The End of the Internet as We Know It

In The Beginning
Jon Postel, a computer science professor at the University of Southern California, was the main person having oversight of the Internet according to this article at Foreign Affairs.org. Working during the 1960s as a graduate student, he was one of a few engineers responsible for the internet.

Until 1998 he managed it for the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Project Agency, which was responsible for the internet’s early development.

Postel decided who should operate a country-code domain. National address suffixes were allocated to private individuals rather than government because the Internet was so new that there was usually no national organization to hand a suffix to.

“Besides, governments, and particularly their monopoly telecom carriers, more often hindered communications development than helped it.”

It became clear to officials in the United States and elsewhere by the mid-1990s, that the Internet could no longer be run by a single individual.

“After a bitter series of negotiations among the business community, governments, and nongovernmental organizations worldwide, the Clinton administration helped broker a compromise and established ICANN in 1998. Because the United States' hands-off approach had allowed the Internet to flourish, it seemed appropriate that the new organization be based in the private sector. This would make it more responsive, more flexible, and less prone to bureaucratic and political squabbling. The negotiations were so tense that Postel suffered a heart attack as they were ending and never lived to see the birth of the successor organization he was instrumental in creating.”

US Leads Battle for Control
By 2004 other nations were calling for a new arrangement which would lessen the US control over the internet.

Foreign Affairs.org reveals:

“… in November 2004 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed a 40-person working group to address questions of Internet governance. Washington had planned to grant ICANN autonomy from its oversight in 2006. But the more other countries clamored for power, the more the United States reconsidered its policy of relinquishing control. Ultimately, it came down to national interest: Washington, with so much at stake in the Internet's continuing to function as it had, decided it was not prepared to risk any changes. So, as the UN working group was preparing to release its report (which, unsurprisingly, favored transferring authority over the Internet to the UN), the U.S. government made a preemptive strike.”

In this article from C-Net News they discuss this preemptive strike:

“The Bush administration announced Thursday that the U.S. government will not hand over control of the Internet to any other organization”

“The new principles, outlined by Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher, say the U.S. government will ‘maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.’ In addition, the principles say, the U.S. government will continue to maintain ‘oversight’ of ICANN and prevent its ‘focus’ from straying from technical coordination.”

US Fearful of Relinquishing Control
This year, in a July meeting of the U.S. Department of Commerce, fears were expressed over relaxing US control over ICANN.

This report from Information Week reveals their concerns:

“At a U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) hearing on Wednesday to assess whether the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS) should be handed over to the private sector, most panelists indicated a preference for continued U.S. government involvement in the management of the Net.

“‘In terms of realistic alternatives, we think it's the best of some potentially unappealing options,’ said panelist David McGuire, director of communications for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a non-profit Internet advocacy group.

“Such ‘unappealing options’ were raised last November, at the United Nations-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia, when representatives of some of the non-democratic governments in attendance such as Cuba, China, Iran, and Syria pressed for greater say in the administration of the Internet.

“In a report last summer, the U.N.'s Working Group on Internet Governance argued that ‘no single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance.’

“Such sentiments prompted three U.S. congressmen—Rick Boucher, D-Va.; John Doolittle, R-Calif.; and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.—to introduce a non-binding House resolution last October to keep the DNS servers under the control of the not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN) and the DoC.

“In a far-fetched warning on his Website, Congressman Goodlatte raised the possibility of U.N. soldiers surrounding ICANN's office in Marina del Rey, Calif., to wrest control of the Internet and turn it over ‘to the infamous international bureaucracy of the U.N.’”


The Even Bigger Issue – Direct Government Control
Law Enforcement
One form of control currently being sought is for the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to track and record internet usage.

In this USA Today story as presented by Raw Story we find that under a 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act:

“… Internet providers to retain any ‘record’ in their possession for 90 days ‘upon the request of a governmental entity.’

“In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.”

But the Bush administration wants even more:

“FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday called on Internet service providers to record their customers’ online activities, a move that anticipates a fierce debate over privacy and law enforcement in Washington next year.”

In keeping with the Bush administration mantra of terrorism, Mueller had this to say at a speech to the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Boston:

"Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms.

"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims. We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."

And Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress last month that "this is a national problem that requires federal legislation."

According to this Raw Story report, Michael Chertoff also was on hand to play the terror card:

“‘We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet,’ Chertoff said on the sidelines of a meeting of International Association of the Chiefs of Police.

“‘They can train themselves over the Internet. They never have to necessarily go to the training camp or speak with anybody else and that diffusion of a combination of hatred and technical skills in things like bomb-making is a dangerous combination,’ Chertoff said. ‘Those are the kind of terrorists that we may not be able to detect with spies and satellites.’”

Also in the USA Today article we learn:

“Law enforcement groups claim that by the time they contact Internet service providers, customers’ records may be deleted in the routine course of business.”

But then again a more rational thinking is noted:

“Industry representatives, however, say that if police respond to tips promptly instead of dawdling, it would be difficult to imagine any investigation that would be imperiled.”

Also noted is the controversy involved:

“Justice Department officials admit privately that data retention legislation is controversial enough that there wasn't time to ease it through the U.S. Congress before politicians left to campaign for re-election.”

But the issue is not going away:

“…the idea is expected to surface in early 2007, and one Democratic politician has already promised legislation.”

There’s even more :

“during private meetings with industry officials, FBI and Justice Department representatives have cited the desirability of also forcing search engines to keep logs — a proposal that could gain additional law enforcement support after AOL showed how useful such records could be in investigations.”

Censorship
In this article from News.com we find that Iran is cutting back on the speed of their DSL and other high speed services to students and researchers:

“An official said last week that ISPs were now ‘forbidden’ by the Telecommunications Ministry from providing Internet connections faster than 128 kilobytes per second (KBps), the Islamic Republic New Agency, Iran’s official news outlet, reported. No reason was given for the restriction.”

