The Court said that a warrant is required where, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, like a car.

The questions presented were:

1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.

2) Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.

The government engages in this investigatory technique frequently, and the federal circuits are divided on whether the practice violates the Fourth Amendment...

Justice Scalia delivered the Opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Sotomayor, which held that the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The majority opinion made clear that the Government's physical occupation of private property for the purpose of obtaining information, would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.

"This letter was drafted in response to intense lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who reportedly spent $700,000 in 2011 in efforts to cut back on anti-bribery protections found in the law.

Based on this intense lobbying effort, legislators on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress are considering introducing legislation that would restrict U.S. federal prosecutors' ability to investigate and punish foreign bribery.

The legislators' proposals range from the wholesale adoption of the Chamber's proposals – which would shield companies from liability for the acts of their subsidiaries, allow the bribery of certain types of government agents, and reward willful ignorance of the law – to more modest amendments that would seek sharper, narrower definition of important terms and provide a minimum threshold under which bribery would not be prosecutable.

Even these less extreme efforts, however, would open the FCPA to the unpredictable horse-trading of congressional politics and turn a sterling record of U.S. leadership in the global fight against corruption on its head.

Most glaringly, none of the proposed amendments would, as their proponents suggest, provide greater legal certainty or cost savings to U.S. businesses.

Profs. David Kennedy and Dan Danielsen, the authors of a new report entitled Busting Bribery: Sustaining the Global Momentum of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, explain that the FCPA has played an important role in combatting bribery on a global scale and provided a level playing field for U.S. businesses.

The Chamber's proposed amendments, far from being 'modest' or aimed at 'restoring the balance,' would badly undercut anti-corruption enforcement efforts and provide what Prof. Danielsen called a "license to commit intentional acts of bribery.'

Moreover, the proposed amendments provide standards that are no clearer than those currently in use. And they would not in any event help to streamline companies' compliance programs, as stricter standards than the FCPA are already in place in other countries, like the United Kingdom, and compliance programs are generally geared toward the most exacting standards to which a company is subject..."

Although the agreement cannot take effect without the approval of the European Parliament and the Council, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) could read the proposed agreement only in a sealed room where they could not take notes or make copies.

The complete text on which the European Parliament will vote has finally been made public, revealing a failure to address the concerns raised by the Parliament and continued shortfalls in data protection, due process, and protection of fundamental rights.

In its resolution of 5 May 2010, the Parliament said that the Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement should take the form of a treaty, recognize the fundamental right to freedom of movement, prohibit the use of PNR data for data mining or profiling, and take into consideration "PNR data which may be available from sources not covered by international agreements, such as computer reservation systems located outside the EU."

The proposed agreement does not meet these criteria, and does not mention any of these issues...

In view of the upcoming vote on the EU-USA PNR Agreement, the Austrian Organization for the Use of the Internet and NoPNR.org, with the endorsement, among others, of The Identity Project, Friends of Privacy USA, Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights, Statewatch and Privacy International, sent an Open Letter to the European Parliament asking its Members to consider the following issues for their decision on the EU-US PNR Agreement:

• The proposed agreement will not result in improved legal security for citizens
• There is no access control or access logging
• The proposed agreement does not meet the conditions set by the European Parliament
• There is no appropriate information to travelers

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorises the arbitrary and indefinite military detention of American citizens.

According to Obama's "signing statement", the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms. The relevant provisions pertaining to civil rights were carefully esconded in a short section of a document of more than 500 pages.

President Obama says he disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law: '[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists' , the President wrote. He acknowledges that certain provisions of the Act (contained in Subtitle D--Counterterrorism) are unacceptable.

The fact of the matter is that both the Executive and the US Congress are complicit in the drafting of Subtitle D. In this regard, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) revealed that it was the White House which had asked the Senate Armed Services Committee 'to remove language from the bill that would have prohibited U.S. citizens' military detention without due process'.

President Obama justifies the signing of the NDAA for 2012 as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a 'counter-terrorism' agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can --under the provisions of the this Act-- be labelled a 'suspected terrorist' and arrested under military detention... The signing statement does not in any way invalidate or modify the actual signing by President Obama of the NDAA into law. It does not have any bearing on the implementation/enforcement of the Law...'

The 'most important traditions and values' in derogation of The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution have indeed been repealed, effective on New Year's Day, January 1st 2012..."

On the other hand, Forbes contributor E. D. Kain explains that "The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The 'compromise' was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that's because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention."

