileged." The government's claim of privilege in the Reynolds case was valid, Vinson writes. But the ruling goes farther; Vinson upholds the claim of "state secrets" as a reason for withholding documents from judicial review or public scrutiny. In 2008, author Barry Siegel will write: "In truth, only now was the Supreme Court formally recognizing the privilege, giving the government the precedent it sought, a precedent binding on all courts throughout the nation. Most important, the Court was also—for the first time—spelling out how the privilege should be applied." Siegel will call the Reynolds ruling "an effort to weigh competing legitimate interests," but the ruling does not allow judges to see the documents in order to make a decision about their applicability in a court case: "By instructing judges not to insist upon examining documents if the government can satisfy that 'a reasonable danger' to national security exists, Vinson was asking jurists to fly blind." Siegel will mark the decision as "an act of faith. We must believe the government," he will write, "when it claims [the accident] would reveal state secrets. We must trust that the government is telling the truth." Time of Heightened Tensions Drives Need for Secrecy - Vinson goes on to note, "[W]e cannot escape judicial notice that this is a time of vigorous preparation for the national defense." Locked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and fighting a war in Korea, the US is, Vinson writes, in a time of crisis, and one where military secrets must be kept and even encouraged. [U. S. v. Reynolds, 3/9/1953; Siegel, 2008, pp. 171-176] Future Ramifications - Reflecting on the decision in 2008, Siegel will write that while the case will not become as well known as many other Court decisions, it will wield significant influence. The ruling "formally recognized and established the framework for the government's 'state secrets' privilege—a privilege that for decades had enabled federal agencies to conceal conduct, withhold documents, and block civil litigation, all in the name of national secrecy.… By encouraging judicial deference when the government claimed national security secrets, Reynolds had empowered the Executive Branch in myriad ways. Among other things, it had provided a fundamental legal argument for much of the Bush administration's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Enemy combatants such as Yaser Esam Hamdi (see December 2001) and Jose Padilla (see June 10, 2002), for many months confined without access to lawyers, had felt the breath of Reynolds. So had the accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui when federal prosecutors defied a court order allowing him access to other accused terrorists (see March 22, 2005). So had the Syrian-Canadian Maher Arar (see September 26, 2002), like dozens of others the subject of a CIA extraordinary rendition to a secret foreign prison (see After September 11, 2001). So had hundreds of detainees at the US Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, held without charges or judicial review (see September 27, 2001). So had millions of American citizens, when President Bush, without judicial knowledge or approval, authorized domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency (see Early 2002). US v. Reynolds made all this possible. The bedrock of national security law, it had provided a way for the Executive Branch to formalize an unprecedented power and immunity, to pull a veil of secrecy over its actions." [Siegel, 2008, pp. ix-x]
Entity Tags: William O. Douglas, Zacarias Moussaoui, US Supreme Court, Yaser Esam Hamdi, Robert Jackson, Jose Padilla, Felix Frankfurter, Bush administration (43), Fred Vinson, Barry Siegel, George W. Bush, Hugo Black, Maher Arar
Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Court Procedures and Verdicts, Expansion of Presidential Power, State Secrets, Government Classification
A federal court rules that because of the government's "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953), a civilian plaintiff suing the US Navy over a contractual agreement cannot even access "non-privileged," or unclassified, information from the Navy because to do so might "threaten disclosure" of material that goes against "the overriding interest of the United States… preservation of its state secrets privilege precludes any further attempt to pursue litigation." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 196-197]
Entity Tags: US Department of the Navy
In the second of two rulings in the case of Halkin v Helms, the judiciary comes down squarely on the side of the US government against charges of illegal surveillance and wiretapping leveled against American anti-war protesters. The district and appellate courts uphold the federal government's "state secrets" claim as codified in US v Reynolds (see March 9, 1953), thereby denying the plaintiffs the right to see government information that they claim would prove their case. The DC Court of Appeals writes that the federal courts do not have any constitutional role as "continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of Executive action," and instead the courts "should accord utmost deference to executive assertions of privilege on grounds of military or diplomatic secrets… courts need only be satisfied that there is a reasonable danger" that military secrets might be exposed. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 196-196]
The DC Court of Appeals rejects a claim by civilian plaintiffs to force the government to disclose classified information as part of a lawsuit, citing the "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953). Furthermore, the court broadens the definition of "state secrets" to include "disclosure of intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities and disruption of diplomatic relations." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 197]
A lawsuit against the FBI's investigation of a sixth-grade boy and his school project to create an "encyclopedia of the world" is stopped when an appeals court rules that the agency is shielded by the "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953). Unable to secure information from the FBI as to why it investigated him, the child had therefore "failed to sustain his burden of proof [and] the cause of action was properly dismissed." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 197]
Entity Tags: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Category Tags: Freedom of Speech / Religion, Court Procedures and Verdicts, Government Acting in Secret, State Secrets
A US appellate court refuses to find a number of military contractors liable in the death of Earl Patton Ryals, who died with 36 of his fellow crewmen in the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark (see May 17, 1987 and After). Ryals's estate claims that he and his fellows died in part because of negligence on the part of the contractors who designed, manufactured, tested, and marketed the weapons system on board the Stark, including the Phalanx anti-missile system. In turning down the estate's claim, the court cites the government's "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953), saying that the facts of the issue could not be resolved without examining classified Navy documents. And even without this reason, the court rules, Ryals's estate cannot see the documents because the case presents "a political question" about military decision-making that is not subject to judicial review. [Zuckerbraun v. General Dynamics Corp., 6/13/1991; Siegel, 2008, pp. 197-198] A year later, a similar case will be dismissed on the grounds that a trial might conceivably reveal "state secrets" (see September 16, 1992).