It is speculated that this is as a means of censorship to keep control over these groups of citizens:

“Critics said the restriction would hinder the work of students and researchers but said it appeared in line with what they see as a squeeze on the media by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who rails against the West.”

European Nations Seek More Control
The Center for Democracy & Technology reports:

“Advocates for the open, lightly governed Internet were shocked last month when the European Union aligned itself with countries like Iran, China and Brazil in calling for world governments to assert control over the Internet's core technical management functions. The EU proposal, offered near the end of a two-week UN conference on the Internet, appeared to deepen the rift between those nations calling for drastic changes to Internet oversight, and those like Argentina, New Zealand, the United States and many African nations, which support working to improve existing structures.”

And they give their opinion on the ramifications of such a move:

“From a public interest perspective, any direct government involvement in the Internet's technical management is less than optimal. The Internet's success as a platform for speech and political organization can be largely accredited to the fact that the technological underpinning of the global network has not been politicized. Although U.S. public interest advocates understand the concerns of world leaders who feel the United States plays too large a role in Internet oversight, we strongly disagree with the notion that the way to 'solve' that problem is to exponentially increase the number of governments involved in the process. For all the criticism of the United States, it must be noted that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which oversees ICANN, has never vetoed a decision made by the body, which includes representatives from every region of the world.”

Government Control of Industries
Bush has just signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which attacks off-shore internet gambling, not by going after the casinos, but rather the banks and their credit cards used to make the gambling possible.

The BBC reports:

“…within months US credit card companies and banks will be forced to check for and refuse payment for most forms of online gambling.

“We've seen this before. In 2005 the US government clamped down on the sale of cigarettes over the net by using the same strategy, successfully restricting people from buying from states that had lower taxes.

“Instead of trying to manage the technology by banning poker-playing software or insisting that service providers block online gaming sites - neither of which would be effective anyway - the law puts pressure on the banks who actually move the money around.”

But this could also create a backlash:

“We hear of threats to take the US to the World Trade Organization, the WTO, on the grounds that the new law is an attempt to protect the US gambling industry from foreign competition rather than anything to do with morality.

“The government of Antigua, host to many offshore gambling companies, has successfully challenged the US on the issue in the past, and is reported to be considering further action.”

Corporate Control
Currently there is a big push by internet service providers to develop what is being referred to as a “two tier system”. Under this system the ISPs would be able to charge content providers different rates depending on the amount of traffic or bandwidth they require.

Up to this time the ISPs have faithfully practiced net neutrality wherein they transported data without discrimination, preference, or regard for content. This concept also allowed them to assume the role of “common carrier”, under which they are at arm’s length from the content that they carry and therefore exempt from any penalties associated with that content.

This approach has also allowed content providers such as websites and e-commerce companies to flourish, regardless of their size, based solely on the quality of their product or service, rather than how much money they have.

The BBC tells us in this report:

“Internet users have similarly benefited from the network neutrality principle. They enjoy access to greater choice in goods, services, and content regardless of which ISP they use.

“While ISPs may compete based on price, service, or speed, they have not significantly differentiated their services based on availability of internet content or applications, which remains the same for all.

“In short, network neutrality has enabled ISPs to invest heavily in new infrastructure, fostered greater competition and innovation, and provided all internet users with equal access to a dizzying array of content.”

But now, in the new atmosphere of corporate mergers and exorbitant profits with little or no regard to the customer, some ISPs are anxious to make even more money by charging more from some content providers.

Another ploy is to give priority service and speed to content originating on their own system while giving slower service to content from other ISPs.

“Some ISPs see the potential for greater revenue by charging websites or services for priority access to their customers.

“In the US, BellSouth Chief Technology Officer executive William L Smith, recently mused about the potential to charge a premium to websites for prioritizing downloading, noting that Yahoo could pay to load faster than Google.

“Reports last week indicated that BellSouth and AT&T are now lobbying the US Congress for the right to create a two-tiered internet, where their own internet services would be transmitted faster and more efficiently than those of their competitors.”

The Boston Globe further explains some of these issues:

“The proposal supported by AT&T and BellSouth would allow telecommunications carriers to offer their own advanced Internet video services to their customers, while rival firms’ online video offerings would be transmitted at lower speed and with poorer image quality.

“AT&T and other telecoms want to charge consumers a premium fee to connect to the higher-speed Internet. The companies could also charge websites a premium to offer their video to consumers on the higher-speed Internet. That could mean that a company like Yahoo might have to pay AT&T to send high-quality video to AT&T subscribers.”

But this is also a controversial proposition under heavy debate:

“The prospect of a tiered Internet with ‘regular’ and ‘premium’ broadband services is spawning fierce debate as Congress takes up a major overhaul of telecom regulations. The House of Representatives last month held hearings on a preliminary draft by two GOP congressmen, Joe Barton of Texas and Fred Upton of Michigan, that would give the telecom companies the freedom to establish premium broadband services. The telecom bill is due for action early next year.”

But Google and several other large ISPs such as Amazon.com are fighting the proposal fearing they will have to pay millions of dollars to have their services carried. They also point out that small and start-up ISPs would not be able to compete thereby reducing consumer choices.

The Inquirer.net discloses that the FCC has even signed on to the “two tier” idea.

“The FCC has decided to back a plan by AT&T which will mean that sites like Google which have heavy traffic will have to pay when comms companies send them customers.

“It will mean the end of a free and open internet and mean that the comms companies will be able to charge their customers twice for the same service.

“While many would have hoped that the FCC would step in to prevent what some have called ‘online extortion’ the watchdog has given its support to the move. FCC Chief Kevin Martin told the TelecomNext show that he supports such a ‘tiered’ Internet.”

What You Can Do
Sign a petition to Congress supporting Net Neutrality.
Call or write your Congressmember.


Revised 10/23/06

US Dumping Ground for Dangerous Products

The Worlds Dumping Ground
Over the last few years many countries around the world have raised the levels of protection on various consumer goods which are either dangerous to consumers or damaging to the environment.