"In part the National Defense Authorization Act helps to preserve the status quo established a decade ago with the original provisions in the PATRIOT Act giving the government broad new powers in the so-called War on Terror.

In part the bill expands those powers, codifying the use of indefinite detention of foreign nationals and possibly US citizens arrested abroad and at home. In part the bill expands the use of the US military on domestic soil, at once complicating anti-terrorism strategies at home and raising serious questions about the role of the military in law enforcement.

The introduction of draft bills, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) aims at providing a legal basis for domain names and IP address seizures.

SOPA's broad definitions could indeed mean that no online resource in the global Internet would be outside US jurisdiction.

In response to these legislative proposals and repeated unilateral measures against European websites, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on 17 November 2011 in preparation of the EU/US summit stressing 'the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names.' The joint EU/US summit declaration published on 28 November 2011 indeed says: "We share a commitment to a single, global Internet, and will resist unilateral efforts to weaken the security, reliability, or independence of its operations".

However, despite the big show of opposition to the US bills and the Parliament's actions, Internet filtering and blocking schemes like SOPA and PIPA are still on the agenda on the other side of the Atlantic claiming worldwide jurisdiction for domain names and IP addresses.

According to recent reports, attempts to terminate the Internet's end-to-end architecture also seem to get even closer to the core of the Internet. This sort of access restriction is an experiment with key functions of the Internet, increasing the risk of fragmentation of the global Internet and as one co-chair of the DNS Working group of the European Regional Internet Registry stated, this gives restrictive tools 'to the bad guys'..."

On November 15th, 2011, a collection of international civil society and human rights organizations sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Representative, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan).

The groups called into question several provisions of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that would have 'serious implications for international civil and human rights' and the integrity of the global internet. "By imposing technical changes to the open internet while eroding due process, SOPA introduces a deeply concerning degree of legal uncertainty into the internet economy, particularly for businesses and users internationally.

Business cannot be conducted online when international users and businesses do not have faith that their access to payments, domain names, and advertising will be available, raising challenges to economic development and innovation. This is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States.

The provisions in SOPA on DNS filtering in particular will have severe consequences worldwide...

By instituting this practice in the United States, SOPA sends an unequivocal message to other nations that it is acceptable to censor speech on the global Internet. Additionally, Internet engineers have argued in response to the Protect IP Act, DNS filtering would break the internet into separate regional networks.

Worse still, the circumvention technology that can be used to access information under repressive Internet regimes would be outlawed under SOPA, the very same technology whose development is funded by the State Department..."

The first, filed by Khalid El-Masri in September 2009, claims unlawful abduction and mistreatment by the Macedonian Ministry of the Interior.

The second was filed by Abd Al-Rahim al Nashiri for alleged mistreatment during his detention at a secret prison (“black site”) in Poland...

The third, most recent case was filed against Lithuania by Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (“Abu Zubaydah”) for alleged secret detention and torture by CIA agents committed at a Lithuanian black site...

El-Masri’s petition alleges that Macedonia violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to intervene during his torture and inhuman treatment by CIA agents in Macedonia; by allowing him to be transported to Afghanistan with the knowledge that he would be tortured and inhumanly treated at the destination; and by failing to investigate his arrest, detention, and transfer to the CIA by Macedonian authorities.

Additionally, El-Masri claims that his detention by Macedonian authorities for twenty-three days, along with his transfer to CIA agents, violated his right to liberty and security of person (Article 5), and that the failure by the Macedonian criminal courts to hear his case violated his right to remedy guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention.

Regarding Al Nashiri, his petition alleges violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 5 (liberty and security of person), 8 (right to private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), and 13 (right to remedy) of the Convention, and Protocol 6 to the Convention (abolition of the death penalty)...

If the Court accepts El-Masri’s and/or al Nashiri’s applications, both the applicants and the member states will be invited to present their claims before the Court. Should the Court find that a member state has violated the Convention, it may issue a declaratory judgment, order payment of damages and legal costs, or implement other measures of reparation.

Obama's failure to consult with Congress creates a dangerous precedent that denies Congress a say in deciding when and how U.S. military forces should be used and instead places these decisions into the hands of just one person - the president. [...]

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare wars and fund the military. However, the Constitution simultaneously empowers the president to carry out wars as commander-in-chief. Both branches of government have long debated this dichotomy of war powers.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 meant to end this debate by requiring closer collaboration between the branches when the United States enters into a conflict. [...]