Entity Tags: Earl Patton Ryals, US Department of the Navy
Category Tags: Court Procedures and Verdicts, Government Acting in Secret, Government Classification, State Secrets
A federal appeals court upholds the dismissal of a lawsuit filed on behalf of 23 Navy sailors killed in the attack on the USS Stark (see May 17, 1987 and After) against a number of defense contractors. A similar lawsuit on behalf of one of the sailors killed in the attack was dismissed a year before (see June 13, 1991). This time the plaintiffs file over 2,500 pages of unclassified documentary evidence supporting their claims that the contractors were negligent in their design and implementation of the weapons systems aboard the Stark. The appeals court finds that regardless of the amount of evidence entered, to allow the trial would be to potentially infringe on the US government's "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953). "[N]o amount of effort could safeguard the privileged information," the court rules. The court adds that "classified and unclassified information cannot always be separated, and therefore courts must restrict access not only to classified material, but to "those pieces of evidence" that "press so closely upon highly sensitive material that they create a hgh risk of inadvertent or indirect disclosures." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 198]
Sheila E. Witnall, the secretary of the Air Force, declassifies all Air Force accident reports prior to January 25, 1956. The declassification includes the 1948 crash of the B-29 bomber that killed nine of 13 crew members during a secret "Project Banshee" mission (see October 6, 1948). The formerly classified reports had been at the heart of the case of US v Reynolds (see March 9, 1953) that sparked the so-called "state secrets" privilege. Four years after the declassification, the daughter of one of the slain civilians on board, Judy Palya Loether, finds the accident report on the Internet; the discovery spurs her to begin looking into the circumstances of her father's death, and ultimately will result in a second lawsuit being filed on behalf of the families of the slain crewmen (see February 26, 2003). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 205-208]
Entity Tags: Project Banshee, Sheila E. Witnall, Judy Palya Loether, US Department of the Air Force
Category Tags: Government Classification, State Secrets
Judy Palya Loether. [Source: SecrecyFilm (.com)]Judy Palya Loether, the daughter of a civilian engineer killed in a 1948 plane crash while on a secret government mission (see October 6, 1948), reads over the voluminous reports of the accident that claimed her father's life. The reports, now declassified (see January 1996), had been at the heart of a landmark lawsuit that gave judicial recognition to the government's "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953). Loether is shocked to find that the reports contain nothing that could be construed as military or tactical secrets of any kind, though for decades the government has insisted that they could not be revealed, even to a judge (see October 18, 1948, July 26, 1950, August 7-8, 1950, September 21, 1950, and October 19, 1951). What they do contain is a compendium of witness statements and expert findings that indicate a number of mistakes and errors led to the crash. Loether begins contacting the families of the widows who had filed the original lawsuit against the government (seeJune 21, 1949) to share her findings. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 210-211] Loether is confused and angered over the contents of the reports, and the government's response to the lawsuit. She cannot understand why the government pressed so hard to keep the reports classified, knowing that they contained no sensitive information about the secret missile program, and is particularly troubled by the fact that at least two senior government officials signed affidavits affirming the reports' inclusion of such information while knowing that the reports contained nothing of the sort. She wonders if government officials had perhaps decided to lie about the reports in order to establish some sort of state secrets privilege. In September 2002, lawyers Wilson Brown and Jeff Almeida, retained by Loether and others who lost family members in the crash, come to the same conclusion. As Almeida will say to Brown: "I've read this report. There's nothing in there." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 219] As time goes on, Loether and her colleagues files a second lawsuit seeking to overturn the first Supreme Court verdict (see February 26, 2003).
Entity Tags: Wilson Brown, Jeff Almeida, Judy Palya Loether
Lawyers Wilson Brown and Jeff Almeida file a request with the Supreme Court, asking it to reconsider its landmark 1953 case, US v Reynolds (see March 9, 1953). The lawyers are representing several family members who lost fathers (and, in one case, a husband) in the airplane crash that led to the original case (see October 6, 1948). The lawyers note that the government's original claim that the accident reports could not be released due to the inclusion of "military secrets" (see July 26, 1950) is false, as the accident reports have been declassified and examined for such secrets (see February 2000). "Indeed," the lawyers write, "they are no more than accounts of a flight that, due to the Air Force's negligence, went tragically awry. In telling the Court otherwise, the Air Force lied. In reliance upon that lie, the Court deprived the widows [the three original plaintiffs] of their judgments. It is for this Court, through issuance of a writ of error coram nobis and in exercise of its inherent power to remedy fraud, to put things right… United States v. Reynolds stands as a classic 'fraud on the court,' one that is most remarkable because it succeeded in tainting a decision of our nation's highest tribunal." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 249-251] On July 26, 2002, one of the plaintiffs, Judy Palya Loether, wrote in an e-mail to Brown: "US v Reynolds has come to be a landmark case that is used by the government when it claims that documents cannot be turned over to the courts because of national security. Yet this very case is now proven, in my mind, to be based on a lie that did injury to 3 widows and 5 little children (see February 2000)… It allowed the government an area of no checks and balances (see December 11, 1951). How many times has the government used this decision, not to protect national security, but for its own purposes?" [Siegel, 2008, pp. 237-238]
Entity Tags: Judy Palya Loether, Jeff Almeida, US Supreme Court, US Department of the Air Force, Wilson Brown
Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Government Acting in Secret, Government Classification, State Secrets
Wilson Brown, who has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking that it reconsider its landmark 1953 US v Reynolds case (see March 9, 1953), receives an e-mail from Alison Massagli of the White House's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Massagli, who learned of the petition from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, wants a copy of Brown's petition. Brown notices that Massagli sent a copy of the e-mail to Catherine Lotrionete of the National Security Council. Brown is pleased that the case has garnered some attention. He e-mails the plaintiffs he is representing, saying, "I thought you would find it interesting that at least one arm of the Executive Branch is interested in our case." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 257]
Entity Tags: National Security Council, Alison Massagli, Issuetsdeah, US Supreme Court, Wilson Brown, Catherine Lotrionete