In that time the US has fallen behind and has now becoming the world’s dumping ground for such products.

These products range from manufactured wood such as plywood as well as the products made of such plywood, toys, cosmetics, insecticides, herbicides, cell phones, cameras and other consumer products.

In this LA Times story linked from Raw Story Professor Michael Wilson of UC Berkeley's Center for Occupational and Environmental Health states:

“The United States is becoming a "dumping ground" for consumer goods that are unwanted and illegal in much of the world.”

Wilson warned earlier this year in a report commissioned by the California Legislature that "the United States has fallen behind globally in the move toward cleaner technologies."

In the same article international chemical policy expert Alastair Iles, a research fellow at UC Berkeley says:

“The dumping problem is concentrated in a few product sectors. But these sectors happen to be really ubiquitous in the everyday lives of Americans. Chemical risks are being spread all over the country in ways that are invisible to consumers,”

It is also noted in the article that:

The California Air Resources Board “estimates that one of every 10,000 Californians is at risk of contracting cancer from breathing average formaldehyde levels found in homes and offices.”

“One birch plank from China, bought at a Home Depot store in Portland, gave off 100 times more formaldehyde than legal in Japan and 30 times more than allowed in Europe and China”

Yet “the only formaldehyde standard for wood in the U.S. is one that applies just to subsidized, low-income housing. U.S. companies voluntarily meet it for all products, though it allows 10 times more formaldehyde than Japan's standards.”

Banned Chemicals
Some of the chemicals wich are banned or stricktly limited in other countries are:

FORMALDEHYDE - used in glues for wood products, particularly plywood and particle boards. Exposure has been shown in human studies to cause nose and throat cancer and possibly leukemia, as well as allergic reactions, asthma attacks, headaches and sore throats.

PHTHALATES - used in cosmetics. Exposure has been linked to birth defects.

TOLUENE - used in nail polish and nail polish remover. Exposure has been linked to cancer and birth defects.

LEAD - found in some cell phones, digital cameras and even some Mexican candies. Exposure has been shown to cause mental development problems in children.

HERBICIDES AND INSECTICIDES - atrazine, aldicarb and endosulfan are among some of the most popular agents used in the US, yet banned elsewhere except for emergency use.

Other Products
Other products range from:

“Extension cords and electrical items that overheat and burn; fake ground-fault circuit interrupter plugs that don't always trip when overloaded; toys that can choke, cut, or poison young children; counterfeit batteries that leak acid, overheat, or spark; and disposable lighters that leak fuel or explode” according to this report by Consumer Reports

Even Herbal Medicines can be lethal as outlined in this report from Gainesville.com:

“The poison arrived in a plastic bottle from India bearing a simple label in English and Hindi. "Useful in flu and bodyache," it read. "Two tabs twice a day or as per physician's advice."

What it didn't say was that the herbal medicine, on sale at a store in Queens, contained 2,190 times the amount of mercury considered safe by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies”

Genetically Modified Crops and Food Products -the crops can spread to surrounding areas and even cross pollinate with natural crops and there are still questions about the effects of GM foods.

Other Countries Proactive
Numerous other countries have recently been very proactive in cleaning up the environment and protecting their citizens.

The LA Times reports that:

“The European Union, driven by consumers' concerns, has banned or heavily restricted hundreds of toxic substances in recent years, invoking its "precautionary principle," which is codified into law and prescribes that protective steps should be taken when there is scientific evidence of risks to public health or the environment.”

As an example the European Public Health Alliance reports in 2003 that:

“Last 8th July, an impressive coalition of European environmental, consumer, health, and women’s groups presented Europe’s most widely supported submission to the European Commission’s consultation on future chemicals law.

The submission was presented to European Commissioner Wallstrom by a coalition of the European Consumers Organisation, European Environmental Bureau, European Public Health Alliance, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Women in Europe for a Common Future, and WWF in the last week of the consultation on the draft directive on the proposed REACH legislation.

The Declaration for a Toxics Free Future, signed by 23,600 people as well as 483 wide-ranging public interest organisations, calls on the European Commission to protect health and the environment from hazardous chemicals. In addition to the coalition of groups presenting the Declaration, it was also supported by organisations including the Netherlands’ Council of Women, the German Childbirth Association, and the British Allergy Foundation.”

Among the items requested in this declaration were:

“*an obligation to phase out and substitute chemicals that accumulate in wildlife, humans or the environment, and those that disrupt hormones. Restricted uses of such chemicals should only be permitted temporarily, if safer alternatives are not available, and the use is essential to society;

* a full right to know, for both consumers and businesses, including what chemicals are present in products;

* a requirement that products imported into the EU have to conform to the same safety standards as those made in the EU.”

Focus Web reports on India upgrading their labeling on genetically modified products:

“This decision was taken by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in its meeting on 2nd May 2006 where it was decided that all imported crude soyabean oils should carry a declaration "extracted from Roundup Ready Soyabean". The exporters should also certify that the products are safe and also instructed for a safe disposal of the byproducts after oil extraction.”

Even China is stepping in:

“New Chinese regulations that will take effect March 1, 2007, could require companies to redesign the electronic and information technology products they manufacture for the Chinese market, whether in China or other countries. The rules are designed to reduce the public health and environmental effects associated with the disposal of such products, which often contain toxic or hazardous substances.
These new rules will apply to a wide range of goods, including radar and communications devices, radios, televisions, computers, home electronics, measuring instruments, software, and other electronic components, parts, applications and materials.”

But there is one caveat which is the crux of the whole problem:

“Goods made in China for export will not be affected by the new requirements.”

Why Is There This Problem?
In the article from the LA Times we are told:

“The Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies have relied on voluntary steps from industries rather than regulations, saying the threats posed by low levels of chemicals are too uncertain to eliminate products valuable to consumers or businesses.”