Passed over a presidential veto, the War Powers Resolution means to serve as a check on the president's ability to commit U.S. forces to lengthy military engagements without approval from Congress.

Since the start of U.S. involvement in NATO's Libya mission, President Obama has neglected the War Powers Resolution by denying that the conflict is actually a war. [...]

Considering that America provided the bulk of NATO's military capabilities and funding in Libya, this was as much America's war as it was NATO's.

Therefore, Obama should have consulted with and sought approval from Congress and adhered to the 60-day deadline, as the Resolution requires.

No obstante, nuevas revelaciones sobre los prolongados escándalos políticos del ex presidente Álvaro Uribe, quien fue un aliado cercano de Estados Unidos durante sus ocho años de gobierno, terminaron vinculando la ayuda estadounidense, y quizás a funcionarios estadounidenses, con graves abusos de poder y acciones ilegales del gobierno colombiano bajo la máscara de combatir el terrorismo y el tráfico de drogas.

De acuerdo con documentos policiales obtenidos por el Washington Post y entrevistas con fiscales y ex oficiales colombianos de inteligencia, se usaron dinero, equipos y entrenamiento norteamericano, suministrados a unidades élites de la inteligencia colombiana en la última década para ayudar a acabar con grupos de traficantes drogas, para llevar a cabo operaciones de espionaje y hacer campañas de desprestigio contra la Corte Suprema de Justicia, contra miembros de la oposición y contra grupos de la sociedad civil.

Las revelaciones hacen parte de una investigación de la Fiscalía General contra el Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad, DAS. Seis ex funcionarios de inteligencia de alto rango han confesado crímenes y más de una docena de agentes operativos del DAS están en juicio. Varios de los ayudantes más cercanos a Uribe han estado bajo escrutinio, y Uribe está bajo investigación por una comisión legislativa especial...

Algunos de los que enfrentan cargos o están bajo investigación han descrito la importancia de los recursos y la orientación de inteligencia de Estados Unidos y dicen que ellos regularmente le informaban a los oficiales "de contacto" de la Embajada sobre sus actividades de recopilación de información. "Nos organizábamos a través de la Embajada de Estados Unidos", dijo William Romero, quien manejaba la red de informantes del DAS y supervisó la infiltración a la Corte Suprema. Como muchos de los oficiales de alto rango del DAS que están en la cárcel o enfrentan cargos, él recibió entrenamiento de la CIA. Algunos recibieron becas para completar su formación académica en recopilación de inteligencia en universidades de Estados Unidos...

Una unidad que dependía de ayuda de la CIA, según el testimonio de ex funcionarios del DAS, era el Grupo de Observación Nacional e Internacional, Goni.

El grupo fue creado para encontrar vínculos entre agentes extranjeros y guerrillas colombianas, pero cambió su foco hacia la Corte Suprema después de que sus magistrados comenzaron a investigar al primo del Presidente, el entonces senador Mario Uribe, según dijo su ex Director, Germán Ospina, en su versión libre ante la Fiscalía. Las órdenes vinieron "de la Presidencia, querían resultados inmediatos", dijo Ospina.

Otra unidad que operó durante ocho meses en 2005, el Grupo de Análisis de Medios Terroristas, GAME, armó informes sobre líderes sindicales, irrumpió en sus oficinas y filmó a miembros de sindicatos. Los Estados Unidos proveyeron equipos y decenas de miles de dólares, según un reporte interno del DAS, y los miembros de la unidad regularmente se reunían con un oficial de la Embajada que recordaban como 'Chris Sullivan'...

Myles Frechette, el Embajador en Colombia entre 1994 y 1997, dijo que aun durante su período, funcionarios estadounidenes creían que las unidades del DAS estaban manchadas por corrupción y tenían vínculos con narcotraficantes. Pero dijo que la Embajada necesitaba un socio para hacer inteligencia sobre contrabandistas de droga y guerrillas..."

But new revelations in long-running political scandals under former president Alvaro Uribe, a close U.S. ally throughout his eight-year tenure, have implicated American aid, and possibly U.S. officials, in egregious abuses of power and illegal actions by the Colombian government under the guise of fighting terrorism and drug smuggling.

American cash, equipment and training, supplied to elite units of the Colombian intelligence service over the past decade to help smash cocaine-trafficking rings, were used to carry out spying operations and smear campaigns against Supreme Court justices, Uribe’s political opponents and civil society groups, according to law enforcement documents obtained by The Washington Post and interviews with prosecutors and former Colombian intelligence officials.