Solicitor General Theodore Olson submits a response to the request that the Supreme Court reopen the 1953 state secrets case US v Reynolds (see February 26, 2003). Olson argues that once a decision has been made, it should be respected—"the law favors finality," he writes. More surprisingly to the plaintiffs and their lawyers, Olson argues that there was no fraud perpetuated in the original case, a position hard to defend in the face of the declassified accident reports that were the heart of that case (see February 2000 and February 26, 2003). The accident reports never contained military secrets or secret information of any kind, a claim that the Court's 1953 decision hinged on, but Olson argues that because of the wording of the claims—releasing the reports to the original plaintiffs "might lead to disclosure" of classified information—then the old claims of protecting state secrets are still technically valid (see March 9, 1953). Olson echoes the author of the original Supreme Court opinion, Fred Vinson, by reminding the Court that "[t]he claim of privilege in this case was made in 1950, at a time in the nation's history—during the twilight of World War II and the dawn of the Cold War—when the country, and especially the military, was uniquely sensitive to need for 'vigorous preparation for national defense.'… The allegations of fraud made by the petition in this case… must be viewed in that light." The lawyer for the plaintiffs in the petition, Wilson Brown, is both angered and impressed by what he calls Olson's "remarkable obfuscation." By hiding behind the vague wording of the original claims of state secrets, Olson is implying that this case must turn on factual issues—and therefore should be heard in a lower court, not the Supreme Court. Brown, in his response co-written by colleague Jeff Almeida, calls Olson's arguments "disingenuous" and insists that the plaintiffs' original case "had been vitiated through fraud." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 261-264]
Entity Tags: Fred Vinson, Bush administration (43), Jeff Almeida, US Supreme Court, Wilson Brown, Theodore ("Ted") Olson
Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Government Classification, State Secrets
Constitutional lawyers and experts believe that the Supreme Court will not accept the petition to reopen the landmark US v Reynolds case (see February 26, 2003 and May 30, 2003). Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies says that the petition is essentially frivolous, and says of the claim that Reynolds was decided on the basis of a fraudulent government presentation: "That the facts of the original case are not true is irrelevant to the state secrets privilege (see March 9, 1953). The idea that it undercuts the privilege is ridiculous. Often in cases, after they're decided, the facts are proven not to be true. That's the nature of the legal system. Sometimes people lie. Sometimes there's new information." Law professor Jonathan Turley is more sympathetic to the petition, but agrees that the Supreme Court will probably not hear it: "For the Supreme Court to address the fact clearly that it had been lied to would open difficult issues.… The Court used the facts of Reynolds to say the government could be trusted.… Reynolds was based on trust, on willful blinders. There's much danger in going back now, in recognizing that the government routinely lies. They're not going to face that. They won't reopen this. I think Reynolds is like discovering an unfaithful wife after fifty years of marriage. You're hurt by the betrayal, but you can't turn back half a century. You preserve the marriage for the children's sake" (see December 1980, September 1982, November 1984, January 1990, June 13, 1991, and September 16, 1992). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 266-267]
Entity Tags: US Supreme Court, Jonathan Turley, Center for National Security Studies, Kate Martin
Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Court Procedures and Verdicts, Government Classification, State Secrets
The Supreme Court refuses to hear a petition to reopen the 1953 state secrets case US v Reynolds (see February 26, 2003). It issues a one-sentence ruling: "The motion for leave to file a writ of error coram nobis is denied." Plaintiff Judy Palya Loether says: "Maybe the law isn't about right or wrong. The concept that the government lied to the Supreme Court (see February 2000) seemed to me a terrible thing to do. It appears that the justices were not as appalled as I was." Further attempts to reopen the case in lower courts will also fail. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 267-298]
Entity Tags: US Supreme Court, Judy Palya Loether
Lawyers for accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, battling to force the US government to allow them to depose other accused terrorists as part of their defense (see May 14, 2003), contact Jeff Almeida, the lawyer for the plaintiffs who sought to reopen the 1953 state secrets case US v Reynolds. They ask how his petition for coram nobis—a request for the court to "right a wrong"—went. Almeida tells them that the Court turned the petition down without comment (see June 23, 2003). Moussaoui's lawyers tell Almeida that the government prosecutors were so reliant on Reynolds that "they had been waving it around the courtroom any chance they got." Plaintiff Susan Brauner later says that she is glad Moussaoui's lawyers contacted Almeida, and says she finds their interest "most encouraging." She will add, "If we eventually walk away with nothing more than one concrete example where the case was of possible use to someone else… then I will believe we have done some good in impacting or at least raising the issue." [Siegel, 2008, pp. 272-273]
Entity Tags: Zacarias Moussaoui, US Supreme Court, Jeff Almeida, Susan Brauner
The Bush administration submits a legal brief arguing that the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T, alleging that firm cooperated with the NSA's domestic surveillance program (see January 31, 2006), should be thrown out of court because of the government's "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953). Justice Department lawyers want Judge Vaughn Walker to examine classified documents that they say will convince him to dismiss the lawsuit. However, the government does not want the defense lawyers to see that material. "No aspect of this case can be litigated without disclosing state secrets," the government argues. "The United States has not lightly invoked the state secrets privilege, and the weighty reasons for asserting the privilege are apparent from the classified material submitted in support of its assertion." [CNET News, 5/26/2006]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Electronic Frontier Foundation, AT&T, Vaughn Walker, Bush administration (43)
Category Tags: Privacy, Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Government Acting in Secret, Government Classification, Database Programs, NSA Wiretapping / Stellar Wind, State Secrets
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) files a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA), President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, former Cheney chief of staff David Addington, and other members of the Bush administration. The EFF claims the lawsuit is "on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal unconstitutional and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records." The EFF is referring to its ongoing lawsuit against AT&T and other telecommunications firms, which it accuses of colluding with the NSA to illegally monitor American citizens' domestic communications (see December 15, 2005). The case, the EFF writes, "is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it." After January 2009, the newly elected Obama administration will challenge the lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, on the grounds that to defend itself against the lawsuit, the government would be required to disclose "state secrets" (see Late May, 2006). The government used similar arguments to quash the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T (see April 28, 2006), arguments which were rejected by a judge (see July 20, 2006). [Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2009] The suit will be dismissed (see January 21, 2010).
