World Fascism Watch

Patriot Act Extended for Another Year

2010-02-28T08:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/25/politics/main6241401.shtml

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009
Patriot Act Extended for Another Year
Democrats, Now Short of 60-Vote Senate Super Majority, Settle for Extension Without New Privacy Protections

(AP) Senate Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to America's primary counterterrorism law, as Republicans refused to lend support and portrayed the majority as willing to harm terror investigations.

Lacking the necessary 60-vote super majority, Democratic leaders settled on a one-year extension of expiring surveillance and seizure provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

They tossed aside curbs - and greater scrutiny - on government authority agreed to by the Senate Judiciary Committee in October after spirited debate.

The extension passed Wednesday night by voice vote with no debate. The bill goes to the House of Representatives, but with key sections of the law ready to expire Sunday, there's little chance that changes will be made. Expiration of key anti-terrorism tools, even for a short time, would seriously hamper law enforcement.

The Democratic retreat is an important political victory for Republicans, who gained new ammunition for their election theme that they can better protect America. The outcome is a major disappointment for Democrats and their liberal allies like the American Civil Liberties Union and supporters who believe the Patriot Act fails to protect Americans' privacy and gives the government too much authority to spy on Americans and seize their property.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy noted that the bill had been approved in committee by a bipartisan majority. He said the measure "should be an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when we work together, but I understand some Republican senators objected to passing the carefully crafted national security, oversight and judicial review provisions in this legislation."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on Leahy's committee, set the Republican tone in December when the same provisions faced an earlier expiration date and received a short extension.

"The bill that eventually emerged from the Judiciary Committee does not meet the key test for any national security legislation: First, do no harm," Sessions said. "The bill reported by the committee would make the jobs of our national security officials more difficult."

The Obama administration supported the revisions to the law as approved by the committee.

The three sections of the Patriot act that would stay in force:

-Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

-Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

-Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

The Judiciary Committee bill would have restricted FBI information demands known as national security letters, and made it easier to challenge gag orders imposed on Americans whose records are seized with these letters.

Library records would have received extra protections. Congress would have closely scrutinized FBI use of the Patriot Act to prevent abuses. Dissemination of surveillance results would have been restricted, and after a time, unneeded records would have been destroyed.

Republicans have been steadily pounding Democrats over the closing of the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, plus possibly holding civilian trials for detainees in the United States and for informing a Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, of his right to remain silent after 50 minutes of questioning for allegedly trying to ignite explosives on a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas.

If Democrats had allowed the Senate to have a full debate on the Judiciary Committee restrictions, they would have exposed themselves to Republican arguments that Democrats were hurting law enforcement.

With their health care overhaul bill on the ropes and joblessness still high, Democratic lawmakers need a victory.

Not surprisingly, the Democratic retreat didn't please the party's liberal allies, but they recognized the political realities.

"The American Library Association understands why the Democratic leadership has to go with a clean reauthorization but that doesn't take away the disappointment we have"' said Lynne Bradley, the group's chief lobbyist. "It is more than unfortunate that Republicans think they own the ground when it comes to surveillance and national security."

Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the ACLU, said, "Events of the last few months changed the tone in Washington when it comes to national security issues."

"Were it not for the Christmas Day attack, you might have seen a bill with even modest reform go through," she said, referring to the foiled attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner. "The numbers weren't there."

"Zero Tolerance" at Schools Is Going Way Too Far

2010-02-27T14:51:00.001-08:00

One sign of fascism (and psychopathy) is 'zero tolerance' as everything in life has to be on the grid.

Arrested for Doodling on a Desk? "Zero Tolerance" at Schools Is Going Way Too Far
By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
February 27, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145834/

This week, the FBI announced it was launching an investigation into a surveillance scandal out of Lower Merion County, Pennsylvania, where it was recently discovered that school officials had used Web cams on school-issued laptops to spy on a student, 15-year-old Blake Robbins.

Robbins was falsely accused of possessing illicit drugs after the vice principal at his high school, Lindy Matskhis, called him into a meeting where she revealed that she had seen images of him at home through his laptop. According to Robbins' attorney, Mark Haltzman, "She called him into the office and told him, basically, 'I've been watching what was on the Web cam and saw what was in your hands. I've been reading what you've been typing, and I'm afraid you are involved in drugs and trying to sell pills.'"

Matskhis, it turned out, was grievously mistaken. What looked like pills turned out to be Mike and Ike candies.

Robbins' parents sued. Now the case has prompted a debate about student privacy and the threat of technological overreach.

The Robbins case may seem to be uniquely bad in some ways. But it comes at a time when there's no shortage of disturbing stories in the news about the intrusive and repressive measures taken by public schools against students, in districts across the country. Last year the Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of Savana Redding (now an adult, who, at the age of 13, was strip-searched by school staff in search of prescription ibuprofen); yet from violations of privacy to wrongful arrests by school "peace" officers, the story seems to be expanding.

On February 1, in Forest Hills, Queens, 12-year-old Alexa Gonzalez was arrested after she was caught doodling on her desk. Profanity? Threats against her teacher? No, the middle school student had written, with an erasable marker, "I love my friends Abby and Faith," along with "Lex was here. 2/1/10" and a smiley face, according to the New York Daily News.

This, apparently, was a criminal act in the eyes of her teacher. She called school security -- New York police officers -- who promptly cuffed her and hauled her across the street, to the local precinct,

"I started crying, like, a lot," Alexa told the Daily News. "I made two little doodles. It could be easily erased. To put handcuffs on me is unnecessary."

Nevertheless, in addition to being handcuffed and held at the police station, Alexa was also suspended and "assigned eight hours of community service, a book report and an essay on what she learned from the experience."

Alexa's suspension was eventually lifted. But she still missed three days in school, days she spent "throwing up," according to her mother, Moraima Tamacho.

Tamacho and her daughter have an attorney, who says they will sue the NYPD for violating Alexa's constitutional rights.

Punished for Refusing to Pledge Alliegance

Meanwhile, mere days before Alexa's arrest, in Montgomery Country, Maryland, a 13-year-old student at Roberto Clemente Middle School was escorted out of school by police after she refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance two days in a row. According to the ACLU, which is representing the student (she remains anonymous), the trouble started on January 27, when the seventh grader "chose neither to stand nor to speak during the school s daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance."

"Instead, she sat quietly while students recited the Pledge."

Her teacher was not okay with this. He ordered her to stand up; when she refused, he threatened her with detention and sent her to the school counselor's office, where she spent the rest of the period.

The next day, the same conflict broke out. This time, the teacher called in a pair of "school resource officers" -- in-school Maryland police -- to take care of the situation.

The officers didn't arrest the student, escorting her to the counselor's office rather than a police station. Nonetheless, like Alexa Gonzalez, the experience of being marched out of class in front of her classmates proved harrowing.

"As these events occurred in front of the entire class, they caused her great embarrassment and humiliation," her ACLU lawyer wrote in a letter to the school on February 4. "Indeed, since these events, [the student] has been too humiliated to return to school, and has been advised by a psychologist that due to the distress she is experiencing, she should not return for an extended period."

While initially, the teacher and assistant principal refused to acknowledge the violation of the student's rights -- Assistant Principal James Richard countered that the student owed her teacher an apology for her "defiance" -- this week the Washington Post reported that the teacher will have to apologize to the student.

School spokesperson Dana Tofig told the Post that the teacher had violated school policy, which is based on Maryland law.

"The policy is very, very clearly stated," Tofig said. "Our teachers are expected to know the students' rights and responsibilities....A mistake has been made, and it will be rectified."

Zero Tolerance?

Like ongoing reports of students being tasered by police officers on school grounds, it is not uncommon to hear school administrators in the news expressing some regret at a disciplinary action gone too far. These episodes are treated as isolated incidents in an otherwise sound system. But a recent CNN report suggests that stories like these indicate a trend, with critics of "zero-tolerance" policies raising concerns that attempts to keep students disciplined and safe might be doing more harm than good.

"Critics say schools and police have gone too far, overreacting and using well-intended rules for incidents involving nonviolent offenses such as drawing on desks, writing on other school property or talking back to teachers," CNN reported.

"We are arresting them at younger and younger ages [in cases] that used to be covered with a trip to the principal's office, not sending children to jail," said Emma Jordan-Simpson, executive director of the Children's Defense Fund, a national children's advocacy group.
This would certainly apply in the Alexa Gonzalez case. How many more cases are out there like hers isn't entirely clear. (Reports CNN: "There aren't any national studies documenting how often minors become involved with police for nonviolent crimes in schools. Tracking the incidents depends on how individual schools keep records. Much of the information remains private, since it involves juveniles.") But in New York City alone, the problems stemming from an increased police presence in schools have been enough for the New York Civil Liberties Union to produce a number of reports with titles like "Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Schools."

In 2007, the NYCLU produced an educational card for students called "Know Your Rights with Police in Schools." That was the year 13-year-old Chelsea Fraser was arrested for writing "okay" on her desk at a middle school in Dyker Heights, Brooklyn.

"It was really embarrassing because some of the kids, they talk, and they're going to label me as a bad kid. But I'm really not," Fraser told local media at the time. "I didn't know writing 'okay' would get me arrested."

Needless to say, Fraser's case bears an eerie similarity to the Gonzalez case. ("My daughter just wrote something on a desk. I would have her scrub it with Soft Scrub on a Saturday morning when she should be out playing, and maybe a day of in-house and a formal apology to the principal," her mother said.)

In a new report last year examining the consequences of giving the mayor's office more control over city schools, the NYCLU zeroed in on the problem of police officers in schools, writing: "The NYPD plays a unique and expansive role in the city s education system."

At the same time that the number of police personnel in the schools has increased to a whopping 5,200 agents, the ability of educators to oversee school safety and student discipline has decreased. Principals complain that they are unable to control the conduct of School Safety Agents and are limited in their ability to strike the right balance between school security and a supportive educational environment.
New York is not alone in trying to strike this balance. In (highly suburban) Montgomery County, Maryland, concerns over local gang activity have led to an influx of police officers in schools -- the same officers who assisted the teacher in denying his student the right to remain seated during the pledge of allegiance.

Local anti-gang tasks forces have recommended that the number of in-school police officers -- "Educational Facility Officers" or "School Resource Officers -- increase, "extending the program into all high schools and middle schools," according to one report.

It might seem logical given the real dangers posed by gangs to innocent school children. But as reports like the one out of Queens or Montgomery County prove, putting police officers in schools makes no rational sense if the officers -- or teachers emboldened by their presence -- cannot behave rationally

As Chelsea Fraser's mother told told local media outlets after her daughter's arrest: "Here we have rapists, murderers, and you're taking a 13-year-old kid? Wasting valuable manpower to arrest a child who wrote on a desk?"

Cybersecurity bill to give president new emergency powers

2010-02-27T07:32:00.000-08:00

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/83961-forthcoming-cybersecurity-bill-to-give-president-new-powers-in-cyberattack-emergencies

Posted by sakerfa on February 27, 2010

(TheHill) – The president would have the power to safeguard essential federal and private Web resources under draft Senate cybersecurity legislation.

According to an aide familiar with the proposal, the bill includes a mandate for federal agencies to prepare emergency response plans in the event of a massive, nationwide cyberattack.

The president would then have the ability to initiate those network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a cyberattack of unprecedented scope, the aide said.

Ultimately, the legislation is chiefly the brainchild of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively. Both lawmakers have long clamored for a federal cybersecurity bill, charging that current measures — including the legislation passed by the House last year — are too piecemeal to protect the country’s Web infrastructure.

Their renewed focus arrives on the heels of two, high-profile cyberattacks last month: A strike on Google, believed to have originated in China, and a separate, more disjointed attack that affected thousands of businesses worldwide.

Rockefeller and Snowe’s forthcoming bill would establish a host of heretofore absent cybersecurity prevention and response measures, an aide close to the process said. The bill will “significantly [raise] the profile of cybersecurity within the federal government,” while incentivizing private companies to do the same, according to the aide.

Additionally, it will “promote public awareness” of Internet security issues, while outlining key protections of Americans’ civil liberties on the Web, the aide continued.

Privacy groups are nonetheless likely to take some umbrage at Rockefeller and Snowe’s latest effort, an early draft of which leaked late last year.

When early reports predicted the cybersecurity measure would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” online privacy groups said they felt that would endow the White House with overly ambiguous and far-reaching powers to regulate the Internet.

The bill will still contain most of those powers, and a “vast majority” of its other components “remain unchanged,” an aide with knowledge of the legislation told The Hill. But both the aide and a handful of tech insiders who support the bill have nonetheless tried to dampen skeptics’ concerns, reminding them the president already has vast — albeit lesser-known — powers to regulate the Internet during emergencies.

It is unclear when Rockefeller and Snowe will finish their legislation. And the ongoing debate over healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, jobs bills and education fixes could postpone action on the floor for many months.

Both lawmakers heavily emphasized the need for such a bill during a Senate Commerce Committee cybersecurity hearing on Wednesday.

“Too much is at stake for us to pretend that today’s outdated cybersecurity policies are up to the task of protecting our nation and economic infrastructure,” Rockefeller said. “We have to do better and that means it will take a level of coordination and sophistication to outmatch our adversaries and minimize this enormous threat.”

Texas Supplied Newborn Blood Samples to Forensic Database

2010-02-25T14:20:00.001-08:00

Now WHAT do they need blood samples for? For the evil elite to devise better ways to kill off the 'useless eaters'?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/texas-supplied-newborn-blood-sam.html

by Jennifer Couzin-Frankel on February 22, 2010

Dogged investigation by a non-profit online media organization in Texas has revealed that between 2003 and 2007, the state quietly gave hundreds of newborn blood samples to a U.S. Armed Forces laboratory for use in a forensics database. The revelation will likely raise questions about how newborn screening programs are run and how the samples are disseminated, almost always without families knowing where they go.

In this case, 800 blood samples were to be part of a new, national mitochondrial DNA database intended as a reference databank for the forensic community and for research into mitochondrial DNA variation—DNA we inherit from our mother. California, Minnesota, and Florida have also reportedly supplied infant blood samples to the effort, according to The Texas Tribune investigation.

Like virtually every state, Texas routinely screens almost all newborns for rare diseases, collecting a few drops of blood at birth. In recent years many states, Texas included, have stored the samples and offered them up for research, mainly in pediatrics. Because the samples are anonymous (though they may come with some demographic information, depending on the study), researchers have argued that they don't need to seek informed consent to use them.

That hasn't gone over well recently; in March of last year, a civil rights group sued the Texas screening program. In December, the state settled the case and agreed to destroy all newborn blood spots collected before May 2009, when legislation passed allowing for sample storage.

That's where the story gets interesting. The Texas Tribune describes a drawn-out effort to review records of the newborn blood spots. After a couple requests, the Texas Department of State Health Services released a batch of documents, which included a single e-mail mentioning the mtDNA project at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Washington, D.C. "When the Tribune pressed health officials about the missing research files, they produced them, saying it was an oversight, and that the documents had been overlooked in their initial search," writes The Tribune's Emily Ramshaw.

There's growing concern among researchers that public wariness about the newborn screening program will create a backlash—with parents declining to screen their kids (who may end up much sicker because their disease wasn't caught early), and with the spots no longer made available for valuable pediatrics research, such as tracing the origins of childhood leukemia. This new revelation is likely to fan those flame—even if the samples in question are being destroyed.

Yoo Said Bush Could Order Civilians 'Massacred'

2010-02-21T18:12:00.000-08:00

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section/10-war/1049-yoo-said-bush-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred

Yoo Said Bush Could Order Civilians 'Massacred'
By Michael Isikoff, Newsweek
20 February 2010

The chief author of the Bush administration's "torture memo" told Justice Department investigators that the president's war-making authority was so broad that he had the constitutional power to order a village to be "massacred," according to a report by released Friday night by the Office of Professional Responsibility.

The views of former Justice lawyer John Yoo were deemed to be so extreme and out of step with legal precedents that they prompted the Justice Department's internal watchdog office to conclude last year that he committed "intentional professional misconduct" when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects.

The report by OPR concludes that Yoo, now a Berkeley law professor, and his boss at the time, Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, should be referred to their state bar associations for possible disciplinary proceedings. But, as first reported by NEWSWEEK, another senior department lawyer, David Margolis, reviewed the report and last month overruled its findings on the grounds that there was no clear and "unambiguous" standard by which OPR was judging the lawyers. Instead, Margolis, who was the final decision-maker in the inquiry, found that they were guilty of only "poor judgment."

The report, more than four years in the making, is filled with new details into how a small group of lawyers at the Justice Department, the CIA, and the White House crafted the legal arguments that gave the green light to some of the most controversial tactics in the Bush administration's war on terror. They also describe how Bush administration officials were so worried about the prospect that CIA officers might be criminally prosecuted for torture that one senior official - Attorney General John Ashcroft - even suggested that President Bush issue "advance pardons" for those engaging in waterboarding, a proposal that he was quickly told was not possible.

At the core of the legal arguments were the views of Yoo, strongly backed by David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel, that the president's wartime powers were essentially unlimited and included the authority to override laws passed by Congress, such as a statute banning the use of torture. Pressed on his views in an interview with OPR investigators, Yoo was asked:

"What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? ... Is that a power that the president could legally -"

"Yeah," Yoo replied, according to a partial transcript included in the report. "Although, let me say this: So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief's power over tactical decisions."

"To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?" the OPR investigator asked again.

"Sure," said Yoo.

Yoo is depicted as the driving force behind an Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department memo that narrowly defined torture and then added sections concluding that, in the end, it essentially didn't matter what the fine print of the congressionally passed law said: The president's authority superseded the law and CIA officers who might later be accused of torture could also argue that were acting in "self defense" in order to save American lives.

The original torture memo was prompted by concerns by John Rizzo, the CIA's general counsel, that the agency's officers might be criminally prosecuted if they proceeded with waterboarding and other rough tactics in their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, an allegedly high-level Al Qaeda-linked operative who had been captured in Pakistan and in the spring of 2002 was transferred to a CIA "black site" prison in Thailand. Rizzo wanted the Justice Department to provide a blanket letter declining criminal prosecution, essentially providing immunity for any action engaged in by CIA officers, a request that Michael Chertoff, then chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, refused to provide. It was at that point that Yoo began crafting his opinion, the contents of which he actively reviewed with senior officials at the White House. "Let's plan on going over [to the White House] at 3:30 to see some other folks about the bad things opinion," he wrote in a July 12, 2002, e-mail quoted in the OPR report.

The report describes two meetings at the White House with then-chief counsel Alberto Gonzales and "possibly Addington." (Addington refused to talk to the OPR investigators but testified before Congress that he did in fact have at least one meeting with Yoo in the summer of 2002 to discuss the contents of the torture opinion.) After the second meeting, on July 16, 2002, Yoo began writing new sections of his memo that included his controversial views on the president's powers as commander in chief. When one of his associates, Patrick Philbin, questioned the inclusion of that section and suggested it be removed, Yoo replied, "They want it in there," according to an account given by Philbin to OPR investigators. Philbin said he didn't know who the "they" was but assumed it was whoever it was that requested the opinion (technically, that was the CIA, although, as the report makes clear, the White House was also pressing for it).

Yoo provided extensive comments to OPR defending his views of the president's war-making authority and disputing OPR's take that he slanted them to accommodate the White House. He did not immediately respond to NEWSWEEK'S request for comment Friday night.

Perpetual Wars & the Permanent Wartime Presidency

2010-02-20T12:28:00.000-08:00

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/02/15/the-makings-of-a-police-state-part-vii/

The Makings of a Police State-Part VII
Monday, 15. February 2010

With almost a decade under its belt, our multi-front war on a vaguely defined notion of terrorism targeting never-really-defined enemies across the world and here in the newly rephrased ‘homeland’ has come to define the state of our nation. Even the meager limitations on presidential powers of the last six decades have in effect been nullified and replaced with a newly declared and interpreted authority mirroring those of past emperors and kings, and of any classic authoritarian regimes’ rulers.

One look at the last decade’s successfully won legal arguments on behalf of the executive, the presidency, is enough to establish the common theme that ‘the war on terror is global and indefinite in scope, and that it effectively removes all traditional limits of wartime authority to the times and places of imminent or actual battle.’

Whether it is illegal domestic eavesdropping or unlawful detention and torture, these newly claimed and boldly practiced presidential entitlements rely on one factor, and that is the extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Here is a perfect example of the new permanent wartime presidency in action; boldly, loudly, and unfortunately thus far successfully:
On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president’s war-making powers in legal briefs as “plenary” — a term defined as “full,” “complete,” and “absolute.”

