22 Friday Jul 2011
Posted in Justice Department, Wall Street
Wow, that didn’t take long:
“The U.S. Justice Department is preparing subpoenas as part of preliminary investigations into News Corp. relating to alleged foreign bribery and alleged hacking of voicemail of Sept. 11 victims, according to a government official.”
Would have been nice to see this kind of zeal and this sense of urgency and immediacy when it came to taking on the banksters.
Priorities.
20 Monday Jun 2011
Posted in Congress, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Politics
Tags
Eric Holder, FBI, George W. Bush, hostilities, Justice Department, Libya, Lindsey Graham, Meet The Press, Newshoggers, Obama, Office of Legal Counsel, Pentagon, shut up, War Powers Resolution
From an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, May 21, 2006, via Newshoggers:
“[T]he changes that George W. Bush has made to our nation’s constitutional firmament may not depart with the first family’s bags. His disregard for the separation of powers has so dramatically distorted the office of the president that he may have engineered a turning point in American history.
…Bush has taught tomorrow’s leaders that, if there are no consequences for ignoring legal constraints on power and if no one stops you from conducting the nation’s business in secret, you don’t have to be accountable. He is ruling through the tautological doctrine of Richard Nixon, who told interviewer David Frost that as long as the president’s doing it “that means it is not illegal.”
…Holding the executive branch to account for its actions, demanding that it respect the law and insisting that it fully report to Congress on its activities – these are nonnegotiable duties of Congress, because they are key part of our inheritance.
Being answerable to another is humbling. It makes you more careful in your actions. It requires that you consider how you will defend your decisions. George Bush has freed himself of this constitutional imperative and is showing the next president, and the next, how it is done.”
Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI’s investigative powers:
“The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.
Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.”
Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president’s convoluted definition of “hostilities”:
“President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.
…Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.”
But the Executive’s ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:
“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I’m sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress’ responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don’t think “shut up” is among them.
16 Thursday Jun 2011
Posted in Congress, Constitution, drone strikes, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Obama administration, Yemen
Tags
Congress, drones, Harold Koh, hostilities, kinetic military action, Libya, Obama, War Powers Resolution, Yemen
I give the Obama administration points for creativity, if nothing else:
“The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.
In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.”
Wait a minute, I thought the mission was for humanitarian reasons, not regime change. Wha’ happen?
“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.
The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.”
I think the people on the receiving end of those drone missiles might have a different definition of “hostilities.”
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power.”
Uh yes, that’s exactly what you’re saying, Mr. Koh. You’re also saying that as long as it’s your guy expanding executive power and taking the country to war kinetic military action on his own it’s OK. Can you say double standard, boys and girls?
“We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
No, you’re not actually saying you can refuse to consult Congress, whatever refuse means inside the White House these days, just that you can concoct some phony baloney reason not to, Carnac.
Mr. Koh, just for clarification purposes, the next time you talk to President Bush Obama, ask him whether or not a drone attack a day in Yemen falls under “hostilities.” Just curious.
Oh, one more thing about disregarding the War Powers Resolution, the ‘everybody else does it’ excuse didn’t work for me when I was six and it doesn’t work for you now as far as I’m concerned. I must have missed the ‘vote for me, I’ll do what everybody else has done’ campaign speech in 2008.
31 Friday Dec 2010
Tags
al Qaeda, Bill of Rights, Bush administration, CIA, Department of Justice, drones, due process, extrajudicial killings, Gitmo, human rights, hypocrisy, indefinite detention, look forward not back, Obama administration, Pakistan, Poland, Taliban, torture investigation, treaties, war on terror
From the Department of Blatant Hypocrisy, Do As I Say, Not As I Do Division:
“The Obama administration is expressing alarm over reports that thousands of political separatists and captured Taliban insurgents have disappeared into the hands of Pakistan’s police and security forces, and that some may have been tortured or killed.
The concern is over a steady stream of accounts from human rights groups that Pakistan’s security services have rounded up thousands of people over the past decade, mainly in Baluchistan, a vast and restive province far from the fight with the Taliban, and are holding them incommunicado without charges.”