“The EPA hasn't eliminated any industrial compounds since it sought unsuccessfully to ban asbestos 18 years ago. Unlike EU policies, U.S. law requires the EPA to prove a toxic substance "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," consider the costs of restricting its use and choose "the least burdensome" approach to regulate industry.”

The Consumer Reports puts it all in perspective when they tell us that “since the 1970s, when the CPSC was created and product safety became a federal goal” injuries and deaths from consumer products have been greatly reduced, but go on to note:

“That progress seems to be waning because powerful trends have converged to allow more unsafe products in the marketplace: America's transformation from net exporter to the world's largest importer has given more overseas manufacturers sanctuary from direct CPSC oversight. Consumer demand for ever-lower prices has given some manufacturers an incentive to cut costs by cutting corners on safety”

But that’s not all:

“At the same time, a decades-long erosion of the CPSC's budget and staff has forced the agency to wring ever more work from dwindling resources.

One major sign of trouble is the steeply declining number of CPSC recalls, detained shipments, and other enforcement actions, down 35 percent from 2001 to 2003. That drop is not a result of fewer unsafe products. Rather, it's caused by a reduced government effort to search for them, according to a CPSC report to Congress in February 2004. We had no trouble buying dozens of products that violate U.S. safety standards at stores in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas; only one of the items has since been publicly recalled by the CPSC

Loss of funding and staff. The CPSC's budget has shrunk to about half what it was in 1975, after adjusting for inflation. The staff was cut almost in half over the same period. But the CPSC now regulates ever more products. Its 470 employees oversee 15,000 household products, including appliances, electronics, furniture, toys, and yard equipment.”

“They are woefully inadequately funded,” says Gary Smith, M.D., chairman of the committee on injury, violence, and poison prevention of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “They need more staff and enabling legislation to give them more clout, because they are limited on what they can do by their congressional mandate.”

This reduced funding has created a situation where:

“As U.S. imports have surged, the CPSC shifted from searching for unsafe products in retail stores to inspecting shipping containers at the ports, says Alan Schoem, the CPSC's former director of compliance and a longtime staff member, who left the agency recently to work for a risk-consulting firm. The number of CPSC inspections of stores and factories has plummeted from 1,130 in 1999 to just 400 to 500 in 2004, the commission's reports show”

Even US Companies Take Advantage
Even some American based companies take advantage of the lax regulations here. One example is OPI Products, Inc. the largest manufacturer of nail polish and nail treatment products worldwide.

Phthalates, formaldehyde and toluene are all used in their products which they distribute in the US while at the same time they make products without these chemicals for distribution elsewhere in the world according to a report from Safe Cosmectics.

It Even Flows the Other Way
In another report from Consumer Reports, they list a number of cases where dangerous items which had actually been banned here were sent to other countries:

“• Wellmax extension cords were shipped to Panama in 2001 after nearly a million of them were recalled in the U.S. because their undersized wires could overheat and cause a fire. The CPSC notified Panamanian officials about the danger but had no authority to stop their exportation. In July 2004 we found some of the defective cords for sale over the Internet, for “export only,” by Wellmax, an importer in Santa Fe Springs, Calif.

• Balloon-tongue “Zapper” toys were exported to the Dominican Republic in 2001, after 835,000 distributed by eight toy companies in the U.S. were recalled because children could inhale the balloons or choke. In August 2004 we found them still being sold in a party-goods store in Santiago, Dominican Republic.

• More than 500 flammable girls' and women's chenille sweaters were shipped to Israel and Japan in 1999. They failed U.S. flammability standards and would burn faster than newspaper if ignited, according to a CPSC recall notice.”

US Basic Labeling Requirements for Consumer Pakages
At their website The Office of Education, Science and Technology gives a list of the US Basic Labaling Requirements for Consumer Packaging.

King George Subverts Congress

Bush issues more signing statements than all other Presidents combined.

In his endeavor to become King, George W. Bush has run rampant with the use of signing statements.
In a report in the Mercury News the American Bar Association tells us:
"From the inception of the republic until 2000, presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush ... has produced more than 800."

These signing statements are being used to change the intent of the various bills submitted to Bush for his signature. These statements strive to interpret the bills or portions of them, to allow Bush to violate or fail to enforce any part he feels is unsuitable.

Signing Statements used as illegal Line Item Veto
In fact Bush seems to be trying to circumvent current Constitutional law by using these signing statements as a form of Line Item Veto.

John Dean, former White House Lawyer for Richard Nixon, had this to say about the issue:

“Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but "before it become[s] a Law," it must be presented to the President, who "shall sign it" if he approves it, but "return it" - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part.
Bush's use of signing statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. What is going to happen when the question at issue is the constitutionality of a provision the President has declared unconstitutional in a signing statement?”

Other Legal experts agree
New York University law professor David Golove, specializing in executive power issues, states:

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed,"
"This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Secrecy News, a publication of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, brings us word of a report by the Congressional Research Service:

"It seems evident that the Bush signing statements are an integral part of the Administration's efforts to further its broad view of presidential prerogatives and to assert functional and determinative control over all elements of the executive decisionmaking process," the CRS study said.

"It appears that recent administrations, as made apparent by the voluminous challenges lodged by President George W. Bush, have employed these instruments in an attempt to leverage power and control away from Congress by establishing these broad assertions of authority as a constitutional norm."

"The broad and persistent nature of the claims of executive authority forwarded by President Bush appear designed to inure [i.e., to accustom] Congress, as well as others, to the belief that the President in fact possesses expansive and exclusive powers upon which the other branches may not intrude," the CRS report stated.

It follows that "the appropriate focus of congressional concern should center not on the issuance of signing statements themselves, but on the broad assertions of presidential authority forwarded by Presidents and the substantive actions taken to establish that authority."