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Alberto R. Gonzales, AT&T, Bush administration (43), David S. Addington, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Obama administration, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, National Security Agency
Category Tags: Freedom of Speech / Religion, Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Privacy, Court Procedures and Verdicts, State Secrets, NSA Wiretapping / Stellar Wind
Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder says that if he is confirmed, he intends to review current litigation in which the Bush administration asserted the so-called "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953), and that he intends to minimize the use of the privilege during his tenure. "I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ [the Justice Department] has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations," he writes in a response to pre-confirmation questions. (Shortly after Holder's testimony, the Justice Department again asserts the "state secrets" privilege in a case involving a Guantanamo detainee—see February 9, 2009). Holder adds: "I firmly believe that transparency is a key to good government. Openness allows the public to have faith that its government obeys the law." To a related question, he asserts his belief that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) must disclose as many of the opinions it generates as possible: "Once the new assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel is confirmed, I plan to instruct that official to review the OLC's policies relating to publication of its opinions with the [objective] of making its opinions available to the maximum extent consistent with sound practice and competing concerns." [Federation of American Scientists, 2/2/2009; Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/2/2009] Weeks later, the Justice Department will release nine controversial OLC memos from the Bush administration (see March 2, 2009).
Entity Tags: Eric Holder, Bush administration (43), Office of Legal Counsel (DOJ), US Department of Justice
Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, State Secrets
A Justice Department official says that the Obama administration will continue to assert the so-called "state secrets privilege" (see March 9, 1953) in a lawsuit filed by Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed (see February 8, 2009). In the case Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc, Mohamed and four former detainees are suing a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, for cooperating with the CIA in subjecting them to "extraordinary rendition," flying them to foreign countries and secret overseas CIA prisons where, they say, they were tortured. The case was thrown out a year ago, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has appealed it. According to a source inside the Ninth US District Court, a Justice Department lawyer tells the presiding judge that its position has not changed, that the new administration stands behind arguments that the previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The lawyer says the entire subject matter remains a state secret. According to Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller, "It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases, consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds that the privilege not 'be lightly invoked.'" Miller adds that Attorney General Eric Holder is conducting a review of all state secret privilege matters. "The Attorney General has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the State Secrets privilege to ensure that the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations," Miller says. "It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security. The Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know. This administration will be transparent and open, consistent with our national security obligations." The ACLU's Anthony Romero says that the Obama administration is doing little besides offering "more of the same." He continues: "Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition, and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again." ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, who argued the case for Mohamed and the other plaintiffs, adds: "We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration's practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government's false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court." [ABC News, 2/9/2009]
Entity Tags: Binyam Mohamed, Anthony D. Romero, American Civil Liberties Union, Ben Wizner, US Department of Justice, Obama administration, Eric Holder, Central Intelligence Agency, Matthew Miller, Jeppesen Dataplan
Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, Court Procedures and Verdicts, State Secrets, Gov't Violations of Prisoner Rights
A federal appeals court rejects the Obama administration's assertion that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department had requested an emergency stay in a case brought by a defunct Islamic charity, the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (see February 28, 2006). Al Haramain has asked that classified information be made available to the court to prove its case that the electronic surveillance brought to bear against it by the government was illegal; Justice Department lawyers contend that the information needs to remain classified and unavailable to the court, and cite the "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953) as legal justification. Although the court rejects the request for the stay, Justice Department lawyers say they will continue fighting to keep the information secret. "The government respectfully requests that the court refrain from further actions to provide plaintiffs with access to classified information," says a filing made by the Justice Department in regards to the ruling. A lawyer for Al Haramain, Steven Goldberg, says: "All we wanted was our day in court and it looks like we're finally going to get our day in court. This case is all about challenging an assertion of power by the executive branch which is extraordinary." The American Civil Liberties Union's Ann Brick says the court has now crafted a way to review the issue in which "national security isn't put at risk, but the rule of law can still be observed." [Associated Press, 2/27/2009] Days later, the Justice Department will file a brief announcing its intention to refuse to honor the appeals court's decision (see March 2, 2009).