Welcome to the Hotel Gitmo. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
“Separately, the report also described concerns that the Pakistani military had killed unarmed members of the Taliban, rather than put them on trial.
…Two months ago, the United States took the unusual step of refusing to train or equip about a half-dozen Pakistani Army units that are believed to have killed unarmed prisoners and civilians during recent offensives against the Taliban. The most recent State Department report contains some of the administration’s most pointed language about accusations of such so-called extrajudicial killings.”
“From the moment he stepped foot inside the White House, Obama set about expanding and escalating a covert CIA program of “targeted killings” inside Pakistan, using Predator and Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles..that had been started by the Bush administration in 2004.
On 23 January 2009, just three days after being sworn in, Obama ordered his first set of air strikes inside Pakistan; one is said to have killed four Arab fighters linked to al-Qaida but the other hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child.
…During his first nine months in office he authorised as many aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W Bush did in his final three years in the job…According to the New America Foundation thinktank in Washington DC, the number of US drone strikes in Pakistan more than doubled in 2010, to 115. That is an astonishing rate of around one bombing every three days inside a country with which the US is not at war.”
And then there’s this from the Obstruction of Justice Department, Look Forward Division:
“The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected a request from prosecutors in Warsaw for assistance in the investigation into the alleged CIA prisons in Poland, where captives claim they were tortured. On 18 March, the Prosecutor’s Office of Appeal in Warsaw filed a motion for legal assistance from the US Department of Justice into the probe…[T]he US informed prosecutors that the motion had been rejected on the basis of the international Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and that the U.S. authorities consider the matter “to be closed”.
So far, the U.S. Justice Department has failed to comply with its treaty obligations to supply information requested by prosecutors in Spain, Germany, Italy, and Poland who are probing allegations of kidnapping, false arrest, assault, and torture by persons believed to be CIA agents in connection with extraordinary rendition operations.”
This has, by far, been my biggest disappointment with the current administration. Legislative policies are one thing-legislation can be amended, superseded, or repealed. But by continuing, and in some cases expanding upon, the Bush administration “war on terror” tactics, and pursuing this “look forward, not back” lunacy, it has now become the accepted and established policy of two successive administrations—one Republican and one Democratic–that the United States of America now condones actions (indefinite detention without charges, denial of due process) that were once upon a time (pre-9/11) considered a violation of our Bill of Rights.
It also lets other countries that enter into treaties with us know that we will abide by the conditions of those treaties only so far as it is convenient and politically expedient for us to do so, and denies us any credibility on the world stage when it comes to the condemnation of other country’s human rights violations.
In short, we prove to the world that America is a nation of preachers and not practicers.
26 Tuesday Oct 2010
Tags
AIG, Andy Fastow, Bernanke, Dylan Ratigan, Geithner, Holder, Jeff Skilling, Neil Barofsky, Troubled Asset Relief Program, William Black, Zero Hedge
Lisa Epstein and William Black on Dylan Ratigan’s show yesterday:
Speaking of Geithner telling “one lie after another”:
“The United States Treasury concealed $40 billion in likely taxpayer losses on the bailout of the American International Group earlier this month, when it abandoned its usual method for valuing investments, according to a report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
“In our view, this is a significant failure in their transparency,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general, in an interview on Monday.”
Zero Hedge has more of Mr. Barofsky’s report:
“This conduct has left the Treasury vulnerable to charges it has manipulated its methodology for calculating losses to present two different numbers depending on its audience: one designed for release in early October as part of a multifaceted publicity campaign touting the positive aspects of TARP and emphasizing the reduction in anticipated losses, and one, audited by the GAO for release in November as part of a larger audited financial statement. Here again, Treasury’s unfortunate insensitivity to the values of transparency has led it to engage in conduct that risks further damaging public trust in the Government.”
‘Manipulated its methodology for calculating losses?” Didn’t Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow go to prison for that?
“Risks further damaging public trust in the Government?” Is that even possible?