The current status of our nation’s president’s war-making powers is defined, recognized, and has been practiced as ‘plenary;’ complete and absolute. Now, let’s add to this the fact that our multi-fronted war on terror is global and indefinite, a war open-ended in time and with no national boundaries. What do we have with this equation? A permanent wartime presidency with absolute powers. The Constitution indeed granted the president the power to fight with any resources Congress makes available in wartime, and accordingly the executive is expected to do whatever it takes to protect the nation, even if it leaves some room for abuse of this power. But did our founders factor in the notion of indefinite, open-ended, perpetual wars, and with them, a permanent wartime presidency status? The Constitution gave presidents the freedom to defend the nation, but what about the nation’s need to protect itself against the abuses of this freedom, including the creation of perpetual wars accompanied with indefinite and absolute presidential powers?

The following excerpts are from the Devil’s Advocate, John Yoo:

Critics of presidential war powers exaggerate the benefits of declarations or authorizations of war, and they also fail to examine the potential costs of congressional participation: delay, inflexibility, and lack of secrecy. Legislative deliberation may breed consensus in the best of cases, but it also may inhibit speed and decisiveness. In the post-Cold War era, the United States confronts several new threats to its national security: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the emergence of rogue nations, and the rise of international terrorism. Each of these threats may require pre-emptive action best undertaken by the president and approved by Congress only afterward.
…
The Constitution creates a presidency that can respond forcefully and independently to pre-empt serious threats to our national security. Instead of demanding a legalistic process to begin war, the framers left war to politics. Presidents can take the initiative and Congress would use their funding power to check him. As we confront terrorism, rogue nations, and WMD proliferation, now is not the time to engage in a radical change in the way our government has waged war for decades.
…
Mr. Yoo considers a thorough congressional review and authorization based on findings and careful review as tending to ‘exaggerate the benefits of declarations or authorizations of war.’ If put in an appropriate context, this exaggeration could probably have prevented a preemptive attack on Iraq based on false and made-up intelligence on nonexistent WMD, and we may have saved thousands of American soldiers’ lives, tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned money, and would have prevented the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians’ lives. Only in John Yoo’s book of ‘cost & benefits analysis’ would this make it to the ‘exaggerated cost column.’

As for ‘Congress would use their funding power to check him,’ his pretend innocence would not get a pass from even the most naïve or ignorant. Considering where the real funding of the inhabitants of our congress comes from, taking into consideration the old adage ‘thou shall not bite the hand that feeds you,’ and understanding the power of ‘bacon sent home,’ who is Mr. Yoo kidding here; really?

Let’s look at it from the other side of the fence. What executive office wouldn’t want to possess this level of power? How many presidents would resist gravitating towards the enormous powers granted to a Commander in Chief in practice? How many of today’s ‘viable’ presidential candidate’s bread is heavily buttered by the war industry? Here is how Richard Norton Smith put it during an interview:

However you define national emergency, whether it’s a foreign war, whether it’s a civil war, whether it’s an economic depression, whether it’s a Cold War or the current war on terror, the fact is power gravitates towards the president…It’s a tug of war, Jim, that’s been going on, a constitutional tug of war between the executive and the legislative branch. And what I was picking up off what Ellen said I think the last 75 years has, if anything, distorted what the founders intended. Because of the Great Depression, because of World War II, because of the Cold War, now the war on terror, the fact is that that tug of war has actually been very one-sided. I don’t think this is the presidency that the founders really envisioned.
…
A Little Bit of History

On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman in 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon in1970 and 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. These vast ranges of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

With the melting of the Cold War-the developing détente, with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions.

As we all know the establishment did not let the ‘melting Cold War’ argument stand. During the Reagan era the Cold War reached new heights, with a massive military buildup in an arms race with the USSR, before it came to an end. It wouldn’t be difficult to imagine the panic experienced by the real powers as the Berlin wall and with it the several-decade Cold War came crumbling down. How could the massive Military Industrial Complex, and those feeding upon it, survive this ‘ending,’ and find a way to sustain itself? How about maintaining the role and power of the Executive Intelligence Complex? The creation, existence, and practices of these agencies were based on and justified by the ‘Evil Empire,’ and with it gone, so was the justification sold to the public for the existence of many dependent upon it here in the States.

Sure there were other wars; Gulf War, Kosovo… But those were mini-wars; peanuts. What was needed, that is for the sustainability, survival, and even the fantasy of expansion, was another long-lasting war. Not a dingy little country or two, and certainly not a clear-cut enemy and pinpointable target to hit and be done with. No. In fact, learning from experience, it had to be something that could not end with some darn wall coming down, or a massive regime being taken out. An open ended war; a war with undefined enemies in many colors, with many tongues, and scattered across the world; a war that could be pointed at one place, then at another, and yet another without having to fit any military definition of target or strategy; a war with no boundaries; a war with no possible end. A war that couldn’t even be defined as a war, yet could act as the mother of all wars – a Perpetual War.

If anyone laughed at even the fantasy of such an absurd objective, they certainly weren’t the ones who had the last laugh. All that was needed to make it happen was the creation of a state of emergency. After all, it had been done for a long time, and done so very successfully. People were used to it – living under various degrees of a state of emergency for many decades. Just take it up a notch or two, then sit back and watch the panic take root and spring into full bloom. Jazz it up with a disaster-loving and panic-driving media, and the state of emergency will go into full effect. And from there – hello Perpetual War.

Here is more on the report by the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency:

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.
…
Because Congress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations … the temporary states of emergency declared in 1938, 1939, 1941, 1950, 1970, and 1971 would become what are now regarded collectively as virtually permanent states of emergency (the 1939 and 1941 emergencies were terminated in 1952). Forty years can, in no way, be defined as a temporary emergency.

‘Forty years can, in no way, be defined as a temporary emergency;’ really? Obviously it can, and it was. Not only that, it actually got worse. Today they don’t even bother adding ‘temporary,’ and leave it out completely. How could you win or lose, and declare the end of the ‘war on terror’? Is it possible to capture and neutralize that one last boogie man, announce that the last of the terrorists has been terminated, and then go about dissolving Homeland Security, Motherland Security, Fatherland Agency, Intelligence Czars, Domestic Eavesdropping…? How about the entire industry, the thriving many trillion dollar industry, with the ‘war on terror’ as their sole reason for existence? Obviously this would not fit the vision put in place by the few who matter, and the many grown dependent on them.

The Mother of all perpetual wars, War on Terror, followed by unjustified and undeclared wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran… Who are the enemies? Bad Taliban, Semi-bad Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda Supporters, Possible Al-Qaeda, Islamists, Fanatics, semi-fanatics, fanatic-looking dudes, Iran-ists, and with them all the civilians ‘just our collateral damage.’; babies, women, elderly…Kidnapping, torture, assassinations, black sites, black operations, black budgets…

Here at home: airport security check-points, no-fly list, semi-no-fly-list, many secret lists, tapping all phone calls, monitoring all e-mails, billions of secret documents, thousands of secret operations & plans.
For the winners in the Perpetual War, the military-intelligence-surveillance industrial complexes, the empire presidency and its advocates, and the parasitic class who lives beneath and off of them…the state of Perpetual War is a long-held dream coming true.

For the losers, we, the public majority, the mothers losing their sons and daughters to wars, the spouses left to deal with their returning amputated loved ones, many in need of medical care but with no coverage or assistance, the hard-working class dutifully parting with needed dollars and foregoing all expectations, the seekers of liberties…the realities of these made-up emergencies, and the real consequences of these vague wars are either not registering, or are being accepted and paid for silently.

This applicable quote comes to mind: “Inter arma silent leges: in time of war the laws are silent.” And, I feel like extending the line by adding”…for as long as the people wish to remain silent.”

School used student laptop webcams to spy on them at school and home

2010-02-20T12:13:00.001-08:00

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29

Cory Doctorow
Boingboing.net
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:51 EST

According to the filings in Blake J Robbins v Lower Merion School District (PA) et al, the laptops issued to high-school students in the well-heeled Philly suburb have webcams that can be covertly activated by the schools' administrators, who have used this facility to spy on students and even their families. The issue came to light when the Robbins's child was disciplined for "improper behavior in his home" and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence. The suit is a class action, brought on behalf of all students issued with these machines.

If true, these allegations are about as creepy as they come. I don't know about you, but I often have the laptop in the room while I'm getting dressed, having private discussions with my family, and so on. The idea that a school district would not only spy on its students' clickstreams and emails (bad enough), but also use these machines as AV bugs is purely horrifying.

Schools are in an absolute panic about kids divulging too much online, worried about pedos and marketers and embarrassing photos that will haunt you when you run for office or apply for a job in 10 years. They tell kids to treat their personal details as though they were precious.

But when schools take that personal information, indiscriminately invading privacy (and, of course, punishing students who use proxies and other privacy tools to avoid official surveillance), they send a much more powerful message: your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it.

Robbins v. Lower Merion School District (PDF)

e're all on Obama's enemies list Posted: February 18, 2010 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 "We all share the goal of capturing the terrorists and protecting

2010-02-20T11:12:00.000-08:00

I've got one problem with this article: the misuse of the world 'socialism'. Socialism is a good thing that is being demonized BEcause the secret puppet masters fear it. The author should have used the word 'communism'.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125378

February 18, 2010

"We all share the goal of capturing the terrorists and protecting national security," said a politician in 2008. The same man added that we as a nation "can do that without violating the privacy of the American people." He also invoked the name of then-President Bush – who was roundly vilified by civil-rights activists for his support of the Patriot Act and for warrantless domestic wiretaps used in anti-terror surveillance – in criticizing then-presidential candidate John McCain. "Like President Bush," the politician said, "Senator McCain is presenting the American people with a false choice – national security or civil liberties. We need a president who understands that we can have both. It's what our values and our Constitution demands."

You may have guessed in context that the politician speaking was none other than Joe Biden, now our vice president. He was referring to candidate Barack Hussein Obama's opposition to the Bush administration's domestic security policies. While it is laudable when a politician takes a stand for civil liberties and refuses to participate in the erosion of civil rights that seems always to run apace with efforts to combat terrorism, there's a problem. That problem is that the Obama administration has proven every bit as corrosive, and in fact much more so, to your civil liberties than moderate Republicans like George W. Bush ever thought of being.

As CNET's Declan McCullagh reported last week, the Obama administration "has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no 'reasonable expectation of privacy'" where the GPS location data of their cell phones is concerned. "[A] customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records," McCullagh quotes the Justice Department's lawyers.

Order Whistleblower magazine's head-shaking November 2009 issue – "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars"

Obama was not even president when he first flip-flopped on the wiretap issue. His administration subsequently brought much more authority to the same "change of heart," arguing that because state secrets are involved, the service provider involved in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping case cannot be sued. This turnabout earned Obama a tongue-lashing from Democrat Russ Feingold in 2009. Wringing his hands and playing the civil libertarian as persuasively as a Democrat can, Feingold exhorted Obama to "formally and promptly renounce the assertions of executive authority made by the Bush administration with regard to warrantless wiretapping." The irate Feingold correctly pointed out that Obama, while (briefly) a United States senator, asserted that "the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal" and that Obama's attorney general "expressed the same view, both as a private citizen and at his confirmation hearing."

Obama further muddied the issue last month when he announced the nomination of David Kris to lead the national security division of the Justice Department. In 2005, Kris wrote an analysis of the Bush administration's wiretap program in which he criticized its legal arguments as "weak." Obama therefore seeks to elevate to a position of authority in national security a man who believes the very program Obama's administration now supports is illegal. It would be easy, therefore, to say that Obama has sent the American people mixed messages on his support for civil liberties ... except that he's actually been remarkably consistent.

Despite whatever muddled bureaucratic maneuvering and political posturing may take place, President Barack Hussein Obama is motivated by one overarching goal: the gradual but ultimately total destruction of the American people's civil rights. Whether his minions are arrogantly proclaiming that the American people should have "no expectation of privacy" in their comings and goings because Glorious Leader Obama says so, dramatically expanding the power of the National Security Council (to make it more "elastic" – never a good sign in federal agencies), or trying to turn the Department of Homeland Security into a brownshirted domestic federal police force that can round up the American people and place them in camps, Obama's policies inevitably, inexorably and invariably lead to more government control and less freedom. The opposite is never the case.

When Barack Hussein Obama's audacious power grabs affect the daily lives of broad swaths of our citizenry, as they do whenever he targets consumer technology, many people are rightly alarmed. We've seen this over and over again. He and his storm troopers want to be able to track your phone without a warrant and whenever it suits them. Will it be such a leap when they decide your phone calls are no more private than your GPS location data? These are the people, after all, who want to control the Internet (when they're not turning over control of key portions of its infrastructure to foreign powers). These are also the people who set up an e-mail address so your fellow citizens could inform on you to Glorious Leader Obama whenever you dared to express an opinion contrary to the Democratic Party line.

The real problem is that, despite these warning signs, the American people are not alarmed enough. Barack Hussein Obama is not merely an inconsistent and hypocritical politician who believes fervently in the power of big government, socialism and invasive control over the individual lives of the American people. He is also a brittle, arrogant, pompous and autocratic would-be tyrant who lives and breathes a sense of entitlement. He believes he is entitled to rule. He believes he is entitled to take anything from you that he wishes in order to further that rule. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is his enemy and that his enemies must be destroyed. He believes that the destruction of such unbelievers is justified whenever and wherever an American citizen, a member of the political opposition or even a member of his own political party dares to stand in his way and thwart his impulsive and ill-conceived demands.

Every single free American has a stake in opposing President Obama's agenda. If they wish to remain free, they cannot believe anything else. They will, in turn, become Obama's enemies – if not in their eyes, then in his.

We are all on Obama's enemies list, and we should be.

Schools switch off webcams allegedly snooping on students

2010-02-20T11:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/767429

February 19, 2010
Lesley Ciarula Taylor

The webcams that officials could turn on remotely without students’ knowledge at a wealthy suburban Philadelphia school district have been turned off, the superintendent has said.

The announcement came hours after disclosure Thursday of a lawsuit filed by parents of the Lower Merion School District student that claimed the laptops handed out by the district were used to snoop on teenagers at home.

Some students, angry at news of the alleged spying, have taped over the laptop cameras and microphones.

Grade 10 student Tom Halperin described students as “pretty disgusted” and pointed out his class recently read 1984, the George Orwell classic that coined the term “Big Brother.”

“This is just bogus,” Halperin, 15, told The Associated Press as he left Harriton High School with his taped-up computer. “I just think it’s really despicable that they have the ability to just watch me all the time.”

The webcams would not be used again unless there were “express written notification to all students and family,” superintendent Dr. Christopher McGinley said in a statement.

The cameras, which the lawsuit said were remotely activated without students’ or parents’ knowledge, came with the Apple computers the school district gave all of its 1,800 students.

If a laptop vanished, the webcam was switched on remotely by the school district’s security and technology staff. “This feature has only been used for the limited purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop,” said McGinley.

Students only found out the webcams could be turned on remotely when a principal told a student they had a picture of him doing something wrong in his home, the lawsuit said.

“The school district has the ability to intercept images from that webcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the camera at the time of activation,” the lawsuit claims.

“The school district has the ability to remotely activate the embedded webcam at any time.

“Many of the images captured may consist of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including various stages of undress.”

It was only when an assistant principal at Harriton High School told Grade 10 student Blake Robbins she had a picture that proved he “was engaged in improper behaviour in his home” that anyone realized the school could peep into students’ home lives without them knowing, the lawsuit says.

Assistant principal Lindy Matsko “cited as evidence a photograph from the webcam embedded in” Robbins’ school-issued laptop, the lawsuit says.

Blake’s parents, Michael and Holly Robbins, filed the lawsuit Feb. 11 on behalf of all 1,800 students at Lower Merion’s schools. The lawsuit alleges the webcams violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of privacy, Pennsylvania common law, the U.S. Civil Rights Act, and a variety of other laws.

In his welcome to students, posted on the district website, McGinley speaks glowingly of the program to give every student their own laptop and create “an authentic, mobile, 21st century learning environment.”

The program “ensures that all students have 24/7 access to school-based resources.”

The Robbins lawsuit contends the district also had 24/7 access to the students “by the unauthorized, inappropriate and indiscriminate remote activation of a webcam.”

Serving the wealthy Main Line outside of Philadelphia, the Lower Merion School District “is one of only two districts in Pennsylvania to earn Moody’s highest bond rating,” information in McGinley’s biography says. Its teachers are among the highest paid in Pennsylvania and its students’ college-entrance scores are among the highest in the country, the information says.

Body Scanners will also cause major delays

2010-02-17T13:19:00.000-08:00

It is the Mind of Evil that does not believe us goyim (human cattle) should have Dignity! Dignity is a problem for the status quo. When people have Dignity, they insist on BEing treated BEtter than slaves. They insist on living wages, an education, a right to vote, laws to protect them from violence including rape by the slave masters and their goons. More, Evil and its human agents believe they are better than the rest of the population so it is an outrage to them when People Have Dignity. These naked body scanners aren't about preventing terrorism! They are about making money for certain people (eg Chernoff) who are politically connected. They are about voyeurism for dark minds (security jobs attract a lot of goons). They are about attacking people's self-esteem so they will lose their Dignity!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Forget-Privacy-and-Dignity-by-America-20xy-100213-615.html

February 16, 2010
Forget Privacy and Dignity...Body Scanners will also cause major delays
By America 20xy

The government plans to install in airports over the next two years 950 body scanners in a calculated over-reaction to the Christmas Day bomber's attempts to light his shorts on fire, (all after federal counterterrorism officials had begged off revocation of the bomber's VISA despite him being a terror suspect, and despite the fact that he was allowed to get on the plane without a passport with the aid of a still unknown person).

Apparently not only will the scanners allow complete strangers to clearly see the naked bodies of your children and make them easy prey to any pedophiles who wish to infiltrate the TSA, but they're also going to cause delays to travelers.

According to an article in USA Today titled, "Airport scanners stir fears over security lines" (not "Airport scanners stir fears over loss of privacy...or civil liberties") the new full body scanners take at least five times longer to scan a single passenger than a standard metal detector would. So by simple logic passengers should expect it to take five times longer to get past security and therefore plan to be at the airport five times earlier than they would have been before. All in the name of protecting them from any future bombers that the FBI might purposely allow onto their flights in a mystifying counter-terrorism strategy that screams of criminal incompetence or...dare I say... a possible "inside job".

In a society of mostly vigilant, informed citizens in which a mainstream media puts more energy into spotlighting threats to freedom and the dangers of expanding federal power, and less into fear-mongering and reinforcing the message that an, (at best), incompetent bureaucracy knows better than you, such a point would be minor. However, the society described above hardly exists in America today, so despite everything else, the threat that the body scanners pose is re-framed as one of personal annoyance rather than personal dignity.

That the body scanners may cause delay is something that the TSA has noted, though a spokesman said the scanners will not "significantly increase" checkpoint lines.

Previously the public was assured that the body scanners couldn't record the images of passengers. Then it was revealed and confirmed surprisingly by CNN that body scanners could record the images while in "test mode". This week an Indian film star claimed that fans working at Heathrow airport printed out a naked scanner image for him to sign. Heathrow responded by saying his story was "factually incorrect" since the scanners couldn't record or print images, which challenges CNN's story and makes the picture below of a printed body scanner image all the more baffling.

One of the greatest advocates for the use of body scanners is former Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, who's title seemed to give his opinion credibility to safety conscious citizens until a New York Times editor's note revealed that Chertoff's consulting company represents Rapiscan-- a manufacturer of the scanners. Since people in government using their connections and influence to make money for themselves and their friends, even if it's at the expense of liberties (and in the case of Cheney and Haliburton, people's lives) has become an acceptable form of corruption by a weary and apathetic public, the authority behind Chertoff's recommendations is still superficially maintained by the opinion-shepherds on TV.

Often those who challenge the invasion of their privacy by machines like the body scanners are reassured that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about. In the case of the body scanners nearly everyone who gets on an airplane, (with the exception of exhibitionists), has something to hide.

Forgetting for a moment the issue of the naked body images, the scanners show such personal accessories as back braces, maxipads, adult bladder control pads,and apparently fake breasts, according to Politics Daily author, Sandra Fish, who's article also relates that a friend of herswas forced to lift his shirt to reveal his colostomy bag to TSA screeners. Elderly travelers, who often face the stigma and ridicule of a youth obsessed culture, will now also face having to reveal the intimate details of their failing health to complete strangers or announce their personal ills before an audience of onlookers in order to avoid having to show what's concealed beneath their clothes. While some may argue it's a personal choice for an individual to fly, that presents quite a dilemma to a liberty-conscious 75 year old wanting to visit family in another state, having to decide between personal humiliation or a 26 hour bus ride, or 18 hour train ride.

Though, unlike the privacy issues, airport delays can be alleviated for the individual by reading a book or chatting with a friend, it is likely to be one that will be the most vocalized once the scanners are in place and part of the surveillance grid. In a society of fast food, high speed internet, and cell phones, the common annoyances that come with traveling are usually the most harped upon.