The revelations are part of a widening investigation by the Colombian attorney general’s office against the Department of Administrative Security, or DAS. Six former high-ranking intelligence officials have confessed to crimes, and more than a dozen other agency operatives are on trial. Several of Uribe’s closest aides have come under scrutiny, and Uribe is under investigation by a special legislative commission...

Some of those charged or under investigation have described the importance of U.S. intelligence resources and guidance, and say they regularly briefed embassy “liaison” officials on their intelligence-gathering activities. “We were organized through the American Embassy,” said William Romero, who ran the DAS’s network of informants and oversaw infiltration of the Supreme Court. Like many of the top DAS officials in jail or facing charges, he received CIA training. Some were given scholarships to complete coursework on intelligence-gathering at American universities...

One unit dependent on CIA aid, according to the testimony of former DAS officials in depositions, was the National and International Observations Group.

Set up to root out ties between foreign operatives and Colombian guerrillas, it turned its attention to the Supreme Court after magistrates began investigating the president’s cousin, then-Sen. Mario Uribe, said a former director, German Ospina, in a deposition to prosecutors. The orders came “from the presidency; they wanted immediate results,” Ospina told prosecutors.

Another unit that operated for eight months in 2005, the Group to Analyze Terrorist Organization Media, assembled dossiers on labor leaders, broke into their offices and videotaped union activists. The United States provided equipment and tens of thousands of dollars, according to an internal DAS report, and the unit’s members regularly met with an embassy official they remembered as 'Chris Sullivan...'

Myles Frechette, the U.S. ambassador to Colombia from 1994 to 1997, said that even in his tenure American officials believed that DAS units were tainted by corruption and linked to traffickers. But he said the embassy needed a partner to develop intelligence on drug smugglers and guerrillas..."

Theoretically, the threat of cuts to national security spending, which will go into effect if no Super Committee deal is reached, gives Democrats leverage over hawkish Republicans to agree to increased tax revenues. Give up that leverage by saying that you’d prefer cuts to entitlement spending over cuts to the Defense Department, and you’ve given Republicans cover to claim that cutting entitlements while achieving no Democratic priorities is a fair offer.

So why would any Democrat, particularly a prominent member of the Obama administration, undercut the Democrats’ bargaining position by saying entitlement cuts are preferable to Defense cuts? It’s unclear, but that is what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is doing.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, “Panetta said that the roughly half a trillion in additional cuts in Defense Department spending that would go into effect if Congress fails to enact a separate savings package by the end of the year would be ‘unacceptable.’ Any further defense cuts ‘is going to damage national security.’”

Later, Panetta took to his department’s web site to reiterate the point. As foreign policy expert Michael Cohen explains, “If the committee fails to reach an agreement and across-the-board defense cuts are immediately put into effect Republicans can use a Democratic Secretary of Defense’s own words to argue that Congressional Democrats have weakened national security.”...

I recently spent several days travelling across the Gulf Coast region of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, speaking with fishermen, oystermen, shrimpers, restaurant workers, and neighbours about the illnesses they have suffered in the wake of this calamity...

Our delegation met two brothers who said their families had been fishing for five generations. Both they and their family members have endured excruciating lung, skin, and digestive-tract ailments in the wake of the BP disaster. When one man's infant grandson ran a high fever, his daughter-in-law panicked and brought the child to the emergency room. Self-employed and uninsured, he faced a bill of 2,300 dollars. With shrimp yields the lowest in memory, he wonders how he will pay...

Many of those who sought care have been belittled when they've mentioned BP, and dismissed as delusional or depressed. We heard dozens of people across the region talk about similar health problems and obstacles to care. There are many reasons. The full spectrum of chemicals used in the dispersants was made public in June 2011, only after requests consistently denied led to extensive litigation...

First responders to the 9/11 tragedy did not have to prove causation in order to get treatment, they only had to show they were in the vicinity of the terrorist attack. Similarly, the 150,000-strong cleanup crew who sacrificed themselves, and their families and neighbours who live along the Gulf Coast should not have to prove that their symptoms are caused by BP's catastrophe, only that they were there...

Porque el acuerdo en sí, según la información disponible, es una catástrofe, y no sólo para el presidente Barack Obama y su partido. El acuerdo perjudicará a una economía que ya está en recesión, probablemente agrave aún más el eterno problema del déficit norteamericano y, lo que es más importante todavía, al demostrar que la extorsión descarada funciona y no tiene costo político, arrastrará a Estados Unidos por el camino de las repúblicas bananeras.