In a Raw Story report from The Boston Globe, the CRS Report is further interpreted to show:

“The Bush administration is using signing statements as a means to slowly condition Congress into accepting the White House's broad conception of presidential power, which includes a presidential right to ignore laws he believes are unconstitutional”

Full Congressional Research Service Report in .PDF Format

Apologists Chime in
In a CBS report John Cornyn, R-Texas had this to say:

"The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is,"
"I don't know why the issue of presidents issuing signing statements is controversial at all."

And Justice Department lawyer Michelle Boardman had this opinion:

"Even if there is modest increase, let me just suggest that it be viewed in light of current events and Congress' response to those events,"
"The significance of legislation affecting national security has increased markedly since Sept. 11."

“A MODEST INCREASE....”? Bush = 800 compared to all the rest = less than 600? Modest??
Good Grief!!

Recent Examples of Bush Signing Statements
One recent example of Bush’s subversion of the will of Congress is presented by Edward Lazarus, former law clerk to Judge William A. Norris on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and to Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun on the Supreme Court of the United States:

“A related recent development puts the point in sharp relief. Last month, to much public fanfare, the President brought John McCain into the White House to announce before the assembled cameras that he was going to drop his opposition to McCain's proposed legislation banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees by all U.S. personnel, anywhere in the world. But under the Administration's approach to executive power, this concession -- as well as Bush's subsequent signing of the ban on torture -- was all an elaborate charade.

After all, under the Administration's theory, Congress has absolutely no power to limit the president's inherent authority as commander in chief to fight the war on terror. Which means that Bush signed the McCain bill while reserving to himself the right to violate its anti-torture provisions with impunity - and, of course, to do so in secret, so that the American people will never know (barring another leak to the New York Times) that he has flouted this very popular law.

In fact, when signing the Defense appropriation bill containing the McCain Amendment, Bush issued a signing statement euphemistically reserving just this authority to ignore the very law to which he had just put his name. Thus, the President wrote: "The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

That signed statement shows, in microcosm, how the President sees the separation of powers: The President, in his view of the world, can interpret away constraints on his power, such as those in the McCain Amendment, or FISA before it. And the courts can hardly question his dubious "interpretations" even if they gut the very statutes they construe: After all, there are "constitutional limitations on the judicial power" - though not, apparently, on the power of the executive”

In the Raw Story report from The Boston Globe another example of a signing report is noted. This one involves the Military Budget bill passed just last week in a 100-0 vote:

“Last week, for example, Bush signed the 2007 military budget bill, but then issued a statement challenging 16 of its provisions.

The bill bars the Pentagon from using any intelligence that was collected illegally, including information about Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable government surveillance.

In Bush's signing statement, he suggested that he alone could decide whether the Pentagon could use such information. His signing statement instructed the military to view the law in light of ``the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch."

Bush also challenged three sections that require the Pentagon to notify Congress before diverting funds to new purposes, including top-secret activities or programs. Congress had already decided against funding. Bush said he was not bound to obey such statutes if he decided, as commander in chief, that withholding such information from Congress was necessary to protect security secrets.”

American Bar Association speaks against Bush's signing statements
In this report from the Mercury News we hear from the American Bar Association:

“A task force of the American Bar Association has concluded that the president's unprecedented stream of signing statements poses a dangerous challenge to the constitutional checks and balances central to power in the United States. One of the signing statements reserves the right to torture detainees held in the war on terror.

The ABA report, to be released Monday, calls on Congress to exert more oversight and empower the courts to review presidential signing statements asserting the president's right to "ignore or not enforce laws." If unchecked, ABA President Michael Greco said in a prepared statement, the presidential use of signing statements "raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy."

"The president does not, and the administration does not, refuse to carry out the laws that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by the president," said White House press secretary Tony Snow, maintaining that Bush is not engaging in any "civil disobedience."

"In the context of trying to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution ... there will be places within signing statements - caveats - where he has reservations," Snow said. "It is not unusual - although we have done it more than previous administrations - to list those reservations, if nothing else, as markers, for issues that may later rise to be points of controversy."

"It's clear that a large number of the signing statements that have been issued by this administration claim the authority to disregard the law," Sonnett said. "This president is not the first president to do that. But he clearly has escalated the practice to what the task force believes is a dangerous new high. That has an impact on the separation of powers, and if it's left unchecked, it could do damage to our system and to the Constitution."”

In conclusion it is time to call on Congress and the Judicial system to put a stop to Bush’s end run around Congress and the Constitution and hold him to the principles of balance of power and the laws of the land.

SEARCHABLE DATA BASE of all the Presidential Signing Statements from Hoover to current.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ATTACKS SCIENCE

The Bush administration is riding with a heavy hand over the research of this country’s Scientists and Researchers. Censoring and hand picking science to conform to his administrations goals. Even over riding existing laws and regulations which are protecting our health and well being.

ATTACK S ON ACADEMIA:
In an article at Blue Oregon it is shown how this distortion is starting early.
At an informal meeting of the World Affairs Council’s Young Professionals it was discussed how “a civil society cannot exist unless critical thought is promoted, from kindergarten through the university level:
Yet we find the Neo-cons running a website called Students For Academic Freedom which promotes itself as a “clearing house and communications center for a national coalition of student organizations whose goal is to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge.”

Don’t be fooled! This is just another Bushism for a site that instead of promoting discussion of academic freedom, serves as a spring board for promoting neo-con agendas such as those of the Christian right and tying Federal funding to those agendas. It also serves as a place for conservative students to inform on “controversial professors” who among other things criticize the US policies in Iraq.

The Blue Oregon report tells us that hostilities against the intellectuals are nothing new for regimes which hunger for power.
“Take, for example, the Khmer Rouge, who, emulating Stalin's model, murdered thousands of doctors, lawyers, philosophers, writers and university professors a mere 30 years ago. As for Stalin, the “intelligensia class” was among the first groups targeted in his Great Purges of the 1930s and 40s.”