But if the technology advances and Chertoff's clients can figure out how to make the process of subjugation more timely and efficient, protests will most likely die down and America will timidly draw yet another line on the floor as it's backed further into the corner.

GOP Is the Party That Thinks Helping the Poor and Hungry Is Like Feeding 'Stray Animals'

2010-02-17T11:48:00.000-08:00

Hightower: GOP Is the Party That Thinks Helping the Poor and Hungry Is Like Feeding 'Stray Animals'
By Jim Hightower, AlterNet
February 4, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145538/

American politics is a hoot! Where else can raw ignorance rise to such high places — and then flaunt itself shamelessly for all to see?

For example, who needs Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien for comic relief, when we've got Andre Bauer? He's the Lieutenant governor of South Carolina (a state, by the way, that really is a comer on the political comedy circuit — especially after Gov. Mark Sanford's madcap schtick last year involving his disappearance, the Appalachian Trail and an Argentine mistress.

But Sanford is leaving office, and Bauer, who is now a Republican contender for governor, is the state's new star joker. He had 'em rolling in the aisles recently when he did a wild, slapstick routine on food stamps at a town hall meeting. Andre proclaimed that much of his political thinking was shaped by his grandmother and that he had learned a valuable lesson from her.

"She told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why?" he asked, pausing for comedic effect. "Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce."

I tell you, Andre Bauer is an absolute scream!

But here's the real punch line: The need for food stamps has been soaring as more and more Americans are falling out of the middle class into poverty. From 2000 to 2008, 5 million more were added to the poverty rolls, and that was before the economic collapse of the last two years. In fact, check this out Andre, and laugh if you feel like it: About 6 million Americans today are living entirely on food stamps — they've lost their jobs and have no other income. That's one out of every 50 of us, and their numbers are growing rapidly. Now, isn't that a hoot?

Well, one who's not laughing is Republican member of Congress John Linder. This far-out Georgia right-winger is irked that America's food stamp program will grow to more than $60 billion this year. "This is craziness," Linder barked to a New York Times reporter.

"We're at risk of creating an entire class, a subset of people, just comfortable getting by living off the government."
Comfortable? When was the last time this pampered lawmaker experienced the "comforts" of the food stamp life? Linder himself has been "living off the government" for 18 years, but at the high end — drawing $174,000 a year in pay, plus subsidized health care, a fat pension and generous perks of office.

Hypocrisy aside, Linder is an anti-government, laissez-faire extremist who buys into Bauer's fantasies about lazy, good-for-nothing strays getting food stamps.

"You don't improve the economy by paying people to sit around and not work," he grumps, adding, "You improve the economy by lowering taxes."

Really? Perhaps the gentleman from Georgia has forgotten that he and the whole Washington insider crowd tried that scam again and again throughout the past decade, slashing all sorts of taxes for corporations and the wealthy. Since Linder is a multimillionaire, that economic "plan" undoubtedly worked out splendidly for him.

For the middle class, however, the 10 years since January 2000 are known as "the lost decade." In that period, the U.S. economy lost more jobs than it created — zero job growth. That's the first decade since the end of the Depression that our country has had less than a 20 percent rise in job creation.

Also, after the 10-year frenzy of tax-cutting, middle-class families are earning less today, in real dollars, than they did in 1999. Add in skyrocketing health care costs and the plummeting value of people's homes, and we get the harsh reality of mushrooming poverty.

So that "subset of people" on food stamps whom Linder so callously denigrates are his own spawn! The food stamp program has had to grow because the tinkle-down economy that he pushed has wrecked America's middle class.

Does knocking poor people make these guys feel better about themselves? How pathetic. Bauer and Linder are living proof that when it comes to leadership, America has too many 5-watt bulbs screwed into 150-watt sockets.

Republicans at Highest Levels Really Want to Do Away with Democracy for All

2010-02-17T11:19:00.000-08:00

IN the END, it's ALWAY ABOUT POWER!!! There are those (PSYCHOPATHS) who believe they have a right to rule over everyone else. This is EVIL!!! I read a lot and watch a lot of interviews and lately, people are starting to NAME THEIR WORLD and have been calling Republicans what they really ARE: MEAN AND BULLIES. Exactly WHAT PSYCHOPATHS ARE!!!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24690.htm

Republicans at Highest Levels Really Want to Do Away with Democracy for All

There's a dangerous right-wing alignment in the making; race-baiters proposing 'civics literacy tests' and elite free market ideologues who see democracy as inefficient.

By Mark Ames

February 13, 2010 "Alternet" -- While Tea Party movement followers ran around Nashville last week dressed up in their Paul Revere period costumes, blathering about their heroic struggle against Obama's Islamosocialist tyranny, the right-wing elite that nurtures them, and their paid libertarian ideologues, have been openly advocating the abolition of America's democracy in favor of a free-market junta, because, as they say over and over, voters cannot be trusted to rule themselves.

Here, for example, is how one popular libertarian pundit summed up the attitude: "To be a libertarian in a modern democracy is to say that nearly 300 million Americans are wrong, and a handful of nay-sayers are right." It's a quote so common among the Republican and libertarian vanguard that it's almost irrelevant which one of them said it -- I'll get to this guy later, but suffice to know that he's a tenured professor, and sitting pretty in the same billionaire-funded world of think tanks, institutes, and PR machines that launched the Tea Party.

That's the dangerously authoritarian part of the Tea Party that we've forgotten about lately.

t's evident even in Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo's shocking "Jim Crow speech" that kicked off last week's Tea Party Convention -- when the out-of-the-closet xenophobe unveiled his Big Idea on how to preserve America's freedom, he wasn't just advocating more bigotry, but also a plan to roll back

America's overly-free democracy, replacing it with a rule of elites that uses "civics literary tests" as the justification for denying voting rights to tens of millions of "wrong" Americans, like minorities and people with funny accents.

That's what made the whole period-costume fetish party so surreal: the sight of all these people re-enacting the Founding Fathers revolutionary fight for democracy, while at the same time cheering on a plan that overthrows American democracy and restricts power to a vanguard elite -- which presumably includes the kinds of draft-dodging rednecks and bipolar government-parasites like Tancredo.*Most of the gullible rank-and-file fools at the convention who snickered gleefully at Tancredo's "I have a dream ... of denying democratic rights to poor black kids's families and brown kids' families..." speech didn't understand that in all likelihood, they too would have their "irrational" voting rights canceled, because their masters despise them. And they don't even hide it. As incredible as it seems, these Republican and "libertarian" ideologues have been arguing that the real problem in America's democracy is that too many people have voting rights, leaving America at the mercy of "irrational" or dangerous voters who elect the wrong people. They have argued that the only way to save America is by overthrowing this democracy and replacing it with an enlightened, free-market dictatorship.

One reason you don't hear much about this is because most of them zipped

up their mouths by the middle of 2008, when there was a real fear of a populist uprising and a new New Deal. But the Republican right-wing elite wasn't always so shy; right up through the financial collapse, many boasted as publicly as possible about their dream of overthrowing the democracy and replacing it with a free-market dictatorship.

Take one recent example: Republican ideologue Kevin Hassett, a top economic adviser to Bush and McCain and who heads the right-wing American Enterprise Institute's economic policy department where so many brilliant free-market ideas are incubated. In 2007, Hassett boldly questioned whether democracy is really the best way to preserve America's free-market preeminence, in a Bloomberg column headlined, "Does Economic Success Require Democracy?":

"Dictatorships are not hamstrung by the preferences of voters for, say, a pervasive welfare state. ...The unfree nations will grow so quickly that they will overwhelm free nations with their economic might. ... Meanwhile, democracies may copy many of the market-friendly policies of the dictatorships, but it seems unlikely that free citizens will choose to reduce their own political freedoms."

This is a constant meme among libertarian free-market ideologues: Americans have too much freedom to decide their own freedom. Hassett worries that time is running out for the Republican free-market elites, who are locked in a suicide pact with the boneheaded majority of American voters, a mass of idiots too short-sighted to grasp how unregulated capitalism is the best thing for them. Instead of acting in their own interests and voluntarily voting to hand power over to a Chinese-style Politburo, we idiots keep on grunting for socialist policies like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance when we're too weak to face unemployment on our own.

You'd think Hassett would have been driven into a cave after that column, but then again, this is the same guy who co-wrote one of the biggest embarrassments in finance literature: Dow 36,000, a book released 10 years ago predicting the Dow would soar to 36,000 in no time. We're dealing with a professional huckster here, but that's sort of the point--selling the gullible fools one kind of snake oil in 2000, pitching them another kind of libertarian snake oil today.

From the Republican elite's perspective, abolishing democracy is a matter of self-defense for the rightwing billionaire class, which they expect everyone to sacrifice their lives for.

Bill Archer, an old free-market colleague of Tancredo's, let loose the Republican elite's loathing for democracy in a Wall Street Journal article back in 2001, bleating over the fate of his billionaire sponsors: "Politicians may find it easier and easier to raise tax rates that apply only to a minority of middle- and upper-income earners in order to finance new government spending primarily benefiting lower-income individuals. The result will be class warfare at its worst and a sort of tyranny of the majority."

You got that? Freedom is when an elite minority pushes the tax burden down the class ladder; tyranny is when the struggling majority votes to put a cramp in the super-rich's Marie Antoinette lifestyle. Which is pretty much what another major inspiration in the Tea Party movement, Grover Norquist, once said. A few years ago, the notorious tax-slashing Republican lobbyist who heads Americans For Tax Reform told a Republican Log Cabin conference:

"Democracies are dangerous. Look what happens in California where they pick on the richest ten percent." Yup, that's dangerous all right. Norquist, who helped shape Gingrich's 1994 Republican Revolution and who practically owned Washington during Bush's first term, has always pitched himself as a radical libertarian whose goal is to "shrink the government until it's small enough to drown in a bathtub." Why does he want to shrink and murder government? Because government technically can be used by us -- the majority -- to one day threaten Grover's rightwing billionaire circle's monopoly on power and wealth. Kill off the American government, and the American people are left naked and powerless against the super-rich elites.

Bryan Caplan, a George Mason professor, and one of the last up-and-coming libertarian ideologues before the 2008 crash, is one of the newest and most degenerate models in the libertarian cadet system. A graduate of the familiar Milton Friedman School of Hucksternomics, Caplan laid out this increasingly shrill hatred of American democracy back in 2007 in a book titled The Myth of the Rational Voter. Here's how Caplan described his book:

The central idea is that voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational -- and they vote accordingly. Despite their lack of knowledge, voters are not humble agnostics; instead, they confidently embrace a long list of misconceptions. Economic policy is the primary activity of the modern state. And if there is one thing that the public deeply misunderstands, it is economics. ... So what remedies for voter irrationality would I propose? Above all, relying less on democracy and more on private choice and free markets... Another way to deal with voter irrationality is institutional reform. Imagine, for example, if the Council of Economic Advisers, in the spirit of the Supreme Court, had the power to invalidate legislation as "uneconomical." Similarly, since the data show that well-educated voters hold more sensible policy views, we could emulate pre-1949 Great Britain by giving college graduates an extra vote.

But Professor Caplan also tsk-tsks his billionaire sponsors for their misguided soft-heartedness in their dealings with the rest of us: "As long as elites persist in unmerited deference to and flattery of the majority, containing the dangers of voter irrationality will be very hard. Someone has to tell the emperor when he is naked. He may not listen, but if no one speaks up, he will almost surely continue embarrassing himself and traumatizing spectators." And just in case you're wondering if there's some nuance you've missed, Caplan drops the high theoretical mumbo-jumbo and lays it in terms any lughead could understand, during a Q&A at the Cato Institute:

Turning to Caplan, [the moderator] asked, "Bryan, is low turnout even a bad thing?" "No," he replied to some laughter. "Low voter turnout is actually a blessing in disguise. One of the two key things that predicts turnout is actually higher education, and more educated people generally have more sensible views about policy."

As to whether people should perhaps just be more properly informed, Caplan said, "If you can either encourage people who don't know what they're doing to not vote or at least not encourage them to vote, or you could have massive public education to raise the level of awareness in everyone up to the level of a Ph.D. -- if there are even such resources in the universe -- I think it's better to just encourage people to be lazy. Say, 'You know, if you don't really know what's going on, it would actually be the more responsible thing not to participate.'" That latter option, he said, is "much cheaper."

And here's what's frightening: His ideas are celebrated as sheer genius by establishment outlets.Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times praised Caplan's book in 2007, calling his blueprint for a Pinochet-like dictatorship, "the best political book of the year"; while the Harvard Political Review wrote, "While one may quibble with his specifics, the overall argument is convincing and applicable across a variety of fields ... Forces the reader to take a second look at our nation's unshakable faith in the wisdom of the electorate."

Caplan is the one whom I quoted at the beginning of the article, sneering at the 300 million Americans whom he'd like to disenfranchise and would if his Republican billionaire sponsors decided to pull the trigger.

This is a guy who should be chased out of town and out of our hemisphere. But instead Caplan's what passes for "bold" and "thinking outside the box" in our degenerate era.

And besides, Caplan sits on the shoulders of giants when he talks that way -- giant elitist assholes like Ronald Reagan, the hero of the Republican Party and a good part of the Tea Party movement. In a 1965 speech, he revealed his and his party elite's loathing of American democracy, which he argued is the surest path to dictatorship and poverty:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority ... always vote[s] for the candidate promising the most benefits from the treasury with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by dictatorship."

Reagan sees us, the electorate the same way that the humans hiding in their vulnerable fortress saw the zombies in Land of the Dead: it was only a matter of time before we'd learn to use the democracy weapon, bust down the fence and pour into their hard-earned mansions, devouring and destroying everything with our socialist voting tendencies.

And the Gipper stood on the shoulders of other giants, like the crackpot midget Milton Friedman, whose free-market theories shaped the last three decades of our lives. What few people talk about is Friedman's theory about democracy, and our fitness for it: in his mind, we majority of Americans are capable of rational behavior in the free marketplace (because he thought we behaved according to his models), but we are irrational when we act in the political marketplace (because we hadn't always voted the way he'd like us to).

Or take Friedman's free-market rival, Friedrich von Hayek, the Kaiser of Libertarian Crackpots, who famously praised General Pinochet: "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism." The same Pinochet whom Friedman happily served in the 70s.

What about the $23 trillion Republican bailouts? Well, again, we're too stupid to understand. The thing is, those bailouts had to be done their way in order to save us from the Road to Serfdom. It's hard to explain, but basically, the anti-government conservatives in the Bush Machine saved us from that Road to Serfdom by turning us into serfs. You see, all along it was the Road that they warned us about, not serfdom -- that road is really treacherous, and government funded, and just a bad place to be. We weren't rational or strong enough to wean ourselves off of big government. So they saved us with their tough love, and stole the $23 trillion bailout for themselves before we could get our hands on it -- which no doubt we would have done. In their hands, that $23 trillion debt makes us serfs, which is not as bad as the other alternative: we take the $23 trillion ourselves, leading us down the road to serfdom. Confused? If we were capable of studying economics, we'd understand the scientific logic of this reasoning.

Just as it took years for Milton Friedman's ideas to go from the circus freakshow to respected state religion, so this budding libertarian idea of abolishing democracy to save America, given the stakes and the forces behind it, shouldn't be dismissed. They're thinking about it. So should the rest of us.

___

*Note: In 1969, when Tancredo was finishing his four-year stint as pro-war College Republican campus activist, he received a note in the mail from the Draft Board calling him up for duty in Vietnam -- so the wobbly-kneed invertebrate ran screaming and crying to the draft board appealing for an exemption from the very same war that Tancredo told everyone else to die in. After making a total abject ass of himself squirting before the draft board and pissing into his pants, Tancredo finally succeeded in disgusting them so thoroughly that they gave him the coward's exemption he sought -- ruling him unfit for duty due to "anxiety bouts" and "panic attacks." It was the only government job he ever turned down -- after that, Tancredo spent his entire life sucking on the taxpayer teat, first as a junior high school teacher, then a state legislator, then a Department of Education federal employee (where he spent most of his time firing his colleagues), then Congressman, and finally, a Republican Party foundation-welfare queen.

Read more of Mark Ames at eXiledonline.com. He is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond.

Executive Orders: The Hallmarks of Fascistic Tyranny

2010-02-17T11:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.infowars.com/executive-orders-the-hallmarks-of-fascistic-tyranny/

J. Speer-Williams
Infowars.com
February 16, 2010

Executive Branch of our federal government has become a 500 pound tick that’s being fed by a 50 pound dog (the American people) due to presidential Executive Orders (EOs).

EOs – not to be confused with Eos, the supernaturally beautiful goddess of Greek mythology – have become an ugly fact of American life, ever since our terrible conflagration known as the American Civil War.

An Executive Order (EO) is an order made by a president that has the full force and effect of any laws constitutionally passed by congress, and signed by the president.

In a representative democracy, laws are made by duly elected representatives, not by a head of state, by mere edict, with no debate, or samplings of public opinion, such as EOs are made into law: The former is known as “rule by law,” the latter as “rule by men.”

When establishing our Constitutional Republic, our founding fathers instituted the principle of government known as the Rule of Law (as opposed to the Rule of Men), which was intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, and the unconstitutional edicts imposed by would be tyrants, which were not in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws and enforced within legally established guidelines and procedures made by congress and signed into law by our chief executive, the president.

When a president tries to effect one of his Executive Orders into being a national law, he is attempting to circumvent congress, and contravene our Constitution, and move us closer to being a country ruled by men rather than a nation ruled by laws.

This whole unconstitutional seizure of congressional power was done slowly, over time, incrementally, and began innocuously enough as mere directives, or memos, to the offices of the executive branch of our federal government. George Washington was the first to set the dangerous precedent of issuing orders that had the full force and effect of legislative law, with his directive that forbade Americans from trading, or even associating with any of the countries in Europe, who were then at war.

It’s not that Washington idea was bad; what was illegal was Washington, single-handedly, made a law, when he had no legal authority to do so, either in the Constitution, or in any statute law passed by congress. Making laws was meant to be the job of congress; vetoing or signing and then enforcing laws the job of the president.

Washington, in effect, took the law into his own hands, and violated our principle of the Rule of Law, the very basis of a republican form of government. Allowing Washington to create a law, he could by rights only legally enforce, is akin to letting our police establishment create the laws they are commissioned to enforce, and begins the destruction of our “separation of powers,” another fundamental in any real constitutional republic.

Freedom and living by the Rule of Law have been rare commodities during the long and tumultuous history of Earth; and perhaps, America has enjoy the longest run of any nation to have been so ruled. But since Washington’s time, our Constitution has been breached in thousands of ways, until at last, we’ve become a nation ruled by the law of men … very elite and secret men, who have long controlled the Office of the Presidency.

Very few Executive Orders (or Directives) were issued by the fourteen presidents that followed Washington. It was Lincoln’s “dictatorship” that began the onslaught of laws issued by one man, but secretly supported by hidden men.

Yes, the Great Emancipator controlled the Union like a dictator, exercising autocratic rule by claiming “war powers”after the attack on Fort Sumner, South Carolina; and then, running the federal government through Executive Orders, Lincoln utterly by-passed the US congress. Without Ole Abe there might not have been a war that denuded America of over one million of its finest men, when the entire population of the United States was not much more than thirty million people.

It is reported that Lincoln made many enemies, ranging from newspaper editors to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as he repeatedly broke the fundamental law of our land. Lincoln even had editors arrested, and went so far as to draft a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, all because they objected to Lincoln throwing our country into the hands of those who would rule our country by men rather than by laws.

Ever since Lincoln’s administration, he has been both the model and excuse for almost all modern presidents to make up their own laws, to the point such gross violations of our Constitutions are now widely and routinely accepted.

Our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, widely considered one of our greatest presidents (who is even enshrined on Mt. Rushmore, as was Lincoln) used the White House as his “bully pulpit,”and from there issued more EOs than all 25 presidents (other than Lincoln) who preceded him. Roosevelt even formed a national police force, an idea that had always been rejected by American congresses, and was deeply abhorred by our founding fathers.

By calling his national police force a mere “investigative bureau” of his federal branch of government, Roosevelt was able to avoid wide public resistance; in those days, Americans were wisely antipatheic to national police forces. Today, however, there is scarcely a citizen who would suggest we do away with Roosevelt’s FBI, or even curb their bestial practices.

William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, who followed Roosevelt as presidents were no better than Teddy in obeying our Constitution.

Democratic President Wilson even imprisoned some 5,000 Americans, who opposed his World War I, the war he had promised to avoid if he were elected president. It was Wilson who was the first to declare “National Emergencies,” in order to assume even more powers not granted by either our congress or our Constitution.

Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt (distant cousin to Teddy Roosevelt), our 32nd president, was presented by his “advisors” with a most clever way for presidents to assume even more dictatorial powers, with the mere labeling of domestic problems as “Wars.” In this way, presidents could cite the unconstitutional “war powers,” brought into acceptance by Lincoln, in their pretended wars on drugs, poverty, CO2, or any phony excuse used to expand presidential powers.