Empecemos por la economía. En este momento, el país atraviesa una profunda depresión... Lo peor que se puede hacer en una coyuntura como ésta es recortar el gasto público, porque sólo deprimirá la economía aún más... Las cosas no funcionan así: está demostrado por numerosos estudios de los registros históricos.

De hecho, recortar el gasto con la economía deprimida ni siquiera aliviará mucho la situación presupuestaria, y hasta podría agravarla. Por un lado, las tasas de interés con las que se endeuda el gobierno federal son muy bajas, así que un recorte del gasto ahora no hará mucho por reducir el costo de los intereses futuros... Así que esos exigentes recortes del gasto de la actualidad son como esos médicos medievales que trataban al enfermo con sangrías y sólo conseguían enfermarlo aún más.

Y después están los términos del arreglo, que equivalen a una abyecta rendición por parte del presidente Obama. Primero, habrá enormes recortes del gasto público, sin aumentos de los ingresos. Luego un panel recomendará futuras reducciones del déficit, y si esas recomendaciones son aceptadas, habrá otros recortes del gasto...

[L]o más probable es que los republicanos se envalentonen por el modo en que Obama sigue retrocediendo frente a sus amenazas. Ya se rindió en diciembre, cuando extendió todos los recortes impositivos de George W. Bush, y se ha rendido ahora y a gran escala frente a la descarada extorsión sobre el techo de endeudamiento. Tal vez sea yo, pero acá veo un patrón de conducta.

¿Tenía el presidente alguna alternativa esta vez? Sí. Para empezar, podría y debería haber pedido un aumento del techo de endeudamiento allá en diciembre pasado...

Como mínimo, el presidente podría haber usado la opción de la artimaña legal para fortalecer su posición en las negociaciones. Sin embargo, hizo todo lo contrario: descartó todas esas opciones desde el principio.

The source of that allegation is Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada Garcia, one of the purported top leaders of the Sinaloa drug-trafficking organization — a major Mexican-based importer of weapons and exporter of drugs.

The top capo of the Sinaloa drug organization, named after the Pacific Coast Mexican state where it is based, is Joaquin Guzman Loera (El Chapo) — who escaped from a maximum security prison in Mexico in 2001, only days before he was slated to be extradited to the United States. Chapo has since gone on to build one of the most powerful drug "cartels" in Mexico. With the death of Osama Bin Laden in May, Chapo (a Spanish nickname meaning "shorty") jumped to the top of the FBI’s "Most Wanted" persons list. He also made Forbes Magazine’s 2010 list of "The World's Most Powerful People."

Zambada Niebla, himself a key player in the Sinaloa organization, was arrested in Mexico City in March 2009 and last February extradited to the United States to stand trial on narco-trafficking-related charges...

Zambada Niebla also claims to be an asset of the US government. His allegation was laid out originally in a two-page court pleading filed in late March with the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

A fines de la semana pasada, el hijo de un alto jefe del cártel de Sinaloa declaró ante una corte federal estadounidense que Washington le había dado "carta blanca para seguir contrabandeando toneladas de drogas a (la norteña ciudad de) Chicago y al resto de Estados Unidos".

Las acusaciones, aunque prácticamente ignoradas por los medios estadounidenses, despertaron nuevas dudas sobre la política antidrogas de Washington al sur de la frontera, que muchos analistas consideran ha sido por años tan corrupta como ineficaz.

En la declaración de dos páginas al tribunal, Jesús Vicente Zambada-Niebla (hijo de Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada García, un supuesto líder de la organización traficante de drogas y armas en el occidental estado mexicano de Sinaloa) dio detalles de la presunta colaboración entre el cártel y el Departamento de Justicia estadounidense y sus varias ramas, incluyendo agencias como la DEA (antidrogas) y el Buró Federal de Investigaciones (FBI)...

El juicio a Zambada-Niebla también echó luz sobre los fallos de inteligencia de Estados Unidos, al hacer referencia a una polémica operación del Buró para el Alcohol, el Tabaco y las Armas de Fuego (ATF) conocida como "Rápido y furioso".

Ahora tema de una investigación en el Congreso, la operación fue un intento de seguir el rastro de las ventas de armas estadounidenses a los cárteles mexicanos.

Bajo el programa, supervisado desde la sede central de la ATF en Phoenix, Arizona, cerca de 2.500 armas de fuego, incluyendo cientos de rifles AK-47 y Barrett, fueron vendidos por agentes encubiertos a traficantes de armas.