Entity Tags: Obama administration, Ann Brick, Steven Goldberg, US Department of Justice, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation
Category Tags: Impositions on Rights and Freedoms, State Secrets, NSA Wiretapping / Stellar Wind
The Justice Department defies a recent court order (see February 27, 2009) and refuses to provide a document that might prove the Bush administration conducted illegal wiretaps on a now-defunct Islamic charity. The Justice Department files a brief with a California federal district court challenging the court's right to carry out its own decision to make that evidence available in a pending lawsuit. Even though the document is critical to the lawsuit, the lawyers can obtain the necessary top-secret clearances, and the document would not be made public, the Justice Department claims that the document cannot be entered into evidence. The lawyers for Al Haramain, the Islamic charity and the plaintiffs in the suit, calls the Justice Department's decision "mind-boggling." Government's Position - For its part, the Justice Department writes in a brief that the decision to release the document "is committed to the discretion of the executive branch, and is not subject to judicial review." The document has been in the possession of the court since 2004, when the government inadvertently released it to the plaintiffs. In the same brief, the Justice Department writes: "If the Court intends to itself grant access to classified information directly to the plaintiffs' counsel, the government requests that the Court again provide advance notice of any such order, as well as an ex parte, in camera description of the information it intends to disclose, to enable the government to either make its own determination about whether counsel has a need to know, or to withdraw that information from submission to the Court and use in this case. If the Court rejects either action by the government, the government again requests that the Court stay proceedings while the government considers whether to appeal any such order." The statement is an implied threat that the Justice Department lawyers will themselves physically remove the document from the court files if the judge says he has the right to allow Al Haramain's lawyers to see it. Response from Plaintiff's Attorney - Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer for Al-Haramain, says in an e-mail: "It's a not-so-thinly veiled threat to send executive branch authorities (the FBI? the Army?) to Judge [Virginia] Walker's chambers to seize the classified material from his files! In my view, that would be an unprecedented violation of the constitutional separation of powers. I doubt anything like it has happened in the history of this country." Eisenberg says that the Obama administration, through the Justice Department, "seems to be provoking a separation-of-powers confrontation with Judge Walker." Administration's Second Use of State Secrets - This is the second time the Obama administration has invoked the "state secrets" privilege to keep information secret (see February 9, 2009). Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) says: "In the Bush administration, the state secrets doctrine was used to buttress the power of the president and make it difficult if not impossible to contest such issues as presidential authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping in the United States. We would think that when such disagreements occur, it's properly before the judiciary to resolve them. But the Bush administration asserted the state secrets doctrine for the purpose of making it effectively impossible for courts to review the matter." The Al Haramain case is significant because of "the apparent willingness of the Obama administration's Justice Department to carry further that same argument in federal court. It is of great concern." [Washington Independent, 3/2/2009]
Entity Tags: Obama administration, Bush administration (43), Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Jon Eisenberg, US Department of Justice, Marc Rotenberg, Virginia Walker
Category Tags: Other Legal Changes, State Secrets, NSA Wiretapping / Stellar Wind
A US District Court judge awards damages in a lawsuit, finding the NSA illegally monitored the calls of the plaintiffs. The Al Haramain Islamic Foundation and two of its lawyers, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, sued the US government in 2006 based on evidence that their calls had been monitored; the US Treasury Department inadvertently provided them with an NSA log in August 2004 showing their calls had been monitored in May of that year (see February 28, 2006). In defending against the suit, the Justice Department argued, first under President Bush and then under President Obama, that the case should be dismissed based on the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege (see March 9, 1953) concerning the NSA log, and that the plaintiffs could not otherwise demonstrate that surveillance had occurred, meaning the plaintiffs had no standing to bring suit. Judge Vaughn Walker rejected these arguments, noting that the plaintiffs had introduced into evidence a speech posted on FBI's Web site by FBI Deputy Director John Pistole to the American Bankers Association (ABA), in which he said that surveillance had been used to develop a case by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against Al-Haramain, and Congressional testimony by Bush administration officials that disclosed the manner in which electronic surveillance was conducted. In the summary of his decision, Vaughn wrote, "[The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA takes precedence over the state secrets privilege in this case," and "defendants have failed to meet their burden to [provide] evidence that a FISA warrant was obtained, that plaintiffs were not surveilled or that the surveillance was otherwise lawful." [Al-Haramain v. Obama, 3/31/2010; Washington Post, 4/1/2010, pp. A04]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Asim Ghafoor, Anthony J. Coppolino, Alberto R. Gonzales, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (Oregon branch), "Justice Department", Barack Obama, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, Suliman al-Buthe, Keith Alexander, Eric Holder, US Department of the Treasury, Wendell Belew, Vaughn Walker, National Security Agency
Category Tags: State Secrets, Database Programs, NSA Wiretapping / Stellar Wind
Freedoms and Responsibilities
Legal Changes
Media Involvement and Responses
Prisoner Rights
US Elections, Voting, and Campaign Finance
Receive weekly email updates summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database
Developing and maintaining this site is very labor intensive. If you find it useful, please give us a hand and donate what you can.Donate Now
If you would like to help us with this effort, please contact us. We need help with programming (Java, JDO, mysql, and xml), design, networking, and publicity. If you want to contribute information to this site, click the register link at the top of the page, and start contributing.Contact Us
Except where otherwise noted,
the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thank you for your interest in the Builders Home & Remodeling Show. From this page you can download high-resolution Show logos as eps files, download high-resolution Show photos and access Show press releases. You can also view and download the Show's :15 TV commercials and listen to and download the :30 radio spot. If you need further information, please contact Ellen Viehmann at (314) 817-5620.
Heading for commercials? You'll find last year's Home & Remodeling Show Commercials. This year's commercials will be available two weeks prior to the Show.