Franklin D. Roosevelt ended up issuing over 3,000 Executive Orders, thus destroying much of what was left of the American democracy.

In only one term of office, President Jimmy Carter had the nerve to add about 24,500 pages of EOs to those he had already issued, during his last 90 days in office.

Not to be out done, Democratic President Bill Clinton added another 30,000 pages of EOs, during his last 90 days in office.
The Federal Register and the Cato Institute gives us the numbers of Executive Orders ( not the number of pages) issued by 20th century presidents: Theodore Roosevelt – 1,006; William H. Taft – 698; Woodrow Wilson – 1,791; Warren G. Harding – 484; Calvin Coolidge – 1,253; Herbert Hoover – 1004; Franklin D. Roosevelt – 3,723; Harry S. Truman – 905; Dwight D. Eisenhower – 452; John F. Kennedy – 214; Lydon B. Johnson – 324; Richard M. Nixon – 346; Gerald R. Ford – 169; Jimmy Carter – 320; Ronald Reagan – 381; George Bush – 166, Bill Clinton 364; and the numbers of EOs signed by presidents continue from there.

But there are also Presidential Directives, that are a form of EO, that are issued by presidents with the advise and consent of the unelected National Security Council, which have the full force and effect of constitutionally passed laws. But the real kicker is these Presidential Directives are classified, using the old “National Security” ruse. This is how America, now, officially tortures human beings in military bases all over the world … torture in the name of every American, living or dead.

Additionally, back in 1916, Democratic President Wilson began creating many of our federal agencies, by the use of EOs, each of which has ballooned to about the size of a large foreign government, each of which is headed by un-elected directors, each issuing their own thousands of orders and directives, that have the full force and effect of constitutionally passed laws.

One such agency, the Internal Revenue Service has issued a tax code that is over 60,000 pages long, and growing.

Moreover, Americans today are burdened with thousands of pages of President Review Directives (PRDS), Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs), National Security Reviews (NSRs), National Security Directives (NSRs), National Security Presidential Directives (NSPDs), and even Homeland Security Directives, all having the full force and effect of law, and all in addition to EOs.

In order to maintain the illusion of a democracy, we are still allowed a presidential election every four years; and no one president can serve more than two four year terms. But, it’s not any one president who has become a dictator, it is the Office of the Presidency, and those faceless autocrats who control the presidency that has become dictatorial, without many of us ever knowing it.

No, we are hardly a democracy. Our beloved United States of America has become a fascist dictatorship, and will remain so, until the majority of Americans come to realize the sad state of our ship of state.

Airport Body Scanners "May Violate Rights Law"

2010-02-17T10:53:00.000-08:00

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=118718§ionid=351020601

Press TV
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:50 EST

The scanners could breach an individual's right to privacy under the Human Rights Act, the UK watchdog warns.
The British Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned that the use of full body scanners at airports may breach human rights laws.

In a letter to Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, the commission wrote Tuesday that serious concerns existed about the invasion of privacy by the new technology.

While acknowledging the government's need to take urgent steps to protect the public from terrorist threats, the commission's head, Trevor Phillips said there was an apparent lack of safeguards to ensure scanners were operated fairly and without discrimination.

"Such policies can end up being applied in ways which do discriminate against vulnerable groups or harm good community relations," Phillips wrote.

He added that the commission "has serious doubts that the decision to roll this system out in all UK airports complies with law or properly assesses the impact it may have."

The body scanners, otherwise known as the "virtual strip searching", see through clothing to produce images of the whole body.

The device has already been in place at Manchester and London's Heathrow airports for a month, in response to the alleged attempt to blow up a US-bound plane on Christmas Day.

An interim code of practice for the use of the scanners has also been introduced by the transport department, without any consultation.

The code spells out that those who refuse a full-body scan will be banned from flying without being offered the American alternative of passing through a metal arch detector and having a physical pat-down search.

Also, even though the interim code says the scanners would be used randomly, it gives no indication of how that would be achieved.

The commission underlined that the absence of safeguards, such as the monitoring of who is being scanned and how, means the authorities are unable to check if anyone is being unfairly selected on the basis of their race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or disability.

The commission had previously warned that scanners could breach an individual's right to privacy under the Human Rights Act.

The Birth of Fascist Ideology: Passages from a Book by Zeev Sternhell

2010-02-16T13:10:00.000-08:00

Why doesn't anyone call fascism what is really is??? PSYCHOPATHY!!!

http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5740

The Birth of Fascist Ideology: Passages from a Book by Zeev Sternhell
By Andrew Bard Smookler

As I study more about fascism, and in particular the cultural and political and ideological sources from which it emerged, I am impressed BOTH that what we see in America today on the right does have meaningful kinship with some of fascism AND that there are differences.

Most recently, I’ve been extending my researches with a book by Zeev Sternhell (Princeton University Press, 1994), which explores the roots of the fascist ideology in the waning years of the 19th century and the beginning years of the 20th century. Sternhell is looking at the ideological currents at work in various European countries, especially France and Italy.

Two points that Sternhell makes, which I found of interest: 1) fascism was a movement with a thought-out ideology, an intellectual structure that, he says, was as developed as that of other political systems, including liberalism; and 2) fascism should not be regarded as a synonym for Nazism, with which it had some things in common, but with other elements –like the centrality of anti-Jewish racism in the Nazi ideology– strongly differentiating the two.

Here are some passages from that book that struck me as illuminating –to at least a meaningful degree– of what we are encountering in America in our times.

*******************

“Fascism rebelled against modernity inasmuch as modernity was identified with the rationalism, optimism, and humanism of the eighteenth century, but it was not a reactionary or an antirevolutionary movement in the Maurrassian sense of the term. Fascism presented itself as a revolution of another kind, a revolution that sought to destroy the existing political order and to uproot its theoretical and moral foundations but that at the same time wished to preserve all the achievements of modern technology. It was to take place within the framework of the industrial society, fully exploiting the power that was in it. The Fascist revolution sought to change the nature of the relationships between the individual and the collectivity without destroying the impetus of economic activity– the profit motive, or its foundation– private property, or its necessary framework –the market economy…

“This point requires special emphasis. If fascism wished to reap all the benefits of the modern age, to exploit all the technological achievements of capitalism, if it never questioned the idea that market forces and private property were part of the natural order of things, it had a horror of the so-called bourgeois, or, as Nietzsche called them, modern values: universalism, individualism, progress, natural rights, and equality. Thus, fascism adopted the economic aspect of liberalism but completely denied its philosophic principles and the intellectual and moral heritage of modernity.”
(p. 7)

“The first of the two essential components of fascism to appear on the political scene at the end of the nineteenth century was tribal nationalism, based on a social Darwinism and, often, a biological determinism…This formula of Barres [can't discern what "formula" he's referring to] was in fact only the French counterpart of the German formula Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil), and it showed that the old theory, consecrated by the French Revolution, that society was made up of a collection of individuals, had been replaced by the theory of the organic unity of the nation.”
(p. 9)

“This ‘total’ nationalism claimed to be a system of ethics, with criteria of behavior dictated by the entire national body, independently of the will of the individual. By definition, this new nationalism denied the validity of any absolute and universal moral norms: truth, justice, and law existed only in order to serve the needs of the collectivity. The idea of society as something isolated and shut in, a violent antirationalism, and a belief in the supremacy of the subconscious over the forces of reason amounted to a truly tribal concept of the nation…

“This cult of deep and mysterious forces that are the fabric of human existence entailed as a necessary and natural consequence the appearance of a virulent anti-intellectualism. For this school of thought, the fight against intellectuals and against the rationalism from which they drew their nourishment was a measure of public safety. There were a great many nationalists at the turn of the century who, like those of the interwar generation, constantly attacked the critical spirit and its products, opposing them to instinct, intuitive and irrational sentiment, emotion and enthusiasm– those deep impulses which determine human behavior and which constitute the reality and truth of things as well as their beauty. Rationalism, they claimed, belongs to the ‘deracinated’; it blunts sensitivity, it deadens instinct and can only destroy the motive forces of national activity.”
(p. 10)

It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Police State

2010-02-16T05:49:00.001-08:00

http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/it-is-now-official-the-u-s-is-a-police-state.html

Paul Craig Roberts
Creators Syndicate
Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:22 EST

Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration's "war on terror," which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.

The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for terrorists. Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.

The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed "terrorists" prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.

As there was no evidence against the "detainees" (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.

The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as "the 760 most dangerous men on earth," there was little public outcry over the regime's unconstitutional and inhumane actions.

As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.

Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military's notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children, one an 8-month-old baby, were with her at the time she was abducted. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.

Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier's rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier's excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.

On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range.
No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.

Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: "The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers."

An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of "justice" that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.

The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.

This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen.

Anyone can be next. Indeed, on Feb. 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now "defined policy" that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government's judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.

This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.

I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home - Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.

Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair's "defined policy" is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver's wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver's fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him. The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.

In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.

In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a "threat."

What defines "threat"? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.

There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a "threat."

Ironic, isn't it, that "the war on terror" to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens whom it regards as a threat.

Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles.

TSA DENIES BRITISH-STYLED SCANNERS ARE USED IN U.S.

2010-02-10T10:56:00.000-08:00

Don't believe the TSA!!! It's not going to tell you that they're ogling your naked body, taking photos and keeping the photos on record. A good friend - a scientist- wrote me this about the naked body scanners regarding radiation, using it for depopulation and other abuses:

It would take more than one such exposure to do damage, but theoretically, if a person passed through more than one such scanning machine over the period of a day or two, their immne system might get compromised. Any latent cancers could be triggered, especially if they carry the monkey virus (which 60% of the opulaton now does--see Dr. Maru's Monkey by Edward T. Haslam)

There should be concerns when people have been told that the scanned image is immediately deleted. This cannot be the case, because they should be carried in memory to "prove"--should an incident arise-- that this person had been scanned (or not).

Further, scanners would have to have linkability --by a stick or directly--to a printer, so an image could be printed (as well as saved in computer memory) to justify the arrest of any person scanned who couldn't pass. So of course, images are saved and of course, any one of them can be printed. And of course, human curiosity being what it is, somebody's girlfriend or husband or whatever will get a peek...

http://www.reddirtreport.com/news.php?id=14256

RDR: TSA DENIES BRITISH-STYLED SCANNERS ARE USED IN U.S.
By Andrew W. Griffin , Red Dirt Report, editor
February 9, 2010
reddirtreporter@gmail.com

OKLAHOMA CITY – Alarming reports out of Britain, India and major Internet sites like Drudge Report and Prison Planet are noting the shocking story headlined “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow.”

After all the alleged reassurances that the body scanning machines that have been installed at airports around the world would not retain images of naked bodies going through the machines, we see that is not the case, at least in the United Kingdom. And with hundreds of the scanners on order in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight, passengers are hoping to not be the one to have to go through the invasive machines that are able to detect weapons and other items on your naked body.

The above story highlights a recent experience by Indian movie star Shah Rukh Khan, recounted on a British talk show, who went through a body scanner at London’s Heathrow airport. He told the host that after going through the machine, he was approached by workers who wanted him to autograph images of his naked body taken by the body scanning machine.

The Bollywood superstar appeared to take the invasive experience in stride, adding, “It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed.”

In the United States, the Transportation Security Administration has been announcing plans for 300 more of the RapiScan body scanners to be installed at airports across America. With this report, saying that images are in fact retained and recorded, at least in Britain, concerns are rising among passengers.

“The British are completely separate from what we do in the U.S.,” said Andrea McCauley, spokesperson for the TSA at their Dallas-Fort Worth office, which overseas airports in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

McCauley said that the body scanning machines in the U.S. don’t have the software to retain and store images of people’s naked bodies as they go through the scanners.

“We can’t transmit it,” McCauley said.

Yet, they are very invasive and intrusive and aren’t entirely effective as some reports have noted. As our sister site, Oklahoma Watchdog, noted last month, in a story headlined 'Naked machines' headed for airports, McCauley said TSA takes passenger concerns about safety and privacy seriously.

She told Oklahoma Watchdog that both millimeter wave and "backscatter" technology will be implemented. Millimeter wave technology beams millmeter wave frequency energy over the surface of the body at high speed. This creates a three-dimensional image, showing the passenger's naked body - genitalia and all - although facial features are blurred.

Which begs the questions - how did the security workers at Heathrow know Khan was going through the machine and what technology do the British have that allows them to keep and print an image of Khan's naked body?

At British airports passengers are not given an option of having a pat down if they are asked to step into the body scanning machines. If they refuse they will not be allowed to proceed to their flight.

While there are body scanning machines at the Tulsa International Airport, Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City has not received one of the machines yet, McCauley told Red Dirt Report.

Since installing the body scanners at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport in Arizona two years ago, 90 percent of passengers have opted to go through the body scanning machines rather than opt for a pat down.

And that is what McCauley wanted to reiterate, that passengers can opt out of going through the body scanners and have a pat down instead.

Asked about the radiation concerns as noted in a Bloomberg report last week which said the machines exposed passengers to “higher levels of cancer-causing radiation,” McCauley was quick to say that “it is safe” and compared it to being safer than using a cell phone.

“If passengers don’t feel comfortable going through them, they are welcome to opt out,” she said.

The report, which quotes the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety has announced in a new paper that “pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning” because of concerns that even small doses of ionizing radiation is dangerous.

“We have tried very hard to education passengers about the process,” McCauley said. “We want to let them know that (going through the scanners) is optional.”

Copyright 2010 West Marie Media

Audi's Pro-Fascist commercial

2010-02-10T07:03:00.000-08:00

This commercial is not funny and not artistic but is darkly prophetic. It was a 2010 Super Bowl 'advertisement' although I would categorize more as propaganda and soft fascist communication.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/801.html

TEXT BELOW THE VIDEO:

The last time I thought about buying a car, I considered buying an Audi.

I was reminded of its participation in the Nazi slave labor program and the fact it never made amends.

I have to admit that over the years, my attitude was softening.

Until I saw this commercial.

Good work Audi. Thanks to your heavy investment in normalizing totalitarianism in your Super Bowl ad, I will never buy one of your f***Ing cars as long as I live.

Internet Censorship: Major Truth-Providing Websites Blocked By Asia Netcom To New Zealand Users

2010-02-07T16:13:00.000-08:00

http://www.infowars.com/internet-censorship-major-truth-providing-websites-blocked-by-asia-netcom-to-new-zealand-users/

Internet Censorship: Major Truth-Providing Websites Blocked By Asia Netcom To New Zealand Users
Clare Swinney
Infonews.co.nz
February 7, 2010

Has Chinese-style internet censorship arrived in New Zealand this year? The question is posed because two major news websites, Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com, both of which are run by documentary maker and radio show host Alex Jones, who is renowned for exposing the truths the mainstream media attempts to conceal, were found to be have been selectively blocked on Friday evening and were still unavailable at the time of writing.

Thankfully, this draconian measure does not effect all internet users in New Zealand however. It appears to be confined to those whose internet server providers, (ISPs), use Asia Netcom for their international internet traffic. Telstraclear, Vodafone and Worldxchange Communications users are not effected, while Woosh, Orcon, Slingshot, Telecom and Ihug users are.

An avid fan of Infowars.com and a 9/11 truth activist, Jeff Mitchell, reported on Saturday that he contacted his ISP, Orcon, to establish what was causing the block, and was advised by a computer technician who did a traceroute, that the break in traffic to the two websites was found to be occurring at Asia Netcom’s router in Sydney. This technician also advised that as Telstraclear used a different route, their customers were still able to access the two sites.

There have been calls for the Internet to be censored and controlled – and for an Internet 2 by proponents of a one world government, or “New World Order.” This is because the internet as it is, is impeding the global elites’ ability to push their tyrannical, self-serving agendas through.

A clear indicator that the internet is regarded as a serious threat to global elite was evident when on March the 18th, 2009 Senator Jay Rockefeller of the Rockefeller dynasty, a family pivotal in the push for a one world government, [1,2] went so far as to suggest that it might have been better if the internet had never been invented and we went back to using pencils and paper, [3]. While it may have seemed like a ridiculous statement to make at the time, it was an indicator of what the global elite are aiming for and a warning. They want to make it increasingly difficult to get to the truth and they want to regain control of all media.

Consequently, it is of no surprise that Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com appear to have been selectively targeted, as these two sites present a huge threat to the global elites’ operation. They provide access to credible information, from a wide range of contributors, which has been crippling the elites’ agendas. They have been providing updates on what has been happening around the world, including access to the Alex Jones radio show, which is now the most popular radio show on the internet worldwide. They expose that 9/11, the bombings of 7/7 and Oklahoma City, and the underwear bomber, were inside jobs and that, in fact, many terror-related events are government-sponsored. Plus, they have been pivotal in exposing that man-made global warming and the H1N1 pandemic were hoaxes, and that the Federal Reserve bank is taking money from the taxpayers and putting it in the pockets of bankers, and that it should be shut down.

Hopefully, this block is merely a temporary problem. If not, action may be necessary. In the meantime, you can still pick the radio show up at GCNLive.com by proxy, and read some of the Infowars.com/Prisonplanet.com articles on Alex Jones’ other sites which are still available, including Infowars.net, Propaganda Matrix and JonesReport.com. Also, you can use www.ninjaproxy.com to read Infowars and Prisonplanet.com articles. Plus, Prisonplanet.tv is still accessible and you can still access the shop which sells his documentaries via the link here: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/faofreprofba.html.

Keep getting the truth out!

In Peace.

Verichip is now called PositiveID! Roll up your sleeve for the implantable human microchip, it's now Positive?

2010-02-04T12:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Verichip-is-now-called-Po-by-Greg-Nikolettos-100128-338.html

February 1, 2010
Verichip is now called PositiveID! Roll up your sleeve for the implantable human microchip, it's now Positive?
By Greg Nikolettos

No Verichip Campaign

As sure as the sun rises, so Verichip keeps spawning and shape shifting to gain market acceptance as people from across the globe unite and reject the IBM seed-funded, Raytheon-manufactured Human Implantable microchip company.

To "mark' a new year, Verichip is now called PositiveID!. If you have followed this company's progress as we have and cited the damning evidence showcasing a casual link between microchipping and cancer⁴, Verichip is certainly not positive. But in this world of semantics and double speak, no doubt a CEO meeting along with other top execs decided that throwing the word "Positive" in the title would make Alzheimer patients who get microchipped without their consent less hesitant as their sleeve was rolled up in the name of "wander protection'. "Was that a needle?" asks the patient? "No! it was a mosquito bite, you have Alzheimer's, remember?"

What has changed in 2010?

Well, Verichip/PositiveID has a new marketing and media relations company! Just as all actors in Hollywood require an agent to handle their image as they enter the market, so Verichip/PositiveID has decided to do the same.

The company taking over Verichips/PositiveID media relations and corporate communications is Gibraltar⁵. A company who has close ties with the Clinton administration, expertise in biotech, energy and of course as a company who has excellent inroads into government, Gibraltar even has the mandatory Washington office!⁷

Why this recent appointment?

Verichip/PositiveID has been pummeled on the NASDAQ , having been delisted in March 2009, but staging a comeback to have their stock regain NASDAQ Compliance⁸ in October 2009. Verichip/PositiveID stock has been crushed from a high of just over $10 down to a humiliating low of $0.24 cents.9

Why this backlash? It's a human implantable microchip and that does not sit well with the Ma and Pa investor. Who in their right mind invests in a company whose product causes tumors? Who in their right mind invests in a company that microchips Alzheimer patients without their consent? As Verichip/PositiveID's stock price today indicates, not many individuals and certainly not investment companies who are minimizing risk in the current economy.

Regardless of what happens on the stock market, the fact is Verichip is not going away. Why? Because their seed funding originates from the information giant IBM who has over 407,000 employees worldwide. Nothing like having a Big Blue Sugar Daddy watching over you in this financial climate, especially one that writes off a $60 million dollar loan to ensure the human microchipping agenda is in place for "future' generations. $60 million is chickenfeed to a company who turns over 100 billion US dollars a year. Yes sir, the IBM Hollerith Machine Punch Card system was very profitable in WWII, cleverly "leased" to the Nazi regime to create enabling technologies to identify and catalog non-compliant peoples.

IBM custom-designed and constantly updated the Hollerith Machine using the punch-card system and thus Hitler was able to automate his persecution of the undesirables. But let's remember Hitlers Mantra "Jews are evil, Negros are despicable, Gypsies simply could not stay put, wandering all over the place and homosexuals, well we all know what filthy acts they get up to!! Hitlers remedy? Zyklon B, the brand name of the cyanide-based pesticide used in the Holocaust gas chambers !⁴

The Zyklon B patents were owned by a little company called IG Farben who was also in bed with John D. Rockefeller's United States based Standard Oil Co. during the reign of the Third Reich, but that's another story altogether. ⁵

Agfa, BASF, and Bayer continue today after the buyout of IG Faben Western Assets, showing that you can't keep a good criminal company down. But let's remember, we all need to be more forgiving as BASF manufactured excellent magnetic recording cassette tapes in the 80s-90s as acid house music merged and fused into techno.