BUSH DISCOUNTS GLOBAL WARMING
In 2002 the Environmental Protection Agency released a report which was surprising in its agreement with what many scientists and weather experts had long been saying - that human activity was adding to Global Warming.

In this coverage from CBS News we find that when asked about this, the first report of his administration to link global warming and human sources, Bush replied dismissivley: “"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.”

National Environmental Trust president, Philip Clapp, hailed the report: “(The report) undercuts everything the president has said about global warming since he took office”

During his campaign for election in 2004 Salon reports that Bush is “...certainly not going to bring up global warming, which he's done so little about. "Bush is not mentioning it because it goes against the major interest of his supporters," says Ross Gelbspan, author of a new book on global warming called “Boiling Point” which calls for buying out coal miners to speed the transition from CO2-intensive coal to electricity made from renewable sources. "Bush has given the reins of our climate and energy policies to the coal and oil industries completely."

Oil and gas companies have contributed more than $2 million to Bush's reelection effort, making him the largest recipient of the industry's campaign dollars, according to the Center for Responsive Politics ; and the coal industry has given his reelection effort more than $200,000, making the president that industry's biggest beneficiary too.”

“"His response to everything is we still need more study," says Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "You're never going to get a scientist to say there is an absolute certainty that this consequence is going to happen. You're standing on a railroad track and a train is coming. A scientist is not going to say that there is a complete 100 percent certainty that that train is going to hit you, but it's still a good idea to get off the track."”

BUSH IS OUR SAVIOR FROM GLOBAL WARMING:
In a July 2006 interview with People Magazine Bush had this to say:

“I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline.”

But Matt Stoller at MyDD has another opinion of Bush’s statements:

“...Bush is certainly doubt-mongering. But that's not all, because he's also casting himself as the hero of the story. You see, he's also personally solving the problem of global warming by advancing new technologies like hydrogen cars.”

The “New Technology” argument is just another in the :rhetorical set of tricks that the global warming deniers and apologists use to prevent the American people from activating the political system”

Matt concludes with an interpretation of Bush’s statement:

“There's no problem, really, and it's not our fault if there is a problem, and don't worry, the non-problem is being taken care of by magic ponies.”

THE FINAL PROOF
Since we began monitoring the extent of the North Polar sea ice by sattelite in 1979 the average decline in the maximum winter ice pack was 1.5% per decade. For both of the last two years the decline was 6% each year.

The summer time sea ice quantity continues its retreat at a steady 10% per decade.
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center research scientist Joey Comiso used sattelite data from 1978-2006 in his research which included data from aircraft instruments and all were checked against ground based meteorological instruments.

In an article at the Goddard Space Flight Center’s Website Comiso states:

"This amount of Arctic sea ice reduction the past two consecutive winters has not taken place before during the 27 years satellite data has been available,"

"In the past, sea ice reduction in winter was significantly lower per decade compared to summer sea ice retreat. What's remarkable is that we've witnessed sea ice reduction at six percent per year over just the last two winters, most likely a result of warming due to greenhouse gases."

Aggravating the condition is the fact the fall freeze is occurring two weeks later each year.
The less ice and the longer the water is open the more solar heat is absorbed. Thus it becomes a self supporting loop and the melt continues.

BUT DO HUMANS REALLY ADD TO GLOBAL WARMING?
Global Warming is a natural phenomenon which occurs in a cycle of approximately 100,000 years.

This is actually a collection of various earth cycles known as the Milankovitch Cycles comprised of the eccentricity of the Earths orbit around the Sun, the tilt of the earths axis and the precession of the earths orbit.

Each of these have different time spans which when combined create the warming and cooling cycles the earth has experienced over history.

Of course the actual climate changes evoked by this cycle are complicated and would take much bandwidth here to explore.

From Ice cores, sea bed cores and other means we are able to get a glimpse at these cycles.

Ice Core Samples dating back as far as 800,000 years show a clear correlation between CO2 and CH4 (Methane) concentrations in the atmosphere and the average temperatures.

Therefore it can be said Global Warming is in fact a natural occurrence accompanied by elevations in greenhouse gasses. But which is cause and which is effect?

Putting that question aside and just observing the natural cycles of both these phenomenon reveals the problem.

There is no doubt that humans have contributed much to the carbon dioxide concentrations in the air over the last century and a half. The burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil have released billions of tons of carbon that had previously been locked up in the ground.

We know that this carbon in the atmosphere reflects radiant heat back to the earth causing some warming.

What is reveling is the accelerating rate of warming compared with the historical mapping from the ice core samples.

This warming over the last 1,000 years is represented by what has been known as the Hockey Stick Graph for its shape similar to a hockey stick.

It shows a very gradual decline of 0.2 degree centigrade over 900 years and then a sharp climb of 1.1 degrees centigrade over the last 100 years.

In correlation, the rate of increase in CO2 - typically about 30ppm per 1,000 years, has risen 30ppm in just the last 17 years to a record high of 380ppm, well above the 200-300 historical average.

THE SUN IS MUCH MORE ACTIVE RIGHT NOW, ISN’T THAT WHY IT’S HOTTER?
In an article in Scientific American we find that although there are in fact changes in the Sun’s activity they are self-canceling and the total solar output varies by no more than 0.1% over its 11 year cycle:

“A reasonable question is whether natural changes such as solar activity could have caused or contributed to the upturned blade of that [hockey] stick, perhaps because the sun's luminosity varies widely over centuries or more. "The question is, were there times in the past when it was equally warm, and the answer is no," says Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research”

“The sun's luminosity swings up and down by less than 0.1 percent in accord with an 11-year cycle of sunspots and faculae, bright areas of heightened output. This cycle accounts for most of the sun's variability. Recent simulations reinforce the idea that convection inside the sun rapidly smoothes out internal hot spots before their concentrated heat can escape like an upwelling of magma, the researchers note. This inertia allows surface changes to have a discernible effect and explains why no additional sources of variation have been identified so far, they say”

BUSH ADMINISTRATION BLOCKS SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION ON WARMING/HURRICANE LINK SHORTLY AFTER KATRINA
This article at Think Progress highlights a letter from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) ranking member on the Government Reform Committee to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

In this letter he complains about copies of emails he received showing that a post-Katrena CNBC interview with NOAA scientist Tom Knutson had been scrubbed because he held the belief that Global Warming could yield a small increase in hurrican strength.