20 Wednesday Oct 2010
Tags
Bank of America, BlackRock, bonds, Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, foreclosures, internal review, Metlife, New York Federal Reserve, no errors, PIMCO
Bank of America has completed its “internal review” of alleged improprieties in its foreclosure proceedings–a review of 102,000 foreclosures that took all of 17 days–and found, surprise surprise, zero mistakes:
“Bank of America announced on Monday that it would resume home foreclosures in nearly two dozen states, despite the running controversy over how banks handled tens of thousands of cases of homeowners facing eviction.
Bank of America, the nation’s largest bank and the servicer of roughly one in five American mortgages, insisted that it had not found a single example where a foreclosure proceeding was brought in error.”
Not so fast, says one state’s assistant attorney general involved in their own investigation:
“A day after the bank said it would once again pursue defaulting borrowers in the 23 states where foreclosures were overseen by the courts, judges in Florida said they were expecting even more challenges from defaulting homeowners.
…“There has been an attempt by some of the major servicers to indicate there are no problems,” said Patrick Madigan, an assistant attorney general in Iowa. “We’re not at the end of this process. We’re at the beginning.”
But BofA has much bigger problems than a few lawsuits from a few homeowners, the big boys are coming after them to buy back the mortgage bonds packed with toxic garbage that BofA was peddling:
“The fears behind mortgage bond-gate might be real after all. Reports indicate that Bank of America is has been asked to repurchase some of its mortgage bonds by some very prominent investors due to procedural failures. Who are those investors? BlackRock Inc. — the largest money manager in the world, PIMCO — the largest Bond fund investor, and the New York Federal Reserve are said to be among them…Metlife, the biggest U.S. life insurer, is expected to join this group of investors demanding repurchase.
Bank of America is the target thanks to its acquisition of Countrywide in 2008. These investors say that Countrywide failed to properly service mortgages which were repacked into bonds. How many bonds? According to Bloomberg, these investors want Bank of America to repurchase $47 billion worth.”
Here’s why this entire fiasco, from origination to securitization to foreclosure, is going to be difficult if not impossible to unwind. From a BofA June court filing:
“It appears as though many loans and other mortgage-related assets have been double and even triple-pledged to various constituencies”…[T]hat is the reason that two different banks sometimes try to simultaneously foreclose on the same home.”
Finally, the feds are getting in on the act, too:
“Members of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force [Justice, Treasury, HUD, and the SEC] and other administration officials are scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss the foreclosure crisis.”
Frankly, I have no confidence that anything substantive will come from this group. I see one of two outcomes. Either they open an investigation, bury it, and we never hear a word of it again, or they go after a few low-level flunkies and the MOTU skate. As usual.
To be continued…
16 Saturday Oct 2010
Tags
Angelo Mozilo, Bank of America, Countrywide, insider trading, Justice Department, lawsuit, Masters of the Universe, Securities and Exchange Commission, securities fraud
It certainly paid well for two former executives of Countrywide yesterday in the settlement of a civil lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission charging Angelo Mozilo, former CEO, and David Sambol, former president, with securities fraud and insider trading. A scam which netted the two a total of nearly $160 million.
The first two paragraphs of the story read like this:
“Angelo R. Mozilo, who as head of home-loan giant Countrywide was at the center of the housing boom and bust, agreed Friday to pay a record fine as part of a $73-million settlement of a government fraud lawsuit over the lender’s near-collapse.
The deal with the Securities and Exchange Commission requires Mozilo, the highest-profile figure to be accused of wrongdoing in the mortgage meltdown, to personally pay a $22.5-million fine. The government said it would be the largest penalty ever paid by a senior executive of a public company in an SEC settlement.”
Then come the “buts”:
“Mozilo…also agreed to pay $45 million in “ill-gotten gains” to former Countrywide Financial Corp. shareholders, who lost billions when the company’s stock price plunged as defaults on home loans surged. But Bank of America Corp., which bought Countrywide in 2008, and Countrywide’s insurers will pay that amount under terms of Mozilo’s employment contract.
Countrywide’s former president, David Sambol, agreed to pay $520,000 in fines and $5 million in restitution. Bank of America will reimburse him for the latter.”