A crash course in Verichip/PositiveID! Buckle Up!

Verichip/PositiveID is manufactured by Raytheon Microelectronics España/ECLAN from Tomahawk Missile fame thus creating a synergy between the fifth largest defense government contractor and the human implantable microchip. 16

VeriChip Corporation acquires Steel Vault Corporation to Form PositiveID Corporation thus creating a synergy between identity theft and the human implantable microchip⁷

VeriChip Corporation acquires credit monitoring company, NationalCreditReport.com, thus creating a synergy between credit monitoring and the human implantable microchip⁸

Verichip includes the VeriPay System which is designed to be used as a swipe and go payment method for cash and credit-card transactions as seen at the Baja nightclub, thus creating a synergy between "scan and go" electronic payments and the human implantable microchip.19

Verichip can be linked to Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault, thus creating a synergy between the Electronic Health Records Government stampede and the human implantable microchip.

Verichip/PositiveID/RECEPTORS LLC manufactures Virus Triage Detection System for the H1N1 Virus thus creating a synergy between the WHO hyped flu pandemic and the human implantable microchip.

Verichip/PositiveID announced it would expand its HealthID division with a range of products, including an implantable RFID microchip in phase 2 development which can detect glucose levels in the body, thus creating a synergy between HealthCare , Diabetic Patients and the human implantable microchip

Verichip/PositiveID announced it is working closely with HealthScreenDirect, a company that offers screening for diabetes and high cholesterol . We soon predict a cholesterol sensor announcement via the Verichip Receptors alliance thus creating a synergy between the 106 million Americans who suffer from high cholesterol and the human implantable microchip.⁴

Verichip/PositiveID formed VeriGreen Energy Corporation, to invest in the clean and alternative energy sector.Following the recently signed stimulus package, which invested $79 billion in renewable energy. Verichip/PositiveID created a synergy between their new marketing company Gibraltar , the stimulus bill , cap and trade, the global warming agenda and the human implantable microchip.⁵

But relax...after all these acquisitions, name changes and synergies created, Scott Silverman CEO of Verichip/PositiveID states to the market with a straight face:

"Using the chip to relate to the credit-reporting services of NationalCreditReport.com, or even using it for financial transactions" has not been a part of our business model for five years or more, since Sullivan's been gone, and is not part of our business model moving forward."

Scott Silverman continued "I can tell you that" putting [the chips] into children and immigrants for identification purposes, or putting them into people, especially unwillingly, for financial transactions, has [not] been and never will be the intent of this company as long I'm the chairman and CEO,"

Greg Nikolettos, founder of We The People Will Not Be Chipped Movement, responded critically. "Enough of the lies Scott, we have reached breaking point with how your company conducts itself in the market. As people worldwide unite and spend more time researching Verichip and the human microchipping agenda, the more it becomes evident you are a shoe-in for Lying-CEO-of-the-year and for the Verichip to be awarded the Lemon-of-the-Decade product award. Nothing has changed with your market tactics since we released the short film "Operation Lie and Deceive - Verichip Style' 6 exposing the companies unethical practises...although we do concede that something has changed: the length of your nose'

The WorldWide Human Microchipping Agenda

"Conspiracy theory" is a term often thrown at the human microchipping issue when it is discussed in the mainstream news to deflect one of the most invasive and dehumanizing psychopathic agendas. The goal? To strip you of your inalienable human rights and reduce you to a 16 digit number that's scanned like a can of chili beans at a supermarket . Could this Orwellian nightmarish agenda ever come to fruition?

Let's pause and reflect on the words of IBM's CEO Sam Palmisano when he addressed the Council of Foreign Relations with the following statement: "Indeed, almost anything--any PERSON , any object, any process or any service, for any organization, large or small--can become digitally aware and networked" ⁷

If you're naïve enough to believe that Verichip and IBM--the world's largest and most profitable information technology company, whose CEO states they want to network humans-- is not hunting you and your family down to microchip them, you must be delusional.

For those that can read the writing on the wall, now is the time to support the preventative microchipping Bodily Integrity Act drafted by RFID expert and privacy advocate Katherine Albrecht and get it signed into law on a Federal Level in every country across the globe.⁸

With the current Socialism trend in supposedly democratic governments, how long will it be before Government mandates that their citizens will be unable to receive healthcare or access government services unless they get micro-chipped?

The time has come to act now and cut off Verichip at the pass.

Please contact Greg Nikolettos through the We The People Will Not Be Chipped website, as he has drafted templates and will advise you on whom to contact in your country and how to get this legislation signed into law.

References

[1] Applied Digital Solutions Senior Lender , IBM Credit Corporation http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-92425698.html

One Mainframe To Rule Them All IBM and Verichip The Human Microchipping Agenda www.youtube.com/noverichip

[2] VeriChip chooses Raytheon/ECLAN to manufacture its microchips http://www.rfidnews.org/2009/10/05/verichip-chooses-raytheon-eclan-to-manufacture-its-microchips

[3] VeriChip Corporation Completes Acquisition of Steel Vault Corporation http://www.positiveidcorp.com/pr/pr_111009.html

[4] Verichip Cancer Report http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/verichip-cancer-report.html

[5] PositiveID hires Gibraltar for public affairs and PR http://www.prweekus.com/pages/login.aspx?returl=/positiveid-hires-gibraltar-for-public-affairs-and-pr/article/159608/&pagetypeid=28&articleid=159608&accesslevel=2

[7] The Gibraltar team combines experience and diverse expertise. http://www.gibraltar-llc.com/experience.php

[8] VeriChip Corporation Regains NASDAQ Compliance http://www.verichipcorp.com/press_releases.html

[9]CHIP- http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CHIP

[10] Verichip Cancer Report - www.antichips.com/press.../verichip-cancer-report.html

[11] Are Microchip Tags Safe? http://www.verichipcorp.com/news/1192716360.html

[12] Applied Digital Solutions Makes $30 Million Payment to IBM Credit, LLC, Satisfying All Outstanding Debt Obligations to IBM. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Applied+Digital+Solutions+Makes+$30+Million+Payment+to+IBM+Credit,...-a0104535532

[13]IBM and the Holocaust www.ibmandtheholocaust.com

[14] Gas chambers and Crematoria," in Berenbaum, Michael & Gutman, Yisrael (eds). Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Indiana University Press and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1994 http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html

[15] Trading With the Enemy (1983), Charles Higham: Delacorte Press, New York NY; ISBN 0-440-09064-4

[16] VeriChip, Steel Vault merge toform PositiveID

click here

[17] RFIDNews | VeriChip, Steel Vault merge to formPositiveID http://www.rfidnews.org/2009/09/08/verichip-steel-vault-merge-to-form-positiveid

[18] VeriChip Corporation Agrees to Acquire Steel Vault Corporation to Form PositiveID Corporation http://www.verichipcorp.com/pressreleases/090809.html

[19] Mobile Magazine Human 'Chipping' on its way with VeriChip http://www.mobilemag.com/2003/11/27/human-chipping-on-its-way-with-verichip/

[20] VeriChip partners with Microsoft HealthVault

[21]Microchip Implant to Link Your Health Records, Credit History, Social Security
click here

[22] VeriChip Corporation and RECEPTORS LLC Announce Further Details of Development Plan for Virus Triage Detection System for H1N1 Virus

http://www.verichipcorp.com/pressreleases/092909-2.html

[23] VeriChip Corporation and RECEPTORS LLC to Unveil Development Details of Virus Triage Detection System for the H1N1 Virus and In Vivo Glucose-Sensing RFID Microchip

http://www.verichipcorp.com/pressreleases/

[24] PositiveID Corporation Partners with HealthScreenDirect, LLC to Offer Health Link to 120,000 New Patients per Year and Study Health Link's Role in Improving Disease Management

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?Feed=BW&Date=20091222&ID=10918970&Symbol=PSID

[25] VeriGreen Energy Corporation click here

[26] Operation Lie and Deceive Verichip Style www.youtube.com/noverichip

The Cabal: Power Concedes Nothing Without A Demand

2010-02-03T10:44:00.000-08:00

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6934

The Cabal: Power Concedes Nothing Without A Demand
By: Fahim A. Knight

The American people, in particular and the world in general, have no real idea that everything around them isn't what it appears. There has always been and old saying that states, “perception means everything and reality, means absolutely nothing.” Interpret to mean you have to just look good and not necessarily be of any substance. President George Bush just has to look and sound good, but in reality, all of his decisions and all of our decisions are under the dictates of some powerful hidden entitles. President George Bush appears to be one of the most powerful men in the world and yet he is under the dictates of the real and invisible decision makers. He was elevated in 2000 to the highest office in world because of a willingness to serve and carryout their well calculated agenda. Does he work for the House of Rothschild, the Carlyle Group, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Russell Group, and Bilderberger Group? (Reference: Texe Marrs: “Circle of Intrigue: The Hidden Inner Circle of the Global Illuminati Conspiracy”)

Dr. John Coleman in his book titled, “Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of the 300” stated, “It is the Committee of 300 which has established control networks and mechanisms far more binding than anything ever seen in this world. Chains and ropes are not needed to restrain us. Our fears of what is to come does that job far more efficiently than any physical means of restraint. We have been brainwashed to give up our Constitutional right to bear arms; to give up our Constitution itself; to allow the United Nations to exercise control over our foreign policies and the IMF to take control of our fiscal and monetary policies; to permit the President to break United States law with impunity and to invade a foreign country and kidnap its head of state. In short we have been brainwashed to the extent where we, as a nation, will accept each and every lawless act carried out by our government almost without question.” (Reference: Dr. John Coleman: “Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of the 300”).

How many people truly believe and know that there is an Elite Cabal of Emperors who function with autonym and world sovereignty, and are above the laws of all nations? This writer recently watched President Bush meet with King Abdullah, the Royal King of Saudi Arabia and they were so-called discussing Saudi Arabia’s possibilities of increasing Oil Production drilling (at least that is what they conveyed on camera) and what OPEC can do to so-called ease the Oil tension in the West. This writer said to himself, Wow! "How many people believe that OPEC can make that decision and fail to understand that OPEC is just a Front Organization for the Cabal and the Hidden Emperors?" The mass mediums sent their talking heads and spin doctors out to convince the American people, in particular and world the people in general, that the Oil crisis is a matter of supply and demand. The last time this writer checked, the price of crude Oil, it had risen to over $130.00 USD per Barrel. Some of the ignorant would like to blame the Arabs—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, etc., for the Oil crisis and have no idea that someone more powerful and more sinister is guiding this so-called crisis. Some would even prefer blaming Hugo Chavez the charismatic and idealist President of Venezuela for the United States Oil crises.

Andy Stern in his book titled, “Oil: From Rockefellers to Iraq and Beyond’ stated, “The freewheeling gold rush years in the US soon gave way to the all-devouring empire created by John D. Rockefeller, whose fortune was built on sharp business practices, corruption of government at the highest levels, and created of one of the most successful and enduring cartels the world has ever seen. Then as now in the US, government and Big Oil were closely interlinked. Rockefeller had agents all over the world, forming a semi-official a semi-official diplomatic structure that negotiated trade deals directly with national governments. Today, the links are even closer, with former oil executives occupying many of the top positions in the current US administration, and taking policy positions highly favourable to the industry in which they made their fortunes. As the thirst for oil, and the vast profits it offered, enticed companies beyond their national borders, British, French and US oil have sought to exploit oil resources overseas, and have not hesitated to corrupt or subvert governments, be they in Africa, Asia or Latin America, in order to gain control of these valuable assets.” (Reference: Andy Stern: “Oil: From Rockefellers to Iraq and Beyond’).

Thus, they had never heard of the Elite Dynastic Families, this inner secret Cabal that is so rich and powerful that they are hidden under many layers of deceptions. They have the ability to create international crisis—wars, economic recessions, political tension (instigating and supporting rivals on both sides), etc., for their benefits. The people have been reduced to mere pawns. This writer was having a discussion with some of the KEEPING IT REAL think tank members and the question came up, about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, in particular, but here is the top 20 billionaires of the world listed by Forbes—Carlos Slim Helu, Lakshmi Mittal, Mukesh Ambani, Anil Ambani, Ingvar Kamprad, KP Singh, Oleg Deripaska, Karl Albrecht, Li Ka-shing, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Arnault, Lawrence Ellison, Roman Abramovich, Theo Albrecht, Liliane Bettencourt, Alexei Mordashov, Prince Alwaleed, Mikhail Fridman, etc., being two of the most wealthiest and powerful men in the world. This writer started laughing because even some of them did not understand that these public billionaires were nothing but front men and gophers; they have no power even with all the billions of dollars, they have accrued. Gates and Buffet, as well as all the others listed on the public billionaire list are agents for the secret Cabal.

The Oil crisis has nothing to do with supply and demand, but is being driven by greed and motivated by the lust of power. They have the ability dismiss and invite whom they please. Do you remember prior the 9/11 (September 11, 2001) hoax, the Nation of Libya and the Arab Jamahiriya was considered a "Rogue Nation" and part of what Bush called the “Axis of Evil”. Muammar al- Qaddafi in 1969 after overthrowing King Idris, became the champion of a Pan-Arabism, and Pan-Islamism causes, but more importantly he supported liberation struggles around the world. For example, in Sub-Sahara Africa, Central and South America (I can recall him embracig Daniel Ortega back in the 1980s, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Maurice Bishop of Grenada, Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso and supported African liberation struggles in various parts of Sub-Sahara Africa from West Africa too Cape Town . He also supported the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Ireland, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) against Zionist occupation of Palestinian’s land and territories; Qaddafi even back in the 1980s gave Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, a five (5) million dollar interest free loan and was cozy with the Nation of Islam’s patriarch, Elijah Muhammad. Qaddafi was considered by America and Israeli propaganda machines as public enemy number one. (Reference: Noam Chomsky: “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.”)

But after 9/11 hoax and the United States invasion of Iraq; thus, Qaddafi had seemed to soften his anti-American and anti-West political rhetoric and even submitted to an international compromise over the 1988 Lockerbie, Scotland incident, where as 270 people were killed in what was deemed as a terrorist act, which Libyan nationals were accused. Qaddafi began to gradually shake off the label of being an exponent in exporting terrorism around the world and even furthered soften his rhetoric against the West. He disbanded his aspirations of acquiring Nuclear Weapons capability as a North African Nation in order to set a military balance in the Middle East between the Muslims (Arabs) and the Israeli (Jews). The United States and the United Nations even lifted the trade embargoes and economic sanctions against Libya that were imposed almost three decades ago as a measure of rewarding Qaddafi for demonstrating good behavior. The seven OIL SISTERS—Exxon, Mobil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Standard Oil, Texaco, Gulf (As of 2005, the surviving companies are ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, now members of the "supermajors" group). and their hidden profiteers are the ones that determine the Oil Market and they have had their eyes have on Tripoli for over three decades. (Reference: William C. Chasey: “Pan AM 103: Lockerbie Cover Up”)

This writer grew to admire Muammar al- Qaddafi and was very much disappointed in his flip-flop positions and now has to question whether or no he was an agent provocateur for the Cabal all the while.

They do not give a damn about some Islamic Sheik in Saudi Arabia or some crooked rogue government in Nigeria or even the sovereignty of these nations means absolutely nothing to them. These Oil producing Nations and leaders have mortgage their people and nations, over to the Secret Cabal. Did Muammar Qaddafi, the self-proclaimed revolutionary who once had a vision to unite the nation of Libya and Egypt and advocated a United Federated States of Africa; he also chaired the Organization of African Unity (OAU), but carried out some reactionary politics in Chad and Niger; was he a pawn of the Cabal all the while? I must reference Allen and Larry Abraham's book titled, "None Dare Call it Conspiracy." They talked about how the Cabal applies pressure from the top and pressure from the bottom, which to create the political, economic and social conditions to ascertain the results they desire. Perhaps they have invited Qaddafi and the Nation of Libya to the table, which to partake in the economic crumbs.

However, Libya and Cuba had to find out the hard way and a difficult lesson because they had brought into NATO (representative of the United States and the West and WARSAW PACT nations representative of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc Nations), but in 1989 only to discover that there were no real antagonistic contradictions between Socialism and Capitalism; Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Regan were both low level operatives that was only carrying out their assignments. Soviet Union wasn't dismantled nor did it collapse.

It was reorganized and strategically set-up for the betterment of the international bankers—to access the Siberian Oil fields and using companies like LUKOIL—to grease the palms of the international bankers that sit on top of Moscow. The Cabal—the International Bankers who inspired and instigated 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and gave life to the concept of a Socialist Revolution; did it for their own political and economic interest. Moreover, by 1989, they had, had enough of Leninism, Marxism, Stalinism and this naive concept that the major means of production and distribution were owned and controlled by the State and that Communism benefited the masses of its people. Communism from its inception ultimately only benefited the Russian Elite and that small Hidden Minority that rule the world. (Reference: Gary Allen and Larry Abraham: “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”)

William Cooper who authored one of the best treatise in helping us decode these conspiracies and exposed the agenda of the Cabal stated in his monumental book titled, “Behold A Pale Horse,” stated, “Many of them, however, disagree on exactly who will rule this New World Order, and that is what causes them to sometimes pull in opposite directions while nevertheless proceeding toward the same goal. The Vatican, for instance, wants the Pope to head the world coalition. Some want Lord Maitreya to head the New World Order. Lord Maitreya is the front runner, I believe, since witnesses say he was present on the ship at Malta with Bush and Gorbachev, and the ten regional heads of the New World Order. ‘Approximately 200 dignitaries from around the world attended a major conference initiated by Maitreya in London on April 21 and 22, 1990. Representatives of governments (including the USA) members of royal families, religious leaders. . .” (Reference: William Cooper: “Behold A Pale Horse.”)

The Oil crisis is an artificial crisis—The United States and the West consumes over 70 percent of this vital commodity (the West is truly an Oil Junkie) and the international bankers and the market wizards will continue to feed them, as much as they desire to consume, at an escalated and inflated financial rate. Bush who is a masterful conman has even suggested that the Oil Crisis should be blamed in part, on the American people, because the conservation advocates and the naturalist, have put up such political opposition to Oil drilling in Alaska and not allowing Bush Government to possible destroying the sanctity of this virgin wilderness, but most of us know that Halliburton and energy tycoon, Vice President Dick Chaney is licking his chops along with Bush because the Cabal will handsomely reward them if Alaska, the last Oil Reserves in the United States is open up for drilling, as well as, for economic and mineral exploitation.

The international bankers and the Cabal always manage to get what they want. The rising fuel cost on the consumer level, is designed to create that pressure from the top and pressure from the bottom in order to foster a condition where as the masses of the people will be propelled to believe and accept that giving Bush the authority to drill for Oil in Alaska will somehow alleviate the immediate Oil crisis in the United States. No, it will only further enrich the Cabal and the international bankers to the detriment of the suffering masses.

The United States in 1991 colonized Kuwait (although up until 1947 Kuwait was a part of Iraq, but British instigation led to Kuwait succeeding from Iraq and from that perspective Saddam Hussein was absolutely correct) and March 20, 2003 Bush and the United States Government began their efforts to colonize Iraq, the second largest Oil Reserve in the world and when these reactionaries forces went into Iraq, the international cost for a barrel of Iraqi Crude Oil was $ 29.00 USD per barrel and it now stands at $130.00 USD per barrel just five years later. The bloodsuckers of the poor keep human resistance at a minimum by selling the masses and nations, unbearable debt, which consumes them and dim resistance. The Cabal set-up the European Common Market and Euro currency, which to destabilize Western European Nation's sovereignty and to compromise nationalism, all for their benefit. The one currency concept had been in the making for a very long time; just as The United States, Canada, and Mexico and perhaps all points south, will eventually convert their money over to a new money currency called Amero. This will only further empower the Rothschild’s, Rockefellers, Oppenheimers, Morgans in their enslavement over humanity.

In the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” Protocol number 24 stated, “I pass now to the method of confirming Dynastic Roots King David to the last strata of the earth. This confirmation will first and foremost be included in that in which to this day has rested the force of conservatism by our Learned Elders of the conduct of all the affairs of the world, in directing of the education of thought of all of humanity. Certain members of the seed of David will prepare the kings and their heirs, selecting not by right of heritage but by eminent capacities, inducting them into the most secret mysteries of the political, into schemes of government, but providing always that none may come to knowledge of the secrets. The object of this mode of action is that all may know that government cannot be entrusted to those who have not been inducted into the secret places of its arts.” (Reference: “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”).