The Home Builders Association of St. Louis and Eastern Missouri (HBA) began in 1934 when seven builders started the Builder's Guild. Since then, the HBA has grown to nearly 600 members representing the local residential construction industry in the City of St. Louis and the counties of St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson, Lincoln, Pike, Montgomery, Franklin, Warren and Washington. The St. Louis HBA is one of the most active local building industry associations in the country.
The association helps create a region that promotes and protects the viability of the building industry by serving its members who strive to meet the housing needs of its neighbors.
The HBA educates its members in the best practices and latest trends in the home building industry. Working with government and elected officials to keep housing affordable is another important role for the HBA.
The HBA also helps prospective home buyers by providing free tips to help them through the home buying process.
In 1997, the Home Builders Charitable Foundation (HBCF) was created. The HBCF is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing assistance in housing to people or organizations with special shelter needs to further the building industry objective of bettering the community. Since its inception, the HBCF has provided more than $1.9 million in funding, materials and labor to shelter related local charities.
Click here to learn more about the HBA.
Search 2019 Show ExhibitorsSearch 2018 Show Exhibitors


text:
| 8°C Belfast
Darren Aronofsky has said he has won a battle with studio bosses on the final cut of his biblical epic Noah.
The Black Swan director told The Hollywood Reporter that Paramount executives edited their own version of the film following negative reactions from test screenings in the US, believed to be from audiences with strong religious beliefs. Noah stars Russell Crowe as the hero who builds a giant ark to save his family from the end of the world.
But Darren insisted the version being released in cinemas will be his own, as the Hollywood execs version tested no better than his.
"They tried what they wanted to try, and eventually they came back," he said. "My version of the film hasn't been tested ... It's what we wrote and what was greenlighted."
The Wrestler director gave up his rights to final cut the film, which also stars Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins and Emma Watson, in exchange for Noah's massive 130 million dollar (£77.8 million) budget. Paramount is said to have tried up to six different versions of the movie on test audiences.
Darren admitted "there was a rough patch" with the studio.
"I was upset - of course," he admitted. "No one's ever done that to me."
Some audience members are said to have reacted badly to scenes in which Noah gets drunk and considers taking extreme measures to wipe out mankind. Many complained that the film inaccurately represented the biblical story it is based on, despite the fact that a scene in which Noah has one too many after finding land with his Ark does appear in the Bible.
Darren said: "My guys and I were pretty sure that because of the nature of the film and how we work, there wasn't another version. That's what I told them... the scenes were so interconnected - if you started unwinding scenes, I just knew there would be holes. I showed it to film-maker friends, and they said the DNA was set in this film."


text:
Art For Obama Auction
It may be 4:50 am and I may be bleary-eyed from checking the press every hour but I have to step out of bookprintingland to remind some of you that an important auction of artwork is coming up and the proceeds will go towards helping Barack Obama win the Presidency of the United States. You've probably been hearing a lot about this among the other blogs, but the auction - Art For Obama - is going to take place from 5 pm on October 1 to October 8. The list of artists who have donated work is stunning to say the least - Emmett Gowin, Larry Sultan, Susan Meiselas, Jim Goldberg, Alec Soth, Richard Misrach, Todd Hido, Tim Davis and many, many more.
Now, I have to say that I am not a person whose chest is swollen with patriotic pride -- basically my parents birthed me here (As a young spermatozoa I was trying to tell them "screw in Sweden, screw in Sweden" but I didn't have a mouth). But what I can say is that this country has suffered enough under organ-grinder Cheney and his monkey. Obama is speaking on real issues while the others are trying desperately to distract and derail real discussion, so help get his ideas heard through participating in this auction. What is left of the middle class is under attack economically and if we allow McCain and Palin to take over the White House we might as well just throw in the towel and move because my friends - the terrorists have really won. We can't possibly be that stupid, misinformed, distracted and eager to shoot our own feet, right? Well I've learned to fear what goes on behind voting curtains and I think you should too.
Meanwhile, I'm going to buy a Swedish dictionary and practice my numbers while counting along as these auctions end.
(Thanks to Bill Hicks RIP)


text:
Baltimore's Board of Estimates on Wednesday approved a Bavarian-style Christmas Village to be open daily at the Inner Harbor's West Shore Park from Thanksgiving through Christmas. It will feature some 60 vendors, traditional German food and even a visit from Christkind (a blond-haired angel who's the German version of Santa Claus).
Most vendors — about 40 — will be housed in a giant tent to be pitched in the park, with 20 or so more set up at booths outside. The village's anchor will be Kathe Wohlfahrt, who specializes in handcrafted wooden holiday ornaments and collectibles. The operators also hope to have a carousel and other kids' rides available on-site, said Katharina Voigt, marketing manger for German American Marketing Inc., which has operated a holiday Christmas Village in Philadelphia since 2008.
The company will pay the city $20,000 in fees.


text:
Are you looking for an all-you-can use 4G LTE data plan? It looks like once again, Sprint, will be your only option. The carrier has confirmed that it will provide unlimited 4G LTE to its customers without data caps.
According to Techhog, a Sprint PR spokesperson has confirmed that the carrier's network will provide true uncapped 4G LTE data.
The selection of smartphone options will be slim at first — Sprint's first 4G LTE device will be the LG Viper 4G LTE — but dude, you have to get it while unlimited is still hanging around.
U.S. & World
When compared to Verizon's 1GB ($20) 2GB ($30), 5GB ($50) and 10GB ($80) plans or AT&T's 250MB ($15), 3GB ($30) and 5GB ($50) plans, Sprint's data buffet is perfect for video streaming hogs. No more freaking out about going over your monthly data allowance.