IF GLOBAL WARMING ADDS TO HURRICANES, WHY IS SUCH A CALM YEAR THIS YEAR
CNN brings us news of a new El Nino cycle which has formed in the Pacific. These El Nino cycles have a moderating affect on Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes.

“September 13, 2006 El Nino, an extreme warming of equatorial waters in the Pacific Ocean that wreaks havoc with world weather conditions, has formed and will last into 2007, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday”

“So far, there have only been seven tropical storms and two hurricanes halfway through the hurricane season, which begins June 1 and ends November 30.

“Scientists said El Nino disrupts storm formation because it allows wind shear to rip apart thunderstorms in the center of the hurricanes, reducing power and intensity as a result.”

OTHER TYPES OF SCIENCE TARGETED AS WELL
the Washington Post reports that even studies and programs to protect the salmon in the American west are under attack.

The Washington office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has instructed its scientists to route their communications with the media through their headquarters.

Only three people are now authorized to speak to the media regarding salmon. All three persons are political appointees.

These instructions were enacted the day after a federal judge ruled that during drought years water delivery to farmers must be limited to protect the salmon. At the same time a report by federal scientists with NOAA and the Interior Department calling for the removal or reconstruction of dams to allow salmon to pass through to spawn.
Both of these developments flew in the face of Bush policy.


SIXTY TWO LEADING SCIENTISTS LODGE COMPLAINT
Sixty two of this country’s leading scientist lodge a complaint in early 2004 AGAINST THE Bush administration for its misrepresentation and suppression of scientific knowledge for political purposes.

Tidepool reports:

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement said. "Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

They go on to state:

“Now it's one thing to ignore research when making policy. What the Bush Administration has done goes beyond this -- they have repeatedly and systematically censored or tried to manipulate federally-funded, widely-accepted scientific information from the public”.

“"What we are seeing here, and we have not seen it before, is an administration that distorts the process by which it gets advice and censors the advice it gets from its own scientists," Kurt Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the LA Times.”

"Science, to quote President Bush's father, the former president, relies on freedom of inquiry and objectivity,” said Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Ford, who joined the scientists in calling for action. “But this administration has obstructed that freedom and distorted that objectivity in ways that were unheard of in any previous administration."

CLIMATE RESEARCHERS HAVE MANY COMPLAINTS
Climate scientists are concerned about the American public not getting the complete and acurate information on global warming. It is hard for these scientists to speak out to the public or the media.

Truthout reports:

“Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a US Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well”

“These scientists - working nationwide in research centers in such places as Princeton, NJ, and Boulder, Colorado - say they are required to clear all media requests with administration officials, something they did not have to do until the summer of 2004. Before then, point climate researchers ...were relatively free to discuss their findings without strict agency oversight.”

“Thomas Delworth, one of Stouffer's colleagues, said the policy means Americans have only "a partial sense" of what government scientists have learned about climate change."

"American taxpayers are paying the bill, and they have a right to know what we're doing," he said.”

JAMES HANSEN A LEADER IN THE PROTEST AGAINST THE CENSORSHIP
63 year old Physicist Dr. James Hansen joined the space agency in 1967 and now works at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

He has had conflicts in the past with various politicians including George Bush Sr. And even Al Gore.

In 2001 he was invited twice to brief Vice President Cheney and other administration personel on global warming.

Dr. Hansen is without a doubt one of the world’s leading researchers on global warming.. The head of NASA’s top institute studying climate change.

In a report by CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley first reported last spring, this imminent scientist says that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say.

Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.

"I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."
NASA has been keeping a close watch over Hansen and Pelly’s interview was only allowed with a NASA representative in the room taping the conversation.

"I object to the fact that I’m not able to freely communicate via the media," says Hansen.

"National Public Radio wanted to interview me and they were told they would need to interview someone at NASA headquarters and the comment was made that they didn’t want Jim Hansen going on the most liberal media in America. So I don’t think that kind of decision should be made on that kind of basis. I think we should be able to communicate the science."

Hansen has not only clashed with Bush, but also the Clinton administration which wanted him to spin the research to make it look worse than it really is. Being a man of integrity he refused to do so.

"Should we be simply doing our science and reporting it rigorously, or to what degree the administration in power has the right to assume that you should be a spokesman for the administration?" asks Hansen. "I've tried to be a straight scientist doing the science and reporting it as best I can."

According to a report in the Wshington Post, while speaking at the New School University, Hansen claimed:

"It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States,"

“New School President Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, said he invited Hansen to speak because he was "very concerned" about what he called the administration's efforts to steer the debate over global warming: "It's not only inappropriate; it stifles the very debate we're trying to have today, and that we need to have on this issue."”

THE OIL INDUSTRY CONNECTION
Also in the report by CBS News we meet Rick Piltz who co-writes the reports for the federal Climate Change Science Program.

Plitz has this to say about the process:

"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we can’t even being to discuss impacts and response strategies,
There’s too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."

Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens then, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

As it turns out, the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality is a man by the name of Phil Cooney.

Piltz says: "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House,".

Piltz claims Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes “may be undergoing change.”

“Uncertainty” becomes “significant remaining uncertainty.” One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout."

THE COAL INDUSTRY LINK
In another report at Tide Pool it is revealed that;

“The federal government filed charges against energy companies because they had violated a provision of the Clean Air Act that requires plants to install pollution control mechanisms on old coal fired power plants whenever a plant is upgraded or expanded. The Bush Administration -- heavily funded by those energy companies -- changed the law to help those companies beat the federal charges. If the Post report is true, officials within the Bush Administration also mislead Congress prior to the passage of the new rules.