Did you know that in 1967 a one world government system was organized in Geneva, Switzerland by a United Nations meeting? and on that date, they decided to dissolve the United Nations to make room for a One World Government. The One World Government will seize all possessions, savings and personal bank deposits. Every man, woman and child will receive a certain amount of money and a number from the One World Government system. The One World Government currency is already printed and ready to be put in circulation. Every dollar will be traded. You will in the near future receive one dollar for every ten dollars; the banker will handle what money you get, eventually we will not be handling any money. At that same United Nations meeting they stated that you would receive a number from the One World Government. In March of 1974, it was stated by the European economic market that they needed a leader. They initially suggested Henry Kissinger as leader of the New World Order.

Carroll Quigley in his monumental book titled, “Tragedy and Hope”, stated, “I know the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies. . .but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

The majority of the American people and the people of the world do not understand that there is no such thing as democracy—one man, one vote, this is only an illusion designed to give the impression and to pacify the ignorant masses into believing that they matter in the political systems of the world and it is just to the contrary. The Cabal will never leave picking their high power servants and operatives up to a ballot box and at the political discretion of an electoral process. Voting is only a matter of going through the motions and placating the ignorant masses, but the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberger they are the real POWER BROKERS, it is their job to select the next United States president and your vote, popular vote count, delegates, superdelegates, etc., do not factor into their decision; thus, regardless of the outcomes that will take place at the Democrat and Republican National Conventions. Many of you will not believe that the next United States president has already been selected and decided upon and he is prepared to serve; although the general election is slated for November 2008 and you have yet to cast your ballots. (Reference: David Icke: “The Biggest Secret”).

It does not matter whether the presidential candidate is John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; they have not ascended up the political latter on their own recognizance. They are fully aware who they owe their allegiance and it is not to the American people. Some will try to dismiss my research as mere conspiracy theories and fail to grasp the fact that these are dangerous times which we live. The next United States president has already been given a play book, script and agenda, which is not up for negotiation or deviation; for execution only. United States domestic and Foreign Policy agenda is already set for next eight (8) years and for that matter, the political agenda for the entire world has also been set. Senator McCain has made it crystal clear that if he had to, he would commit United States troops to Iraq for next 100 years; either this is a backwards decision or is McCain given us a hint of what to expect from U.S. Foreign policy the next eight years—this sounds like business as usual, and as an extension of George Bush's cowboy and wild, wild west reactionary Foreign Policy agenda.

William Cooper, “Behold A Pale Horse” goes on to state, “It is important that you know that the members of the Order take and oath that absolves them from any allegiance to a any nation or king or government or constitution, and that includes the negating of any subsequent oath of allegiance which they may be required to take. They swear allegiance only to the Order and its goal of a New World Order. George Bush is not a loyal citizen of the United States but instead is loyal only to the destruction of the United States and to the formation of the New World Order. According to the oath Bush took when he was initiated into the Skull & Bones, his oath of office as President of the United States of America means nothing.”

The Hidden Emperors have their sights on Oil and every nation and their people are considered expendable in lieu of profits, greed and accumulation of wealth. How much money is enough? The United States war machines continues to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens in name of Oil diplomacy. They have raked up these immoral and unethical tragedies in Iraq, as the price of doing business. These are criminal acts, but who can make war with the beast other than God himself. The Hidden Emperors have Muslims fighting and debating over artificial labels and concepts—Sunni versus Shia instigating and creating sectarian tension and violence and then removing their filthy hand as though they are innocent.

But their motive is stealing Oil and they are trying to set the stage to attack and invade Iran by demonizing President Mahmoud Ahmadjindine, which to justify going into Iran an stealing more oil. The next United States President will have his marching orders and do not be surprised if U.S. Foreign policy does not lead them right into Tehran, but what can not be overlooked, is that the Israelis (Zionist Jews) influence that is driving the United States into deep international isolation, specifically in the so-called Middle East. You can not have a one-sided debate and conversation relative to the Palestinians (Arabs) and the Israelis (Jews) over the question of land rights and sovereignty. Both sides must-be held equally accountable, if you are serious about one day achieving a peaceful resolution and compromise in Palestine. Bush and the United States Government is quick to condemn and repudiate Hamas and Hezbollah for so-called using Lebanon as a terrorist haven and yet did not criticize the Israelis unprovoked attacked against Lebanon in 2006. The United States Foreign Policy in the Middle East can not be based on double standards. (Reference: Obadiah Shoher: “Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East”).

The world continues to be duped and misled by an evil Cabal who has wrapped its tentacles around the whole of humanity and controls every facet of our lives; they use their most powerful tool—the media, both electronic and print, to lure us to sleep and most of all make their thoughts our thoughts. They work out of various fronts such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger, etc., but is by no stretch of the imagination limited to these three powerful organizations. They intertwine with Freemasonry (I mean high degree Masonry and I am not referring to those who are initiated in 33rd degree; there is a Dynastic Freemasonic brotherhood—that evolves around blood lineage and wealth, which this Order is not open to rank and file Freemasons). The Cabal is the one pulling the purse strings on the Oil crisis and they are motivated by greed and power. President Bush is a loyal pawn and is only following the orders given to him by this INVISIBLE CABAL. John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all have swore loyalty to continue the AGENDA.

Fahim A. Knight Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of good will of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolisms and reinterpret the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlighten world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight can be reached at fahimknight@yahoo.com.

STAY AWAKE UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN,
Fahim A. Knight

America's Shadow Government: Part Two

2010-02-03T10:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=558

Bill HayminOctober 20, 2008
By John Whitehead
www.rutherford.org

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."--Thomas Jefferson

As I detailed in Part One of this article, the next president will inherit more than a financial catastrophe when he assumes office. He will also inherit a shadow government--an authoritarian regime that is fully staffed by unelected officials, fully operational and ready to take over the running of the country at a moment's notice.

This is all part of the government's Continuity of Government (COG) plan, which was laid out in two May 2007 directives issued by President Bush. These directives, which do not need congressional approval, provide that the president (or his appointees) will take control of the government in the event of a "national emergency"--loosely defined to mean "any incident" that disrupts governmental functions or "severely affects the U.S. population." This could mean anything from a terrorist attack to a hurricane. Particularly significant is the absence of a plan to repopulate or reconvene Congress or the Supreme Court, which would give unchecked executive, legislative and judicial power to the executive branch.

For all intents and purposes, with the Constitution effectively suspended and non-elected officials in charge, this will place the nation under a military dictatorship. However, a recent article by Christopher Ketcham in Radar magazine suggests that the government's plans don't end with martial law. Indeed, Ketcham believes that the government also has plans to imprison hundreds of thousands of "potentially suspect" Americans in detention camps.

In "The Last Roundup," Ketcham describes a program created by the Department of Homeland Security which relies on a database "of Americans who might be considered potential threats in the event of a national emergency. Sources familiar with the program say that the government's data gathering has been overzealous and probably conducted in violation of federal law and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure granted by the Fourth Amendment."

Referred to by the code name Main Core, this database reportedly contains the names of Americans who, "often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived 'enemies of the state' almost instantaneously." Thus, under Ketcham's scenario, if a terrorist attack occurs, the president will declare a national emergency, activating COG procedures and throwing the country into martial law with the shadow government at the helm. The administration will then round up the "dangerous" Americans listed in Main Core and place them in the internment camps.

While this may sound farfetched, it is far from improbable. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security awarded a former Halliburton subsidiary $385 million in 2006 to build a massive system of internment camps on U.S. soil capable of detaining hundreds of thousands of people. According to the government contract, these Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities are being built to prepare for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies such as "natural disasters." In other words, with such fluid language, these detention camps could be used for anyone--including political dissidents.

These camps are not a new development. A government plan was initiated during the Reagan administration that included the creation of top-secret American internment camps in the event of civil unrest. In August 1994, former Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex.) acknowledged the existence of civilian detention camps: "The truth is yes--you do have these standby provisions and the plans are here...whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism, evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps."

When Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) read a story widely circulated in the U.S. press in 2003 entitled "Foundations Are in Place for Martial Law in the United States," he became so alarmed at the prospect of detention camps for Americans that he railed against it from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives: "The reason I raise this issue is that I come from a State where in 1941 under executive order by the President, 9661, we rounded up all the Japanese Americans in this country and put them in internment camps. We have set in place the mechanism to do that again and we must not, we cannot sacrifice the Constitution in this rush to war that we are doing in Iraq."

McDermott's fears take on greater urgency with the recent news that military personnel have, for the first time ever, been deployed on American soil. What this means is that the military will now be involved in domestic police activities. As the Army Times notes, military personnel will be involved in "crowd and traffic control" and will use "nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them." Such nonlethal weapons will include beanbag bullets, shields, batons and tasers, among other items in modern police arsenals. This is in direct contravention to federal law, specifically, the Posse Comitatus Act, the 230-year-old law that bars the use of military personnel for law enforcement purposes within the U.S.

This brings us back to the dangers posed by this so-called shadow government, which already has the technology (the Main Core database), the structure (internment camps), and the muscle (domestic military force) in place for its authoritarian coup. All that is now required is a trigger.

Given this bleak scenario, one would be justified in wondering whether anything can really be done about these ominous developments. At the very least, COG plans should ensure that constitutional government lives through a crisis. To accomplish this, the planning cannot be left to the executive branch. The executive branch cannot be trusted to restrain its own powers and restore a constitutional government following a national emergency.

COG exists in a nebulous legal realm that Congress can fill if it so desires. Unfortunately, as has so often been the case over the past eight years, Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility. However, Congress needs to do its job--which includes safeguarding our constitutional republic. To this end, Congress should create its own COG plans.

As Christopher Ketcham observed, "When COG plans are shrouded in extreme secrecy, effectively unregulated by Congress or the courts, and married to an overreaching surveillance state, even sober observers must weigh whether the protections put in place by the federal government are becoming more dangerous to America than any outside threat."

America’s Shadow Government: Part One

2010-02-03T10:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=557

By John W. Whitehead
10/6/2008

“All men having power ought to be mistrusted.”—James Madison
America’s next president will inherit more than a financial catastrophe when he assumes office. He will also inherit a shadow government—one that is fully staffed by unelected officials, fully operational and ready to take over the running of the country at a moment’s notice.

This so-called shadow government is not a new development. It has been a long time in the making. Yet it has been so shrouded in secrecy, even from those elected to represent the American people in Congress, that it essentially exists and functions contrary to any concept of democratic government. The little that has leaked out merely serves to reinforce concerns that an authoritarian government waits in the wings. All it will take is the right event—another terrorist attack, for example—for such a regime to emerge from the shadows.

It might not even require an actual attack, as President Bush ensured when he stealthily issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 in May 2007. Comprising the country’s Continuity of Government (COG) plan, these directives, which do not need congressional approval, provide a skeletal outline of the actions the executive will take in the event of a “national emergency.” In fact, they go so far as to grant the president the power to unilaterally declare a national emergency, which is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

Just what sort of actions the president will take once he declares a national emergency can barely be discerned from the barebones directives. However, one thing is clear—in the event of a national emergency, the president will become a dictator because while the Bush directives ensure the continuity of executive branch functions, they do not provide for repopulating or reconvening Congress or the Supreme Court.

Thus, a debilitating attack would give unchecked executive, legislative and judicial power to the executive branch and its unelected minions. The country would be subjected to martial law by default, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be suspended. (This adds an ominous note to the disconcerting news that for the first time ever, U.S. military forces, trained in domestic police tactics and crowd control, are being deployed inside the U.S.)

Originally devised as a plan for quickly restoring constitutional government, the COG concept arose during the Cold War. The fear was that a nuclear strike would paralyze the federal government.

These concerns continued into the 1980s. Under President Ronald Reagan, an elaborate plan was created in which three teams consisting of a cabinet member, an executive chief of staff and military and intelligence officials would practice evacuating and directing a counter nuclear strike against the Soviet Union from a variety of high-tech, mobile command vehicles. If the president and vice president were both killed, one of these teams would take control, with the ranking cabinet official serving as president. Among those Reagan handpicked to advise an inexperienced and potentially incompetent successor in a time of crisis were Congressman Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, then a business executive with G. D. Searle & Co. At least once a year during the 1980s, Cheney and Rumsfeld vanished on top-secret training missions, where each of the teams practiced evacuating and directing a counter nuclear strike against Russia.

This all changed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when it became clear that the assumptions that drove COG planning during the Cold War no longer applied. There would be no warning against a terrorist attack. Thus, instead of relying on part-time bureaucrats and evacuation schematics, the Bush administration permanently appointed executive officials, stationed outside the capital, to run a shadow government.

The plans for the shadow government are more elaborate than many realize. Massive underground bunkers the size of small cities are sprinkled throughout the country for the government elite to escape to in the event of a national emergency. Mount Weather, near Bluemont, Va., is one of a number of such facilities. Built into the side of a mountain, this bunker contains, among other things, a hospital, crematorium, dining and recreation areas, sleeping quarters, reservoirs of drinking and cooling water, an emergency power plant and a radio/television studio. There is also an Office of the Presidency at Mount Weather, which regularly receives top-secret national security information from all the federal departments and agencies. This facility was largely unknown to everyone, including Congress, until it came to light in the mid-1970s. Military personnel connected to the bunker have refused to reveal any information about it, even before congressional committees. In fact, Congress has no oversight, budgetary or otherwise, on Mount Weather, and the specifics of the facility remain top-secret.

What is the bottom line here? We are, for all intents and purposes, one terrorist attack away from having a full-fledged authoritarian state emerge from the shadows, at which time democratic government will be dissolved and the country will be ruled by an unelected bureaucracy. And because so much of this shadow government remains under wraps, there is much we don’t know about it. Yet that does not diminish the threat it poses to democratic government.

In his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation, Dwight D. Eisenhower tried to warn us that a nefarious military-industrial complex had emerged in America. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist,” he said. Eisenhower realized that after World War II, America had become a national security state that operated largely in secret and answered to practically no one.

The Bush administration, in fact, has refused to reveal the classified details of COG, even to members of Congress. Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, requested access to COG plans. Members of Congress are supposedly allowed to view such documents in a secure “bubble room” in the Capitol Building. However, White House staff refused to release the documents. Understandably, DeFazio was livid.

Those who drafted the Constitution never contemplated, nor would they have tolerated, a nonelected, secretive shadow government. All government officials under the U.S. Constitution are accountable to the elected representatives. Otherwise, democratic government, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist.

American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic

2010-02-03T09:35:00.000-08:00

http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m12d14-American-fascism-by-political-definition-the-US-is-now-fascist-not-a-constitutional-republic

American fascism: by political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic
December 14, 2010
LA County Nonpartisan Examiner
Carl Herman

We hold these Truths to be self-evident...

Look in any textbook or encyclopedia and compare US policy (not rhetoric) to the definitions of fascism and constitutional republic. I’ll explain it here, but check my work. If at the end of your consideration, you agree that the United States of America is now a fascist state, please speak-up about it. Also, consider the policy requests at the end of the article.
Please read this article like a prima facie legal argument; that means unless you can refute the facts, they stand as our best understanding of the issue. Here, if you can’t refute the evidence that the US is now a fascist state, then accept this as your best understanding. As time passes, if evidence is brought forward to further the case for fascism or refute it, your comprehensive understanding improves. Here we go:

Definitions:
The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights.

“Constitutional republic” is a political philosophy of limited government, separated powers with checks and balances to ensure the federal government’s power stays limited within the Constitution, protected civil liberties, and elected representatives responsible to the people who retain the most political power. In the US we also embrace inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence, and creative independence to cooperatively compete for our nation’s best ideas to move forward and be rewarded.

History:
The United States was structured as a constitutional republic. Before we consider the US present condition, let us contextualize our concern from the nation’s Founders’ grave admonishments and doubts as to Americans’ ability to retain it. If you honor America at all, give their most serious warnings your full attention for the next 1,000 words spanning from Ben Franklin to Abraham Lincoln.

On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Benjamin Franklin met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: “This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many. Let it be the study, therefore, of lawgivers and philosophers, to enlighten the people's understandings and improve their morals, by good and general education; to enable them to comprehend the scheme of government, and to know upon what points their liberties depend; to dissipate those vulgar prejudices and popular superstitions that oppose themselves to good government; and to teach them that obedience to the laws is as indispensable in them as in lords and kings.” - John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government (1787), Ch. 18.

“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits (of government) is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” - James Madison, Federalist Paper #48, 1788.

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, "Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491.

“It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolution (1798. ME 17:388)

“A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring, it is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” – James Madison, Letter to W.T. Barry (1822-08-04)

Washington made the topic of the Farewell Address he had printed and distributed as the culmination of his advice to Americans to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

Lincoln spoke in honor of the few still-living veterans of the Revolutionary War in the concise power we ascribe as one of history’s most powerful.

The following six paragraphs are from Abraham Lincoln in his Lyceum Address, January 27 1838.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide...

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

…Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”

What is the evidence for American fascism in the present?
The US brazenly violates our laws of war, both demanded by the Constitution and the UN Charter, with open invasion of Afghanistan in abject violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and their government’s agreement to help extradite Osama bin Laden upon US presentment of evidence that he was involved in any crime of UN and/or international law. The US refused both the Afghan standard legal requirement of extradition and the UN resolution for cooperation under law and attacked. The new administration of Obama does not acknowledge this illegal history, but expands the invasion and attacks Pakistan. This policy is fascist, not limited by US law.

The US openly lied about reasons to justify an attack upon Iraq, destroying any semblance of argument of “self-defense.” The Obama administration won’t acknowledge the disclosed history from our own House and Senate investigations, and violates his oath of office to prosecute clear crimes. This policy is authoritarian, fascist, and does not hold equality under just laws. It is an un-American policy by definition.

The US tortured, with Obama refusing to prosecute and giving empty rhetoric to end it. The destruction of civil liberties to enforce authoritarian government is fascist, not American.

The US lies for more war with Iran, rejecting inalienable and legal rights for Iranians. Obama continues this policy of unlawful aggression, including official policy for first-strike nuclear weapons upon conclusion that Iran poses a possible future threat to the US and/or our allies. Political leaders and corporate media ignore the ignoble history of US vicious domination of Iranian government through coup and backed invasion. Fascist policy; un-American.

The US violates numerous treaty law with WMD, and hypocritically asserts our war targets' alleged violations justify US armed attack. This rejection of limited government under the law is a fascist empire on the loose, not a law-abiding neighbor. Added hypocrisy is the psychopathic front of American political leaders as Christians.

American corporatocracy is dominated by Enron-like cartels, headed by banks receiving the transfer of TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to pay-off their gambling debts in exotic derivative markets the federal government regulates only in more empty rhetoric. This socialization of corporate-insiders’ losses is fascist, and fundamentally in opposition of the American ideal of cooperative competition on a level playing field. Obvious financial solutions for the public good are ignored in their corporate and not public policy commitment.

While our government's official line is respect for Islam, their wars betray this analysis. If extremists were the small minority, why not peacefully cooperate to marginalize and arrest those in violation of just laws? Muslims as a group are often demonized in US media, and often the entire group is branded as terrorists. For example, consider this segment from the radio talk show of Michael Savage.

The corporate media will not present such disturbing facts and analysis. Their outright lies of commission and omission are prima facie evidence of a controlled media, supported by revealed documentation from whistle-blowers. American freedom of the press is left to independent websites and those few media outlets who tolerate reporting such as you read now.

Yeah, but we’re not totally fascist! Saying the US is fascist is just not right!!!
Yes, I’ve made the case for fascism only in the area of tens of trillions of our tax dollars in the economy, Wars of Aggression based on objective lies, authoritarian disregard for crucial laws and treaties of war and moral conduct, expansion of new unlawful war into Pakistan with rhetoric leading to more war with Iran, and a corporate press who won’t communicate these “emperor has no clothes” facts until the public breaks free of their cognitive blindness to clearly embrace our new American political reality.

We still vote for Republicans and Democrats in elections, yes, in a monied system with a virtual lock against 3rd party candidates given the costs of advertising and breaking the inertia of a two-party system.

We still have Internet press where authors such as I can point to the obvious, but with documented government-organized opposition in PSYOPS to ridicule challenging voices while counting of public cognitive blindness to keep the fascism unconcealed.

Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:
Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. This investment of your time takes less than an hour and empowers you to legally stand for ending these Wars of Aggression.
Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share powerful information as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate your virtuous response to being attacked and give it in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
Refuse and end all orders and acts associated with these unlawful wars and constant violation of treaties. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. Unlawful acts only move forward with sufficient cooperation and public tolerance. Stop cooperating with the most vicious crime a nation can commit: war.
Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. You can only understand how these wars are specifically unlawful by investing the time to do so. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R either by volunteering their name and/or responding when named are subject to prosecution after the window of T&R closes.

I conclude with the 5-minute powerful video from PuppetGov: Had enough?

Please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.

Had Enough? from PuppetGov on Vimeo.