La operación comenzó en 2008, y miles de armas han desaparecido en la frontera sin que se sepa su rastro. La falta de un mecanismo efectivo para rastrearlas determinó que estén ahora seguramente en manos de algunos de los más peligrosos criminales mexicanos...

Both plaintiffs worked as contractors in Iraq and were wrongfully detained and subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" by American military officers.

"The Court agreed with several rulings of a lower court regarding the case. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit found that Vance and Ertel 'alleged in sufficient detail facts supporting Secretary Rumsfeld's personal responsibility for the alleged torture,' 'that Secretary Rumsfeld is not entitled to qualified immunity on the pleadings,' and that 'a Bivens remedy is available for the alleged torture of civilian U.S. citizens by U.S. military personnel in a war zone.' (Bivens remedies allow for citizens to sue for damages for constitutional violations committed by federal agents.)"

On Apr. 16, 2006, two U.S. contractors in Iraq's Red Zone were handcuffed, blindfolded and transported to Camp Cropper, a U.S. military facility located a few miles from Baghdad International Airport, where they were detained as security internees.

Held without a trial or court hearing and tortured, the plaintiffs are suing for damages rendered against them in Camp Cropper, where Rumsfeld and several other unnamed officials allegedly "developed, authorized and used harsh interrogation techniques on them", thus violating their basic civil, constitutional and human rights...

Out of many suits brought against Rumsfeld over the torture of detainees in Iraq, Vance is one of only two that has been allowed to proceed... On August 2, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Washington DC, upheld the validity of a constitutional rights claim by Doe against Rumsfeld for his role in the torturing and illegal imprisonment of Doe, a U.S. citizen who was working as a translator in Iraq.

The Vance-Ertel case exposes the myriad links between private contractors, U.S. forces, U.S. government officials and intelligence agencies that often converge in the dark cells of detention centres such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Camp Cropper...

Upon analysing whether plaintiffs' allegations of torture entail a violation of their constitutional right to substantive due process, the court said that "The Supreme Court 'has long held that certain interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as applied to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned under the Due Process Clause.'"

The court rejected the claim that government officials should be above the law, stating in its final decision, "We see no persuasive justification in ... case law or otherwise for Rumsfeld's most sweeping argument, which would deprive civilian U.S. citizens of a civil judicial remedy for torture or even cold-blooded murder by federal officials and soldiers, at any level, in a war zone."

"Given the totality of the plaintiffs' allegations, that they were interrogated with physical violence and threats, were kept in extremely cold cells without adequate clothing, were continuously deprived of sleep..., a reasonable official in Secretary Rumsfeld's position in 2006 would have known that this amounted to unconstitutional treatment of a civilian U.S. citizen detainee."

Ya habían sido criticadas antes por su poder superior a los estados que ingresaban al mercado de bonos internacional en busca de efectivo. Toda rebaja de categoría puede desbaratar la búsqueda de fondos de un país.

"Millones de inversores confían en sus evaluaciones independientes y objetivas. Las clasificadoras rompieron ese vínculo de confianza y los reguladores federales ignoraron las señales de alerta y no hicieron nada para proteger a la gente", señaló Henry Waxman, del Partido Demócrata y presidente del Comité de Supervisión de Asuntos de Gobierno de la Cámara de Representantes.

Las propias firmas necesitadas de una valoración pagan a las calificadoras para que la evalúen, un conflicto de intereses evidente que las llevó a inflar la nota de compañías en problemas y con inversiones de riesgo, apuntó el legislador.

El representante demócrata Stephen Lynch describió cómo las empresas necesitadas de una valoración retiran de la calificadora sus negocios con posibilidades de recibir una mala nota. Eso llevó a las agencias a otorgar altas calificaciones por temor a perder clientes, apuntó.

Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s y Fitch concentran más de 95 por ciento del negocio de las agencias calificadoras.

Hace poco, las calificadoras tuvieron que retroceder. Standard and Poor’s tuvo que darle menor nota a más de dos tercios de las inversiones que califica y Moody’s bajó de categoría a más de 5.000 títulos con respaldo de préstamos hipotecarios, indicó Waxman.

Standard and Poor’s le había concedido una buena calificación a la firma Enron días antes de su colapso. "La misma gente que otorgó esa nota sigue al mando del gallinero", explicó Frank Raiter, ex ejecutivo de Standard and Poor’s.