So to recap, Mozilo pays $22.5 million, Sambol pays $520,000. During the period covered by the suit Mozilo received $141.7 million, Sambol $18.3 million, while Countrywide was losing $1.6 billion. But that’s just a snapshot:
“For years, Mr. Mozilo was among the highest-paid executives in America and his S.E.C. fine is a fraction of the vast wealth he amassed running Countrywide. In one eight-year period, from 2000 until he left the company in 2008, Mr. Mozilo received total compensation of $521.5 million, according to Equilar, a compensation research firm.”
Mozilo is still the subject of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department, but anyone who believes this DOJ will pursue criminal charges against any of the financial industry’s Masters of the Universe hasn’t been paying attention. The next one prosecuted will be the first. Gotta keep looking forward, you know.
12 Tuesday Oct 2010
Tags
40 states, attorneys general, bailout, BofA, Chase, Congress, David Axelrod, Dylan Ratigan, financial reform, foreclosure, fraud, insolvent, Karl Denninger, Market Ticker, mortgages, national moratorium, resolution authority, securities, Wall Street, White House
Dylan Ratigan, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker unravel foreclosure fraud:
To reiterate, the fraud in foreclosures that we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. The purpose is to try and cover up, and cover for, the fraud in the mortgage process all the way back to the origination of the mortgages, which were then packaged into securities and fraudulently sold to investors as AAA quality, a rating gained by paying off the ratings agencies. As our parents always told us, one lie requires another one to cover up the first one, which requires another lie to cover up the second one, and so on, and so on, and…….
In my opinion, that’s why the Senate tried to sneak through the legislation that President Obama vetoed—it would have given the big banks protection from liability in this entire mess. As an aside–again just my opinion– but the only reason the president vetoed the bill was because of the attention it received and the light that was shone on its alleged “unintended consequences” (and if you’ll buy that….) My cynical nature when it comes to politicians tells me that “sending the bill back for modifications” translates into, ‘We’ll try again when the heat’s off.’
It’s also why, according to David Axelrod, the hope in the White House is that “this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly.” And why the White House opposes a national moratorium on foreclosures. A moratorium would give investigators and especially some 40 states’ attorneys general time to delve back into fraud and deceit at every level of the process
As Mr. Denninger explained, the only remedy is to force the big banks to buy back the toxic securities that they sold to investors under false pretenses. They can’t do that, which means Chase, BofA, et al, are insolvent. Actually, they’re insolvent now but for the phony profits from peddling this garbage to unsuspecting investors.
There is a provision in the financial reform legislation for resolution authority, that is breaking up large financial institutions that pose a “systemic risk” to the entire economy. Will Congress use it or will they do what they have done in the past and bail out their Wall Street cronies and contributors—again. If Republicans take control of Congress will they hold true to their campaign rhetoric of “no more bailouts” or will they dance to the tune of their big donors on Wall Street?
We may soon find out.
26 Sunday Sep 2010
Tags
ACLU, al Qaeda, American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, assassinate, Center for Constitutional Rights, Constitution, due process, George Bush, Glenn Greenwald, James Madison, Justice Department, President Obama, state secrets, tyranny. oppression
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”—James Madison, often referred to as the father of that antiquated, outdated, document known as the Constitution of the United States, which is now little more than an a la carte menu.
When the president of the United States has the power to order the assassination of an American citizen suspected of terrorist activities but charged with no crime, that is tyranny. And that is exactly the power President Obama is seeking, under the ever-increasing justification of preserving “state secrets.”
“The Obama administration on Friday asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit seeking to stop the government from killing an American citizen [Anwar al-Awlaki] accused of ties to Al Qaeda…In a legal brief, which was filed shortly before midnight, the administration included the contentious argument that litigating the matter could reveal state secrets.”
“…in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are “state secrets,” and thus no court may adjudicate its legality.”
From the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (remember those?):
“The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy.”
Obstruction of Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller:
“If al-Awlaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions.”
Why would al-Awlaki, who is thought to be in Yemen, surrender to authorities when he has not been charged with, or indicted for, any crime? Sure, give himself up and be on the next plane to Jordan or Morocco or wherever the latest outsourcing torture extraordinary rendition site is, to be tortured and meet an untimely, accidental death. Oops.