A scheme only psychopaths could invent: Israeli mind-scanner planned for airports

2010-02-02T13:40:00.001-08:00

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117337§ionid=3510203

Press TV
Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:23 EST

As part of stringent measures to beef up airport security, US authorities may use an Israeli-made mind-reading scanner that allegedly predicts whether a passenger is a potential threat or not.

The Transportation and Safety Administration (TSA) and the Homeland Security are considering the installment of a controversial mind-reading system, that was recently developed by the Israeli-based WeCU Technologies, in all American airports, AP reported on Thursday.

The device, which functions by blending high computer technology and behavioral psychology, is essentially designed to "get inside the evildoers head" without the subject's knowledge and prevent him or her from placing the lives of fellow travelers in jeopardy.

According to WeCU Technologies CEO, Ehud Givon, people cannot help reacting mechanically to recognizable images that suddenly appear in unfamiliar places.

With that in mind, the system aims to project images onto airport screens, such as symbols affiliated with a terrorist group or signs only a terrorist would recognize.

Givon said while the WeCU system would use humans to do some of the observing, it would rely largely on concealed cameras or covert biometric sensors that can distinguish a rise in body temperature and heart rate, however slight it may be.

"One by one, you can screen out from the flow of people those with specific malicious intent," Givon claimed.

The controversial device has sparked an outcry among civil rights groups, who argue that a system that combs through your brain to look for evil intentions is "Orwellian" and akin to "brain fingerprinting."

The groups note that the US should not follow in Israeli footsteps with regards to airport security. At the Ben-Gurion Airport in Israel, Jewish Israelis pass through smoothly, while Arab Palestinians are taken aside for closer interrogation or even strip searches.

The US is already subjected to wide-spread controversy over the appliance of full body scanners, which according to critics, are in violation of child protection laws as well as the right of travelers to privacy.

UK: Airport scanners go live today, kids included

2010-02-01T13:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/01/airport_scanners_children/

John Oates
The Register
Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:43 EST

The peeping Tom you can't refuse

Body scanners went into operation at Heathrow and Manchester airports this morning. People chosen by security staff will not be allowed onto flights without going through the machine from now on.

Lord Adonis said he expected more machines to go live later this month, with further examples to be introduced at Birmingham airport soon.

Anyone selected for the scanners must go through the machine - there is no option to choose a pat-down search instead. Children can also be selected for scanning - despite early concerns that taking such images could breach child pornography laws. A spokesman for the Department of Transport said this was a proportional response on national security grounds.

A spokeswoman at Heathrow confirmed the machines had gone live, but said it was too early to gauge passenger response.

The government has issued an interim code of practice which requires airport operators to put in place a privacy policy to protect passengers. This should include putting the security officer viewing the images out of sight of passengers. People chosen for scanning can ask for the images to be viewed by someone of the same sex.

Images will be deleted once scanning is completed. Security officers must obtain appropriate security clearances before receiving training - and that training must be approved by the Department of Transport.

The code also said that passengers should be informed as early as possible that they may face a pervscanner - ideally this should be before tickets are purchased.

The code states: "Passengers must not be selected on the basis of personal characteristics (i.e. on a basis that may constitute discrimination such as gender, age, race or ethnic origin)."

Finally, scanners must be operated in accordance with detailed protocols which are not published because, we are told, they contain security sensitive information which includes selection criteria on those chosen for scanning.

Lord Adonis's statement, and a link to the code of practice, is here..

Barack Obama opponents urge census boycott

2010-02-01T12:17:00.000-08:00

In these scary times, if I was living in America, I wouldn't give anyone any information, especially since the public can't look inside those 800+ FEMA concentration camps. I'm 53 and thus I have no value for a patriarchal, pay-as-you-go society! I spent 12 years in universities to be thrown under the economic bus! To a psychopathic society like America, I'm better off dead because I'm basically unemployable because of my age, gender, body size, race (mixed) and politics (don't have enough socio-political value to 'deserve' a good job plus don't know anyone on the inside that can get me in). If I still lived in America, I'd be INSANE to give out any information about myself! They could use it to kill me and I KNOW IT!!! Again, Nazi Germany used its 1936 census (helped by IBM in America) to find all those 'untermenschens' (people not valuable economically and socially) to imprison, gas and burn in their concentration camps!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/29/barack-obama-opponents-census-boycott

Census becoming focal point for US anti-government movement, which says it mistrusts use of private data
Daniel Nasaw in Washington
guardian.co.uk,
29 January 2010

The Obama administration will endeavour to count every person living in the United States, regardless of legal, immigration or citizenship status.

Conservative opponents of the Obama administration are urging supporters to resist the upcoming US census, saying it asks too many questions and reflects increasing government intrusion into private matters.

The census, held every 10 years since 1790, is becoming a focal point for the growing anti-government movement in the US.

The government will endeavour to count every person living in the US, regardless of legal, immigration or citizenship status. The count, which helps determine political representation and the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in government funds, is mandated by the constitution.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a virulently conservative, anti-Obama Republican from Minnesota, has urged supporters to give only the number of people living in their household, saying nothing more is required by the constitution.

"And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home," she told a newspaper. "We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."

Glenn Beck, a Fox News presenter and one of the loudest voices on the American right, attacked the plan to include undocumented immigrants in the count, and said he too would only answer the question on how many people lived in his household.

"Government in the last couple years has not proven itself to accomplish anything, maintain data properly, get money to districts properly," Eric Odom, a prominent organiser in the anti-government "tea party" movement, told the Guardian. "I don't want them to have my private information and I don't trust them to get anything right. If you want to know my name, my age, where I live, you can find that on my website, but to go any further is out of the realm of acceptability."

Michael Johns, a former speechwriter for George Bush Sr, put conservative mistrust of the census down to fears the Obama administration would inappropriately politicise the operation.

"The tea party movement has legitimate concerns about the integrity of the process," Johns said in an interview.

This year's census will ask 10 questions, including name, age, sex, whether the respondent owns or rents a home, and questions about race and ethnicity. The census form does not ask about immigration status, and the information is confidential.

"This is a census that is being conducted in a period of unusual animosity and hostility toward the government," said Kenneth Prewitt, professor of public affairs at Columbia University. "It's not that people are mad at that census, but when you're mad at the government you take it out on whatever is handy."

The census bureau has raised eyebrows by again including "negro" as a racial category (it lists African-American and black as synonyms). Most black Americans deem the term "negro" to be more archaic than offensive. The bureau has used the term for decades and opted to include it again after more than 50,000 wrote it in longhand on the 2000 form though it was an official selection.

"Does it have a negative connotation? Is it offensive? No," said Darrell Gaskins, associate professor of African-American studies at the University of Maryland. "But it brings up that feeling of the Jim Crow era," he said, referring to the long period of official racial segregation in the southern states.

Participation in the census is required by law and to refuse, or to falsify information, is punishable by fines that can range from $100 up to $500 (about £60 to £300), although the law is rarely enforced.

Some Latino groups are urging undocumented immigrants to boycott the census.

The Rev Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, which represents Latino churches in the US, said undocumented immigrants benefited little from the government funds distributed according to the count and were not represented in the halls of power.

"It is immoral to ask undocumented immigrants to step out of the shadows, count themselves ... then go back to the shadows," he told the Guardian.

An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants live in the US, distributed throughout the country.

Other Latino political groups have denounced the proposed boycott as counterproductive to Latinos' goal of greater political representation.

"If we don't participate we're not empowering ourselves," said Lizette Jenness Olmos, of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

• This article was amended on 1 February 2010. In the original, potential census fines were said to range up to $5,000. This has been corrected.

Taser Bracelets for Airline Passengers Next on NWO Agenda

2010-01-30T13:42:00.000-08:00

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9749

Forced Census

2010-01-30T13:01:00.000-08:00

Remember, Germany's 1936 census (helped by IBM) was used to help the Nazis find all the untermenschen (the 'useless eaters') for extermination!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul192.html

None of Your Business!
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
July 13, 2004

You may not have heard of the American Community Survey, but you will. The national census, which historically is taken every ten years, has expanded to quench the federal bureaucracy’s ever-growing thirst to govern every aspect of American life. The new survey, unlike the traditional census, is taken each and every year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. And it’s not brief. It contains 24 pages of intrusive questions concerning matters that simply are none of the government’s business, including your job, your income, your physical and emotional heath, your family status, your dwelling, and your intimate personal habits.

The questions are both ludicrous and insulting. The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.

Keep in mind the survey is not voluntary, nor is the Census Bureau asking politely. Americans are legally obligated to answer, and can be fined up to $1,000 per question if they refuse!

I introduced an amendment last week that would have eliminated funds for this intrusive survey in a spending bill, explaining on the House floor that perhaps the American people don’t appreciate being threatened by Big Brother. The amendment was met by either indifference or hostility, as most members of Congress either don’t care about or actively support government snooping into the private affairs of citizens.

One of the worst aspects of the census is its focus on classifying people by race. When government tells us it wants information to “help” any given group, it assumes every individual who shares certain physical characteristics has the same interests, or wants the same things from government. This is an inherently racist and offensive assumption. The census, like so many federal policies and programs, inflames racism by encouraging Americans to see themselves as members of racial groups fighting each other for a share of the federal pie.

The census also represents a form of corporate welfare, since the personal data collected on hundred of millions of Americans can be sold to private businesses. Surely business enjoys having such extensive information available from one source, but it’s hardly the duty of taxpayers to subsidize the cost of market research.

At least the national census has its origins in the Constitution, which is more than one can say about the vast majority of programs funded by Congress. Still, Article I makes it clear that the census should be taken every ten years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting (and apportionment of taxes, prior to the disastrous 16th amendment). This means a simple count of the number of people living in a given area, so that numerically equal congressional districts can be maintained. The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people.

More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government’s business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Motorist receives £50 on the spot fine.. for blowing his nose in stationary car

2010-01-30T04:39:00.000-08:00

Fascists control every movement of people from the inside to the outside!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/01/28/motorist-receives-50-on-the-spot-fine-for-blowing-his-nose-in-car-86908-22000682/

Craig McDonald
Daily Record
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:39 EST

A businessman has been fined by cops for blowing his nose in a car.

Dad-of-two Michael Mancini pulled out a tissue while he was stuck in stationary traffic - with his handbrake on.

But he was given a £60 fixed penalty notice for "not being in control of his vehicle".

The cop who handed out the ticket was PC Stuart Gray - dubbed PC Shiny Buttons for his zealous approach to the job.

He was exposed last year after he issued a £50 fixed penalty to a man who accidentally dropped a £10 note in the street.

Last night, Michael, 39, who's never been in trouble with police, said: "I was in total shock. I was stuck in traffic with the handbrake on and my nose was running.

"It's beyond a disgrace.

"Surely it would have been more dangerous to drive with a blocked nose?"

The dad has refused to pay the fine and now faces a criminal trial later in the year.

Michael, of Prestwick, Ayrshire, was driving in nearby Ayr and suffering from a runny nose when he got stuck in the traffic jam.

He said: "I needed to blow my nose so I put my handbrake on and took the car out of gear.

"I noticed four police officers standing around near the Wallace Tower but I didn't think anything of it. Then one of them waved me over.

"I still had the tissue in my hand and was totally stunned when he said I was getting a fixed penalty notice for not being in control of my car."

Michael said: "I thought it was some kind of Beadle's About moment - a wind-up. The traffic was at a complete standstill and I had my handbrake on.

"I tried to explain that to the officer but he wouldn't listen."

Michael, who runs a furniture restoration business with his brother Philip, has taken legal advice on the matter which he says has left him "totally baffled".

His lawyer, Peter Lockhart, has written to the procurator fiscal saying it "beggars belief " Michael is being prosecuted.

But prosecutors are adamant they will put Michael through a trial at Ayr District Court.

Michael said: "I'm really angry. I made sure it was safe to blow my nose. It's doubtful I'll get legal aid so this could potentially cost me thousands in legal fees.

"But I won't be paying the fixed penalty."

A police spokeswoman confirmed: "A 39-year-old man is the subject of a report to the procurator fiscal in connect ion with an alleged traffic offence on October 26."

The incident happened just after PC Gray doled out a £50 fine for littering to unemployed Stewart Smith, who accidentally dropped a tenner out his pocket as he left a shop.

Last night, a source said: "Total nonsense like this is the very opposite of good policing. This officer is known as PC Shiny Buttons for his lack of a common sense approach to the job.

"It is supposed to be about serving and protecting the public - not embarking on some petty power trip like this appears to be."

NYC Police Accused of 'Anal Assault' Over Marijuana Use

2010-01-28T11:51:00.000-08:00

http://www.alternet.org/story/145442/_nyc_police_accused_of_%27anal_assault%27_over_marijuana_use

NYC Police Accused of 'Anal Assault' Over Marijuana Use
By Tony Newman, AlterNet
Posted on January 26, 2010, Printed on January 28, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145442/

Yesterday in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, Michael Mineo took the stand to describe in detail his harrowing experience on a Brooklyn subway station in 2008: being held down by three New York City police officers and sodomized with a foreign object.

Mr. Mineo’s crime? Smoking marijuana.

The Brooklyn cops chased Mr. Mineo into the station after they spotted him smoking marijuana. Mr. Mineo claims that the cops tackled him and that one of the officers sodomized him with a baton. The cops then gave him a summons, and threatened that they would go to his house and serve him with a felony charge if he went to the hospital for treatment or the police station to report what happened.

Mr. Mineo’s story is corroborated by eyewitnesses—including a transit police officer. The three officers charged in the attack are now on trial in a case that recalls that of Abner Louima, who was brutally sodomized by police in 1997.

The NYPD’s obsession with marijuana possession has led to tens of thousands of New Yorkers a year getting caught up in the criminal justice system. Most spend a few days in jail. Some, like Mr. Mineo, suffer more horrific experiences. While New York has a reputation as a tolerant and open-minded city, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Gotham makes so many pot busts that the city now has the unfortunate distinction of being the marijuana arrest capital of the world.

According to a report released by the New York Civil Liberties Union in 2008, New York City police have arrested more than 300,000 people for low-level, misdemeanor marijuana possession since 1997. In 2008 alone, the number of arrests for possessing a small amount of marijuana in New York City soared to 40,300 people, most of them teenagers and young adults under 26 years old.

New York City's marijuana arrests also show stark racial disparities. In 2008, 87% of those charged with pot possession were black or Latino. These groups represent only about half of the city's population, and U.S. government surveys consistently find that young whites use marijuana at higher rates than blacks and Latinos. Yet blacks and Latinos are arrested for pot at much higher rates, in part because officers make stop-and-frisk searches disproportionately in black, Latino, and low-income neighborhoods. Mr. Mineo was assaulted in Lefferts Garden, Brooklyn—a predominantly Black and Caribbean neighborhood.

What makes these marijuana arrests all the more troublesome is that New York State decriminalized simple possession of up to 25 grams of marijuana more than 30 years ago in 1977. Smoking in public remains a misdemeanor, but personal possession is not a criminal offense.

While Mayor Bloomberg has admitted to smoking marijuana and even said he enjoyed it, tens of thousands of other New Yorkers are being arrested and jailed in a shameful example of a destructive and ineffective policy.

While the jury is still out on what actually happened with Mr. Mineo and the NYPD, there is another similarity with the Louima case worth noting. One of the lawyers for the cops charged with sodomizing Mr. Mineo is John Patton, the lawyer who represented the police in the 1997 torture of Abner Louima. The defense strategy for the police officers was revealed yesterday in court: the defense plans to paint Mr. Mineo as a lying, marijuana using criminal with no credibility and who is suing the city only to make money. “This is your payday, isn’t it?” asked Stuart London, another lawyer for the officers. Mr. Mineo countered that he would never make up this story. “I don’t want to be here right now,” he said later. “Do you know how embarrassing this is for me?”

The defense strategy to discredit Mr. Mineo because he smoked marijuana is ironic and hollow, considering that Mayor Bloomberg, President Obama, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and many others public leaders have admitted smoking marijuana and are no less credible for it.

It is not Mr. Mineo but New York City and Mayor Bloomberg who should be embarrassed by this trial. Nothing can turn back the clock on what happened to Mr. Mineo on the subway that day, but moving forward we can decide if we want to waste police resources arresting people for small amounts of marijuana.

Tony Newman is communications director for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Presidential Assassinations of US Citizens

2010-01-28T10:53:00.000-08:00

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24516.htm

Presidential Assassinations of US Citizens
By Glenn Greenwald

January 27, 2010 "Salon" - - The Washington Post's Dana Priest today reports that "U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people." That's no surprise, of course, as Yemen is now another predominantly Muslim country (along with Somalia and Pakistan) in which our military is secretly involved to some unknown degree in combat operations without any declaration of war, without any public debate, and arguably (though not clearly) without any Congressional authorization. The exact role played by the U.S. in the late-December missile attacks in Yemen, which killed numerous civilians, is still unknown.

But buried in Priest's article is her revelation that American citizens are now being placed on a secret "hit list" of people whom the President has personally authorized to be killed:

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. . . .

The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."

Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [New Mexico-born Islamic cleric Anwar] Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.

Indeed, Aulaqi was clearly one of the prime targets of the late-December missile strikes in Yemen, as anonymous officials excitedly announced -- falsely, as it turns out -- that he was killed in one of those strikes.

Just think about this for a minute. Barack Obama, like George Bush before him, has claimed the authority to order American citizens murdered based solely on the unverified, uncharged, unchecked claim that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They're entitled to no charges, no trial, no ability to contest the accusations. Amazingly, the Bush administration's policy of merely imprisoning foreign nationals (along with a couple of American citizens) without charges -- based solely on the President's claim that they were Terrorists -- produced intense controversy for years. That, one will recall, was a grave assault on the Constitution. Shouldn't Obama's policy of ordering American citizens assassinated without any due process or checks of any kind -- not imprisoned, but killed -- produce at least as much controversy?

Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That's just the essence of war. That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained. But combat is not what we're talking about here. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world. So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.

As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death. What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist. Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released. That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.

No evidence should be required for rational people to avoid assuming that Government accusations are inherently true, but for those do need it, there is a mountain of evidence proving that. And in this case, Anwar Aulaqi -- who, despite his name and religion, is every bit as much of an American citizen as Scott Brown and his daughters are -- has a family who vigorously denies that he is a Terrorist and is "pleading" with the U.S. Government not to murder their American son:

His anguish apparent, the father of Anwar al-Awlaki told CNN that his son is not a member of al Qaeda and is not hiding out with terrorists in southern Yemen.

"I am now afraid of what they will do with my son, he's not Osama Bin Laden, they want to make something out of him that he's not," said Dr. Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. . . .

"I will do my best to convince my son to do this (surrender), to come back but they are not giving me time, they want to kill my son. How can the American government kill one of their own citizens? This is a legal issue that needs to be answered," he said.

"If they give me time I can have some contact with my son but the problem is they are not giving me time," he said.

Who knows what the truth is here? That's why we have what are called "trials" -- or at least some process -- before we assume that government accusations are true and then mete out punishment accordingly. As Marcy Wheeler notes, the U.S. Government has not only repeatedly made false accusations of Terrorism against foreign nationals in the past, but against U.S. citizens as well. She observes: "I guess the tenuousness of those ties don't really matter, when the President can dial up the assassination of an American citizen."

A 1981 Executive Order signed by Ronald Reagan provides: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." Before the Geneva Conventions were first enacted, Abraham Lincoln -- in the middle of the Civil War -- directed Francis Lieber to articulate rules of conduct for war, and those were then incorporated into General Order 100, signed by Lincoln in April, 1863. Here is part of what it provided, in Section IX, entitled "Assassinations":

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such intentional outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

Can anyone remotely reconcile that righteous proclamation what the Obama administraiton is doing? And more generally, what legal basis exists for the President to unilaterally compile hit lists of American citizens he wants to be killed?

What's most striking of all is that it was recently revealed that, in Afghanistan, the U.S. had compiled a "hit list" of Afghan citizens it suspects of being drug traffickers or somehow associated with the Taliban, in order to target them for assassination. When that hit list was revealed, Afghan officials "fiercely" objected on the ground that it violates due process and undermines the rule of law to murder people without trials:

Gen. Mohammad Daud Daud, Afghanistan's deputy interior minister for counternarcotics efforts, praised U.S. and British special forces for their help recently in destroying drug labs and stashes of opium. But he said he worried that foreign troops would now act on their own to kill suspected drug lords, based on secret evidence, instead of handing them over for trial.

"They should respect our law, our constitution and our legal codes," Daud said. "We have a commitment to arrest these people on our own" . . . .

Ali Ahmad Jalali, a former Afghan interior minister, said that he had long urged the Pentagon and its NATO allies to crack down on drug smugglers and suppliers, and that he was glad that the military alliance had finally agreed to provide operational support for Afghan counternarcotics agents. But he said foreign troops needed to avoid the temptation to hunt down and kill traffickers on their own.