And if the new super fast 4G LTE iPad ever makes its way to Sprint, you can bet your seahorses that Sprint could steal a lot of customers away from Big Red and the Old Bell.
Every major carrier might have moved on to tiered data plans, but good ol' Sprint is still sticking to its unlimited guns. Good for them.
Via Techhog


text:
For this week's challenge, it is anything goes -- just link up your holiday or Christmas card below.
Now for what our fabulous designers came up with. As always, you can click on the names above the projects to be taken directly to their blogs for additional information about their cards.


text:
Photovoltaic Manufacturing R&D Project
NREL's Photovoltaic (PV) Manufacturing Research and Development (R&D) Project was a cost-shared partnership between NREL and a number of private-sector solar companies. The primary project goals were to reduce costs for consumers and solar companies by improving products and manufacturing processes and ensure the U.S. solar industry maintained a strong market position in a rapidly expanding global marketplace.
NREL and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated the project in 1991 as the Photovoltaic Manufacturing Technology (PVMaT) project, a 5-year venture to enhance the U.S. PV industry's leadership in PV manufacturing. In 2001, NREL extended this highly successful project and renamed it the PV Manufacturing R&D Project.
Since its inception, the project issued more than 70 subcontracts to some 40 solar companies. Total project funding through fiscal year 2005 was $151.4 million in DOE funding and $137.5 million in industry funding with another $33 million in DOE/industry cost share spent the remaining 3 years. In 2007, many of the research projects were incorporated into the current portfolio of the DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program.
A summary of the project's accomplishments and awards is available.
The following reports provide in-depth information on outcomes of the PV Manufacturing R&D project.
- Lessons Learned from the Photovoltaic Manufacturing Technology and PV Manufacturing R&D and Thin-Film PV Partnership Projects. 2006.
- PV Manufacturing R&D Project Status and Accomplishments under "In-Line Diagnostics and Intelligent Processing" and "Yield, Durability and Reliability"
Visit the NREL publications database to find related technical papers, reports, and presentations.


text:
Frank Zappa Showing How To Deviate From The Norm
Serious Play
Okay seriously, Frank Zappa was likely from another dimension or a genius. Maybe both?
As you hopefully know, Zappa (1940-1993) was one of the most innovative musicians of the 20th century. He led the sixties California psychedelic music scene and then went on to compose mind bending jazz and classical compositions. He was a prolific composer and also a hero of free speech by speaking out against proposed censorship laws in the '80's.
Frank Zappa was one of the first to try tearing down the barriers between rock, jazz, and classical music. In the late Sixties his Mothers of Invention would slip from Stravinsky's "Petroushka" into The Dovells' "Bristol Stomp" before breaking down into saxophone squeals inspired by Albert Ayler
The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll
On The Steve Allen Show
Recently I came across this old television broadcast of Frank Zappa appearing on the Steve Allen show in 1963. On the show, Zappa demonstrates and conducts an orchestra around making 'music' with a bicycle. I had to share this video because there is so much in it for learning about creativity.
In 1963 The Status Quo Ruled
Think about the time period of when he appeared on the show, 1963! The Cuban missile crisis (1962) had just happened, no one had gone to the moon, the Beatles hadn't taken LSD yet and America was a pretty stiff place. Status quo ruled and you can hear its vibration in the audience as they laugh at Zappa's demo. The counterculture, innovation and exploration of the sixties was a couple years away and yet there's Zappa confidently experimenting with sound and seeming to not care what people think.
Check out the video clip and then the key points below of how it relates to creativity
Asking What Else Can I Do With It?
The sounds Zappa demonstrates are likely not going to be appealing in any kind of melodic, traditional way. What is quite striking in terms of creativity is how Zappa takes something like a bike and wonders how he could get interesting sounds out of it and then experiments and plays with the whole thing. This is what creative innovators do, they look at something from lots of different angles and wonder things like, what else can I do with it? Creative play may seem absurd at first because it's new, maybe awkward and doesn't fit a known pattern, but it's something that leads to people eventually finding useful insights to act on. So, be confidently weird and think about things in ways others have never dared to explore.
Question Assumptions
The odd music Zappa makes on the show also might cause you to wonder what music really is and why we consider the odd sounds coming from the bike not to be music. Is it not music because it doesn't sound like something we're used to? Really, what makes us know a sound is music? Creative people question their assumptions and biases so that they can open up new thinking. So, we can remember Zappa's example and apply critical thinking and questioning when we catch ourselves seeing the world the same old way.
Fearless Creative Confidence
Notice how confident Zappa is when describing to Steve Allen what he's going to do and with how confidently he "plays" the bikes. He's totally confident and admits he's only played "the bicycle" for 2 weeks. It's hard to be creative when fear is dominant and sometimes a way around it is just jumping in and confidently experimenting and improvising. You have to not care about failing. Zappa was so fearless he went on a TV show as a composer in his early career and messed around with making music from a bike. That's impressive. Zappa never went on to be a great bicycle musician, but he did go on to be an innovative musician that changed music history.
Serious Play
Zappa seems to be having a blast amusing himself and the host by playing around with the bikes. Notice how he's spontaneous, embraces the unexpected and experiments. Those are qualities of creative play that can lead to new ideas and possibilities. In the creativity and design realm you hear terms like Serious Play thrown around to describe the qualities of how innovators and inventors explore new possibilities. When it's called serious play it's not stiff and serious it just means that you're aware and value play as a way to get to better ideas and solutions. Zappa was a Jedi of creative play throughout his whole career. It's also important to say that play is not about being lazy or reluctant to work. Zappa worked his ass off and in fact it was rumoured that in his last few years he worked over 20 hours a day in the studio. Play while you work and you'll be more creative and have fun while doing it.