But few people will notice and even fewer will care. Republicans don’t care because it’s one of “them” who is being targeted for assassination, never mind that al-Awlaki is a US citizen. He don’t look like a reel ‘Murrican. And they’ll take full advantage of the expanded powers of the Executive Branch the next time a Republican occupies the Oval Office. Democrats don’t care because their guy is in there now and they trust him with this power, for some reason that escapes me. Never mind that they would be screaming about the president shredding the Constitution if George Bush was still in office.
11 Saturday Sep 2010
Tags
ACLU, Andrew Sullivan, Bush administration, Daily Dish, due process, equal justice, Executive Branch, habeas corpus, Judicial Branch, national security, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Obama administration, President Obama, rendition, rule of law, September 11, state secrets, The Day That Changed America, torture, war crimes
September 11, 2001 has been dubbed ‘The Day That Changed America’ and indeed it did. Indeed it did—and not for the better. It changed America from the land of the free and the home of the brave to the land of the increasingly less free and the home of ‘do whatever it takes to keep us safe.’ It changed us from a country governed by the founding principles of due process, equal justice, and the rule of law to a country where indefinite detention without charges or trials are an accepted practice. Where the Executive Branch, aided and abetted by the Judicial Branch, can be exempted from accountability from what were once considered war crimes simply by invoking the vague and all-encompassing claims of “state secrets” and “national security interests.”
These changes were exemplified in a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday when it dismissed a suit by five men who allege they were imprisoned and tortured under the Bush administration’s rendition program. The decision was also considered a “major victory” for the Obama administration, who appealed an earlier ruling which said the suit should go forward.
“In a 6-5 ruling issued this afternoon, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Obama administration a major victory in its efforts to shield Bush crimes from judicial review, when the court upheld the Obama DOJ’s argument that Bush’s rendition program, used to send victims to be tortured, are “state secrets” and its legality thus cannot be adjudicated by courts. The Obama DOJ had appealed to the full 9th Circuit from last year’s ruling by a 3-judge panel which rejected the “state secrets” argument and held that it cannot be used as a weapon to shield the Executive Branch from allegations in this case that it broke the law.”
Not that this is any shift in direction. It’s just the latest effort by the current administration to continue, and in some cases expand upon, the policies of the former administration—policies candidate Obama denounced but President Obama embraces:
“Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.”
The reaction to the decision from the ACLU:
“This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court. If today’s decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”
Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish:
“The case yesterday is particularly egregious because it forbade a day in court for torture victims even if only non-classified evidence was used. Think of that for a minute. It shreds any argument that national security is in any way at stake here. It’s definitionally not protection of any state secret if all that is relied upon is evidence that is not secret. And so this doctrine has been invoked by Obama not to protect national security but to protect war criminals from the law. There is no other possible interpretation.The Bush executive is therefore now a part of the American system of government, a system that increasingly bears no resemblance to the constitutional limits allegedly placed upon it, and with a judiciary so co-opted by the executive it came up with this ruling yesterday. Obama, more than anyone, now bears responsibility for that. We had a chance to draw a line. We had a chance to do the right thing. But Obama has vigorously denied us the chance even for minimal accountability for war crimes that smell to heaven.
And this leviathan moves on, its budget never declining, its reach never lessening, its power now emboldened by the knowledge that this republic will never check it, never inspect it, never hold its miscreants responsible for anything, unless they are wretched scapegoats merely following orders from the unassailable above them.”
To those who would “look forward” and give the Obama administration a pass here, ask yourself a few questions. If it were the Bush administration would you be so lenient? Let’s be very honest. If one administration is guilty of authorizing and condoning war crimes, is not the following administration, as evidenced by its actions, guilty of being an accessory to the commission of war crimes? I don’t see how any other conclusion can be reached.
Another thing to consider for those who may trust this far-reaching and unchecked expansion of Executive Branch power in the hands of President Obama—the power doesn’t leave with him when he leaves office. Would you trust it in the hands of President Palin? Think about it.
First they came for the suspected terrorists, and I didn’t care because I wasn’t a suspected terrorist………
Desperado's Outpost 