“So this summer the Bush Administration changed that part of the law by expanding the definition of "routine maintenance" which was exempt from the requirements. Under the Bush definition, "routine maintenance" now covers expansions and upgrades costing millions of dollars -- even if the upgrades result in increased pollution they are now exempt for Clean Air Act requirements.

Moreover, because this change was made by altering the definition of a key term in the law, it undermined federal enforcement cases pending against Bush Administration friends and funders. Judges will now be forced to consider the cases before them based on the new definition of the term, assuming it is the "correct" definition.”

AND SO IT GOES

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Sorry folks, this has caused me to lose all previous comments. :-(

Mars Rover Opportunity Still Rolling Along

After after a 21-month journey to "Victoria Crater" NASA's Mars Rover Opportunity is perched on the edge of a crater approximately five times wider than "Endurance" the previous stadium-sized crater it studied for half a year.

The first images show rugged walls with layers of exposed rock and a floor blanketed with dunes.

Planned as a 90 day mission Opportunity has now been exploring Mars since January 2004. So far it has covered nearly six miles of terrain, making many stops along the way to examine various rocks and outcroppings.

More on this news at NASA Press Release 9/27/06

Total coverage of all the Mars missions and links to photo galleries at:
NASA's Mars Exploration.

PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE

Updated 9/27/06

URGENT!
PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE AND HAVE IT COUNTED!

DEMAND A PAPER BALLOT!

JOIN THE MOVEMENT!



Update 9/27/06:

Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) have introduced the Confidence in Vote Act of 2006 calling for the availability of paper ballots in the mid-term elections and asking the Fedral Government to finance these ballots.

Originaly proposed as the LET AMERICA VOTE ACT by Brad Friedman of Brad Blog the bill is receiving support from Velvet Revolution and other Election Reform entities such as VotersUnite.org and has garnered coverage in the New York Times.

Be sure to check out the details at Brad Blog.

U.N. calls US report "outrageous and dishonest"

In a letter sent to the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by the International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei the IAEA is strongly protesting that committee's report on Iranian nuclear capabilities.

Called into question was the reports conclusion that Iran had enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April. This is in direct conflict with IAEA's own findings.

Also questioned was the report that Iran had "mass quantities of uranium gas await enrichment, which would ultimately be used for the construction of some 40 nuclear bombs."

Furthermore the report suggested that the IAEA had fired an inspector because he would not follow an allege IAEA policy preventing him from telling the truth about Iran.
The IAEA has called this suggestion "outrageous and dishonest" and a case of deja vu relating to pre-Iraq false assessments.

Yellow Cake anyone?

Must be time to out another secret agent!

The full story can be found at The Raw Story.

Mars Reconaissance Orbiter Ready To Go To Work

Updated 9/30/06
Photo links repaired, additional links and photo added 11/26/07

Launched August 12, 2005, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has finally been positioned to begin its task. The orbiter, weighing 2,273 pounds plus a propellant payload of 2,533 pounds, fired it’s thrusters for 27 minutes last March 10th to slow it enough to be captured by Mars’ gravity and swing it into orbit.

This original 35 hour elliptical orbit took the craft as far away as 28,000 miles from the surface to distances as close as 61 miles, where it dipped into the Martian atmosphere in a maneuver called aerobraking. The drag on the space-craft during these encounters eroded this orbit during 426 revolutions until the high point was reduced to 302 miles and an orbit time of 2.4 hours.

This aerobraking maneuver allowed a reduction of about 1,300 lbs. Of propellant over what would have been required if the orbit placement was done with thrusters only.

Six intermediate sized thrusters were fired Monday Sept. 11th for 12.5 minutes to place it in its working orbit of 155 miles near the South pole and 196 miles above the North pole.

The craft was placed into orbit atop a 188 foot tall Atlas V-4012 stage launch vehicle. This version does not use solid fuel booster engines.

The Atlas first stage, weighing 627,000 lbs. at launch uses a Russian built engine powered by liquid oxygen and a rocket fuel similar to kerosene..
This stage operates for about four minutes providing 900,000 pounds of thrust accelerating the spacecraft to about 10,000 miles per hour and an altitude of about 71 miles.
After firing, the first stage separates and falls back into the Atlantic Ocean.

Then the second stage, a Centaur engine, takes over and burns for nine and one half minutes to place the craft into a parking orbit of about 115 miles. The craft then coasts for about 33 minutes as the Centaur positions it for its mission and rotates it to keep it from overheating.
Then over the Indian ocean it fires again for ten minutes to send the craft out of Earth orbit and on its way to Mars.

The next step is to unfold the 33 foot antenna for the Shallow Subsurface Radar, an Italian Space Agency built instrument developed by Northrup Grumman, a California space technology company. This is a ground penetrating radar which will be used to search for water and ice below the surface of the planet.

Another instrument, The High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment, is a high resolution telescopic camera working in both the visible and near-infrared spectrums. With a resolution of 1-2 feet it is capable of imaging items as small as 4 feet across from an altitude of 125 miles. The near-infrared camera will help analyze mineral content of the soil.

Other instruments include a Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer , used in the analysis of the soil, and the Mars Climate Sounder to research the atmosphere.

The orbiter will be sending data at the rate of 0.5 to 4 megabits per second for 10-11 hours each day during its 700 day mission. The total amount of data will be over 4 terrabytes - the equivalent of 6,500 compact disks, or as much as 20 times more data than all of the previous planetary missions combined.

Update 9/30/06:

The HiRISE camera has sent back this image of a portion of the Valles Marineris canyon.
This canyon would stretch from Los Angeles to New York city if it were on Earth.
Click on image to enlarge.


Here is the full extent of the Valles Marineris canyon.


Much more at NASA's Mars Reconaissance Orbiter


Additional images from the HIRISE Camera can be found HERE.