So, keep deviating because if we deviate from the norm like Zappa from time to time, we'll keep progressing, learn, be creative and eventually create relevant innovations.
Classic Track From Zappa's First Album Freak Out
Zappa Live in London 1968
By Think Jar Collective founder Ben Weinlick


text:
Bin Lin Shows Dive Into Mobile the Power of Android in China (Video)
Even many people who follow mobile technology haven't heard of Xiaomi, but the company literally can't make enough of its phones.
Xiaomi sells out its supply in minutes each time it makes them available on its website.
At D: Dive Into Mobile, Xiaomi co-founder Bin Lin talked about the company, its sell-at-cost strategy and how it hopes to make money on services.
Lin, who previously worked for Microsoft and Google, also talked about the challenges that non-Chinese companies face in that market.
Here's the full video of his interview with AllThingsD's Ina Fried:


text:
"Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do: Provide B movie splatterfest fun.
Here, as in the classic Grimm fairy tale, Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) are a brother and sister who stumble upon a house in the woods made of candy. Within lives a witch who captures them and holds them prisoner, fattening them to eventually cook and eat them. But the two children turn the tables, and are able to push the witch into her own oven and burn her alive.
"Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" shows that this incident led the two to grow to be mercenary witch hunters, traveling from town to town, collecting reward for killing practitioners of witchcraft. Of course, the witches of the film aren't just normal townsfolk as in, say, the Salem witch trials. In this film, witches are heinous, monstrous creatures. They fly about on their tree branches, screeching, and when they're grounded, they often leap about on all fours as an animal might. Hansel and Gretel battle these creatures with their arsenal of steampunk era heavy ordnance and often, with hand to hand combat.
When they stumble upon a hamlet that's experienced a rash of missing children, they realize that something out of the ordinary may be happening. Indeed, with a "Blood Moon" pending, the local coven of witches (led by Famke Janssen) is kidnapping more children than ever, in order to perform a special ritual that will make them more powerful than ever. They will have the means to become impervious to fire.
It's up to Hansel and Gretel to see that that doesn't happen.
"Hansel and Gretel" never promised to be a good movie, and indeed, it really isn't great. But there was always a slim hope that it might be a fun movie, and on that count, it definitely delivers. Renner and Atherton roam the woods like bad asses, decked in leather, carrying silly huge weapons, getting into fistfights and firing cross-bow bolts at spastic, half-human witches. Eventually, they even run across a poorly CGI'ed Troll, as well. But the movie never lets you forget that it's a lark… that it's not a candidate for any kind of critical acclaim. Instead, it's a B movie action film about killing up some witches.
The witches here get shot, stabbed, spliced, beaten, burned, and beheaded. Blood flies and witches wail as the Hansel and Gretel frequently do what they do best. The lightweight plot never gets in the way of the slaughter of witches. It provides a basic framing and then lets the duo get to work witch hunting. Renner and Arterton do it in a no-nonsense style, too. Just getting it done as if they do it all the time and want to get the grisly deed behind them as quickly as possible. That's not to say that the movie is without its share of dark humor, but I certainly wouldn't deem this an "action comedy" by any means.
Disposable and certainly not of a quality that's going to impress critics, "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" nonetheless manages to entertain with a light plot and heavy emphasis on witch killing action. While I wouldn't hail it as a great movie by any means, I know that I certainly enjoyed it.


text: TSA agents are aware that we all thinks they're jerks, so as part of their campaign to convince Americans that they can be our kind of cool big brother, they let a dude keep his rather large supply of weed. Rapper Freddie Gibbs Tweeted a photo of the drug in question along with a note of inspection that reads, "C'mon son." It's certainly possible that this is fake, but we prefer to think that the TSA's new policy involves simply guilting us into following the rules rather than acting like tweezers are a deadly weapon. You know the law, dude. Don't ask the TSA to give pot smoking the same endorsement it gave vibrator use.


text:
Over 1,000 employees are actively and closely serving our worldwide customer network at Woodward L'Orange sites. They guarantee that our customers everywhere receive a consistently high level of Woodward L'Orange brand quality in production, sales and service.
Our development center and sales operation are located at our headquarters in Stuttgart.
Both our production locations – in Glatten (Baden-Württemberg) and Wolfratshausen (Bavaria) – literally stand for quality "made in Germany". Our company's service center is located in Rellingen (Hamburg).
Our subsidiary L'Orange Fuel Injection Trading (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., as service center in Suzhou/China, is responsible for local sales, quality assurance and procurement.
A further site on the Asian continent – L'Orange Fuel Injection (Ningbo) Co. Ltd. – is located in Ningbo, China, a port town south of Shanghai. The production facility in the "German Industrial Park" strengthens Woodward L'Orange's presence in the Chinese market and expands the range of services offered to customers as well as partners.
In the USA, Woodward L'Orange also has two locations. In Cleveland, Ohio, and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the distribution and dealer network of the US market is actively maintained and expanded.


text:
Christian Louboutin
Iconic French fashion designer Christian Louboutin turned heads in the fashion world when he introduced the trendsetting red-soled shoes in the 1990s. His namesake brand has expanded and now includes handbags and beauty products as well as his signature line of shoes. Neiman Marcus offers a great selection of Christian Louboutin shoes, handbags, and beauty products.