"There is a constitutional problem here. A person is innocent unless proven guilty," he said. "If you go off to kill or capture them, how do you prove that they are really guilty in terms of legal process?" . . .

So we're in Afghanistan to teach them about democracy, the rule of law, and basic precepts of Western justice. Meanwhile, Afghan officials vehemently object to the lawless, due-process-free assassination "hit list" of their citizens based on the unchecked say-so of the U.S. Government, and have to lecture us on the rule of law and Constitutional constraints. By stark contrast, our own Government, our media and our citizenry appear to find nothing wrong whatsoever with lawless assassinations aimed at our own citizens. And the most glaring question for those who critized Bush/Cheney detention policies but want to defend this: how could anyone possibly object to imprisoning foreign nationals without charges or due process at Guantanamo while approving of the assassination of U.S. citizens without any charges or due process?

Glenn Greenwald: I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. I am the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy. My most recent book, "Great American Hypocrites", examines the manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP and propagated by the establishment press, and was released in April, 2008, by Random House/Crown.

‘Minority Report’ Becomes a Minnesota Reality

2010-01-26T12:34:00.000-08:00

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/48523.html

January 25, 2010
‘Minority Report’ Becomes a Minnesota Reality
Posted by David Kramer on January 25, 2010 09:20 PM

The movie Minority Report was about a future society where people are arrested before they actually even commit a crime, i.e, they are arrested just for thinking about it. It seems that science fiction has become science fact in Minnesota.

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT RULES DUI POSSIBLE IN INOPERABLE VEHICLE

The Supreme Court of Minnesota on Thursday upheld the drunk driving conviction of a man caught asleep behind the wheel of a vehicle that would not start. At 11:30pm on June 11, 2007, police found Daryl Fleck sleeping in his own legally parked car in his apartment complex parking lot. The vehicle’s engine was cold to the touch, indicating it had not been driven recently. The keys were in the center console, not the ignition. Fleck admitted to having consumed around a dozen beers that night. Officers at the scene arrested him, and his blood alcohol level was found to be .18.

Laws covering driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) have evolved over the years to cover the situations where police find a parked, but recently driven, vehicle with a drunk behind the wheel. In the 1992 case Minnesota v. Starfield, the court found a drunk passenger sitting in a vehicle stuck in a ditch guilty of DUI, but not because it could prove she really was the one who drove and caused the accident. Instead, the court ruled that “towing assistance [was] likely available” creating the theoretical possibility that the immobile vehicle could “easily” be made mobile. These defendants have been charged under an expanded definition that suggests having “dominion and control” with the mere potential to drive is a crime. Intending to sleep off a night of drinking treated as the same crime as attempting to drive home under this legal theory which does not take motive into account. [Think about this: You're drunk. You get into your car in order to sleep off your condition so that you can be sober enough to drive later on—yet that's still considered drunk driving!!!]

As Fleck was an unsympathetic figure with multiple DUI convictions in his past, prosecutors had no problem convincing a jury to convict. The court took up Fleck’s case to expand the precedent to cover the case of mere presence in an undriven—and perhaps undrivable—car into the definition of drunk driving. The court relied on Fleck’s drunken claim that his car was operable to set aside the physical evidence to the contrary. [This has to be the first time in modern jurisprudence where eyewitness testimony holds more weight than the actual physical evidence!! Talk about setting a landmark precedent.]

[Thanks to Mark Fee]

UPDATE: Matthew Lee writes:

Regarding your ‘Minority Report’ blog post at LewRockwell.com this morning: I have often felt the same sense in the prosecution of on-line child predators in which the ‘minor’ the person was allegedly preying on was no such thing at all but, rather, an undercover policeman. The law forbids such activities with a MINOR; to my knowledge, there is no law against such activity with an undercover officer who is of age. Thus, like the DUI story you mention, folks are, in fact, being prosecuted for their INTENTIONS because they believed they were contacting a minor.

You could also add in folks pinched for buying fake drugs from undercover cops. It’s not illegal to buy talcum powder–unless you *believe* it to be cocaine, I reckon.

A Giant Leap Towards Fascism

2010-01-25T17:50:00.001-08:00

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Giant-Leap-Towards-Fasci-by-Mary-Shaw-100125-403.html

January 25, 2010
By Mary Shaw

On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that some are calling the Court's biggest blunder since the Dred Scott Decision.

In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations may spend unlimited amounts of money at any time to influence elections.

This seems to redefine the meaning of democracy in this country. After all, the average citizen does not have the financial resources to compete with the likes of ExxonMobil, Walmart, or Wall Street. And, while some might point out that our elected officials are already bought and sold by corporate America, it is now official U.S. law. And that should scare anyone but the most greedy, heartless CEOs and lawmakers.

The Court decided this case by a 5-4 margin. Dissenting in part were Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. In his dissent, Justice Stevens wrote:

"The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."
Justice Stevens elaborates:
"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process."
Indeed.
So what we have now is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people. What we have now is government of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

And that is exactly how Mussolini defined fascism.

According to Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

This, it seems, is what our Supreme Court has interpreted to be the law of the land.

Forget about health care reform. The health insurance industry is now unrestricted in buying and selling our politicians.

Forget about curbing global warming. The nation's biggest polluters are also the nation's richest corporations, and now they can freely spend all their profits on electing equally irresponsible government officials.

And forget about peace, human rights, and international law. KBR and Blackwater have much more money than you.

I have a feeling that our nation's Founding Fathers are now spinning in their graves.

Ex-IBM Employee reveals TV Abandoned Analog Band to Make Room for RFID

2010-01-23T16:50:00.001-08:00

http://dprogram.net/2009/07/12/ex-ibm-employee-reveals-tv-abandoned-analog-band-to-make-room-for-rfid-chips/

dprogram.net
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:20 EDT

According to a former 31-year IBM employee, the highly-publicized, mandatory switch from analog to digital television is mainly being done to free up analog frequencies and make room for scanners used to read implantable RFID microchips and track people and products throughout the world.

So while the American people, especially those in Texas and other busy border states, have been inundated lately with news reports advising them to hurry and get their expensive passports, "enhanced driver's licenses," passport cards and other "chipped" or otherwise trackable identification devices that they are being forced to own, this digital television/RFID connection has been hidden, according to Patrick Redmond.

Redmond, a Canadian, held a variety of jobs at IBM before retiring, including working in the company's Toronto lab from 1992 to 2007, then in sales support. He has given talks, written a book and produced a DVD on the aggressive, growing use of passive, semi-passive and active RFID chips (Radio Frequency Identification Devices) implanted in new clothing, in items such as Gillette Fusion blades, and in countless other products that become one's personal belongings. These RFID chips, many of which are as small, or smaller, than the tip of a sharp pencil, also are embedded in all new U.S. passports, some medical cards, a growing number of credit and debit cards and so on. More than two billion of them were sold in 2007.

Whether active, semi-passive or passive, these "transponder chips," as they're sometimes called, can be accessed or activated with "readers" that can pick up the unique signal given off by each chip and glean information from it on the identity and whereabouts of the product or person, depending on design and circumstances, as Redmond explained in a little-publicized lecture in Canada last year. AFP just obtained a DVD of his talk.

Noted "Spychips" expert, author and radio host Katherine Albrecht told AMERICAN FREE PRESS that while she's not totally sure whether there is a rock-solid RFID-DTV link, "The purpose of the switch [to digital] was to free up bandwidth. It's a pretty wide band, so freeing that up creates a huge swath of frequencies."

As is generally known, the active chips have an internal power source and antenna; these particular chips emit a constant signal. "This allows the tag to send signals back to the reader, so if I have a RFID chip on me and it has a battery, I can just send a signal to a reader wherever it is," Redmond stated in the recent lecture, given to the Catholic patriot group known as the Pilgrims of Saint Michael, which also is known for advocating social credit, a dramatic monetary reform plan to end the practice of national governments bringing money into existence by borrowing it, with interest, from private central banks. The group's publication The Michael Journal advocates having national governments create their own money interest-free. It also covers the RFID issue.

"The increased use of RFID chips is going to require the increased use of the UBF [UHF] spectrum," Redmond said, hitting on his essential point that TV is going digital for a much different reason than the average person assumes, "They are going to stop using the [UHF] and VHF frequencies in 2009. Everything is going to go digital (in the U.S.). Canada is going to do the same thing."

Explaining the unsettling crux of the matter, he continued: "The reason they are doing this is that the [UHF-VHF] analog frequencies are being used for the chips. They do not want to overload the chips with television signals, so the chips' signals are going to be taking those [analog] frequencies. They plan to sell the frequencies to private companies and other groups who will use them to monitor the chips."

Albrecht responded to that quote only by saying that it sounds plausible, since she knows some chips will indeed operate in the UHF-VHF ranges.

"Well over a million pets have been chipped," Redmond said, adding that all 31,000 police officers in London have in some manner been chipped as well, much to the consternation of some who want that morning donut without being tracked. London also can link a RFID chip in a public transportation pass with the customer's name. "Where is John Smith? Oh, he is on subway car 32," Redmond said.

He added that chips for following automobile drivers - while the concept is being fought by several states in the U.S. which do not want nationalized, trackable driver's licenses (Real ID ) - is apparently a slam dunk in Canada, where license plates have quietly been chipped. Such identification tags can contain work history, education, religion, ethnicity, reproductive history and much more.

Farm animals are increasingly being chipped; furthermore, "Some 800 hospitals in the U.S. are now chipping their patients; you can turn it down, but it's available," he said, adding: "Four hospitals in Puerto Rico have put them in the arms of Alzheimer's patients, and it only costs about $200 per person."

VeriChip, a major chip maker (the devices sometimes also are called Spychips) describes its product on its website: "About twice the length of a grain of rice, the device is typically implanted above the triceps area of an individual's right arm. Once scanned at the proper frequency, the VeriChip responds with a unique 16 digit number which could be then linked with information about the user held on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local anesthetic in a physician's office and once inserted, is invisible to the naked eye. As an implanted device used for identification by a third party, it has generated controversy and debate."

The circles will keep widening, Redmond predicts. Chipping children "to be able to protect them," Redmond said, "is being promoted in the media." After that, he believes it will come to: chip the military, chip welfare cheats, chip criminals, chip workers who are goofing off, chip pensioners - and then chip everyone else under whatever rationale is cited by government and highly-protected corporations that stand to make billions of dollars from this technology. Meanwhile, the concept is marketed by a corporate media that, far from being a watchdog of the surveillance state, is part of it, much like the media give free publicity to human vaccination programs without critical analysis on possible dangers and side effects of the vaccines.

"That's the first time I have heard of it," a Federal Communications Commission official claimed, when AFP asked him about the RFID-DTV issue on June 2. Preferring anonymity, he added: "I am not at all aware of that being a cause (of going to DTV)."

"Nigel Gilbert of the Royal Academy of Engineering said that by 2011 you should be able to go on Google and find out where someone is at anytime from chips on clothing, in cars, in cellphones and inside many people themselves," Redmond also said.

To read Redmond's full lecture, go to this online link:

Full Lecture - Click Here

Source: (AFP/dprogram.net)

Naked scanners, naked CCTV and barefaced lies

2010-01-23T11:54:00.001-08:00

http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/news.asp?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FLQMl+%28No+CCTV+News%29#news_79

Naked scanners, naked CCTV and barefaced lies
No CCTV
Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:54 EST

How digital strip searches got fast tracked...

Back in 2002 when biometric ID cards were first being suggested by UK politicians many of those of us that opposed their introduction pointed out that fingerprinting is associated with criminal suspects and that treating citizens like criminals is unacceptable in a free society. Now the proposed digital strip searching of airline passengers in the UK raises similar concerns. The UK government is suggesting that passengers should stand with their hands up and submit to a scanning technology that reveals their naked body to airport security staff. If the public submits to this demand and accepts this technology then it raises serious concerns about people's understanding of what privacy and freedom are and will not bode well for the future. It is up to the people of this country to take a stand and to say no to digital strip searches.

The pants incident

The current media hype around airport security has been sparked after an incident in the US on Christmas Day 2009. Please note that because the repeated mentioning of such events simply serves to stoke the climate of fear that is used to push through illiberal "security" policies, we will describe the incident just this once and refer to it hereafter as "the pants incident". On 25th December 2009 Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23 year old Nigerian passenger boarded a flight from Amsterdam to the United States. It is alleged that Abdulmutallab had concealed nearly 3oz of powder Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate (PETN), Tracetone Triperoxide (TATP) and other ingredients in his underpants. It is alleged that shortly prior to landing Abdulmutallab tried to detonate the ingredients causing a small fire to break out. The plane landed safely in Detroit.

The UK government announces roll out of naked scanners

On 5th January the UK Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, announced the government's intention to install naked scanners (referred to as 'body scanners' to play down their capabilities) in UK airports [1]. Johnson said:
The first scanners will be deployed in around three weeks at Heathrow. Over time, they will be introduced more widely, and we will be requiring all UK airports to introduce explosive trace detection equipment by the end of the year.
Johnson claimed that the naked scanners were a necessary response to the pants incident and most of the ensuing debate centred around whether the government could get the scanners in quick enough. Johnson described the security measures used in the House of Commons and hinted at the use of technologies such as behavioural CCTV (for example see the ADABTS project [2]) when he said: "Every day, sniffer dogs come into the Chamber, looking for PETN. Behavioural detection is another method".

The UK government does not see any need to introduce primary legislation or debate widespread introduction of naked cameras but will instead produce "a code of practice dealing with the operational and privacy issues involved".

So would naked scanners have exposed the pants?

When asked if naked scanners would have detected the small quantity of explosives involved in the pants incident even Johnson, who was trying to big up this illiberal hi-tech toy, couldn't say more than:
the indications are that given where the PETN was placed, there would have been a 50 to 60 per cent. chance of its being detected.
Many experts do not agree, the Independent newspaper reported [3]:
Scanners can certainly pick up metal objects including knives, but whether they could have detected powder plastic explosive such as the 3oz of PETN is extremely doubtful. The kind of explosive Abdulmutallab used was low-density and so probably wouldn't have shown up on the scanner.
The question which did not get asked was whether subjecting law abiding citizens to digital strip searches that most likely would not have detected the offending ingredients in a passenger's pants in a single incident that was handled perfectly well by fellow passengers and led to no injuries, is a proportionate response to an extremely rare event (the full details of which have yet to be confirmed).

The US political commentary website FiveThirtyEight did some back of the envelope calculations on the odds of being aboard a plane involved in such a rare event, they guestimated that "the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000." [4]

Security expert Bruce Schneier studied the way in which our society increasingly is led by fear ('The Psychology of Security', Bruce Schneier 2007 [5]). Schneier points out that people exaggerate risks that are spectacular, rare and talked about but downplay risks that are pedestrian, common and not discussed. Being scared affects judgement and when combined with biases there are a number of reasons why the brain is going to respond irrationally to risks exaggerated by the media and politicians.

What are naked scanners?

Naked scanners are machines that look beneath the clothes of a person effectively producing images of a digital strip search. There are two main types of naked scanner, millimeter wave machine scanners and backscatter scanners. Backscatter scanners use two low-level X-rays taken within twenty seconds - the theory is that foreign objects will reflect the rays and be visible in the scan. Millimeter wave scanners emit radio waves that pass through your clothing and return with images of your body underneath - these produce the most revealing images. Millimeter wave technology is also used in the 'Active Denial System' - a heat ray gun that has been devloped for the United States Military [6].

Naked scanners knee-jerk?

The introduction of naked scanners has been described as a knee-jerk reaction by many critics but in fact they have been on the agenda for some time. UK defence contractor QinetiQ conducted a trial of a prototype naked scanner at Gatwick airport in 2002 [7], and trials took place at Heathrow airport in 2004, at Paddington railway station in 2006, Canary Wharf tube station in 2007 and Manchester airport in 2009. In August 2009 the UK Government published an 'Ideas and innovation' booklet [8] to accompany their 'CONTEST' counter terrorism strategy which called on industry and academia to find ways to: "screen people less intrusively (for example scan people without requiring the removal of clothing or other belongings)". In a 20th January Parliamentary debate Prime Minister Gordon Brown made much of increases in science expenditure and how the Security Minister, Lord West, in the CONTEST booklet has asked companies to work on developing new measures and new technologies that can deal with the detection of bombs hidden in body cavities.

The European level

[ Note: Decision making in the European Union (EU) can be difficult to follow as it is split between the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the national parliaments under procedures amended by the Lisbon Treaty - (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon) which was supposed to make things simpler! ]

In 2008 the EU Commission published a draft regulation that called for naked scanners in all European airports by 2010! The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force as the constitution of Europe on 1st December 2009 (though we're not supposed to use the c word) amends the Treaty of the European Union [9], Article 2 of which now states:
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

[Emphasis added]
The Commission would be hard pushed to find a measure that showed less respect for human dignity than naked scanners and a debate in the European Parliament in October 2008 [10] showed that many Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) agreed, as they voted against rubber stamping the Commission's intentions.

Italian MEP Giusto Catania said:
The body scanner is the last frontier in this modern torture, as Stefano Rodotà describes it. The mania for extracting ever more information that could be useful in the fight against terrorism is fostering an authoritarian interpretation of the rule of law.

[...]

The control mechanism of a 'mass-surveillance prison' is being developed within society, so that all citizens are gradually being transformed into suspects who need to be monitored.
UK MEP Philip Bradbourn said:
If we are to justify this to our citizens, we first need to know why it is needed at all. Are we heading down the route of using more technology just for the sake that that technology is available, and also, what extent will the technology be used for? I can understand that, in some cases, this should be a secondary measure, where an individual chooses not to be, as we say, frisked by a security official. But as a primary screening measure it is a very serious breach of our basic rights to privacy and is intrusive.
On the issue of compulsion German MEP Eva Lichtenberger said:
We are told that everything is, of course, on a voluntary basis. Yes, this is not the first time we have been told such things. Anyone who refuses to fall in with the system would be under suspicion from the outset. The next step will be its compulsory introduction. As for the next step after that, I dread to think what it might be.
MEPs passed a resolution asking the Commission to clarify issues such as the impact on human rights, the impact on passengers health, under what circumstances an individual would be able to refuse a naked scan and to make sure that a wider, transparent and open debate involving passengers, stakeholders and institutions take place.

The Commission responded by launching a "short consultation" that ran from 27th November 2008 to Friday 19th December 2008 (then extended until 19th February 2009), but then I expect we all knew about that because it was a wide and transparent debate that was promoted extensively by the UK government and media, wasn't it? Then it appears the Commission went to sleep - until the pants incident.

The Spanish government (holder of the presidency of the Council of Ministers) is seeking a harmonised EU approach to the use of naked scanners at European airports [11] and was set to discuss the issue on 20th January at the EU Justice & Home Affairs Council of Ministers informal talks in Toledo [12]. Meanwhile a new EU Commission is currently being vetted by the European Parliament and is expected to take office 1st February.

There is a strong possibility that the new EU Commission will revisit the naked scanner issue some time after 1st February and ask MEPs to rubber stamp EU wide rules. One tactic that they are likely to use is the argument that as things stand individual EU countries are free to introduce scanners as they see fit so wouldn't it be better if EU regulations were introduced to try and reign in countries like the UK who are ploughing ahead? Of course this is similar to the arguments used in the UK with regard to the need to regulate CCTV, but the fact is that all regulation does is to endorse acceptance of naked scanners or CCTV by formalising their "proper use" and leaving no room for the rejection of such technologies.

Automated perverts

Another card that the EU Commission is likely to play is the so called advance in naked scanner technology since the last EU Parliament debate in 2008. Amsterdam's Schiphol airport has unveiled a new naked scanner that lets a computer analyse the naked image rather than a security official [13]. Ad Rutten, Schiphol Group chief operating officer said:
Well you don't need the human interface any more, so we don't need a controller anymore who looks at the pictures, who analyses the pictures. The computer can analyse the picture. So, by taking out the human interface, we think that the [European] parliament in the next round will approve the body scanners.
US announces plans to replace metal detectors with naked scanners in April 2009

Like the UK, naked scanners have been waiting in the wings for some time in the United States. The Transport Security Administration (TSA) has been trialing naked scanners in US airports since 2005 and in April 2009 they announced their intention to roll out scanners across the US, a New York Times report 4th April 2009 [14] stated:
In a shift, the Transportation Security Administration plans to replace the walk-through metal detectors at airport checkpoints with whole-body imaging machines - the kind that provide an image of the naked body.
Also in April 2009 the US congress passed an amendment [15] to the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act [16] that prohibits blanket scanning of passengers, calls for passengers flagged by another method of screening to be offered the option of a pat-down search instead of a naked scan and prohibits the storage, transfer, sharing, or copying of images. In July 2009 the Bill moved to the US Senate where it has yet to be voted on. On 20th January the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing 'Securing America's Safety: Improving the Effectiveness of Anti-Terrorism Tools and Inter-Agency Communication' and naked scanners were expected to be on the agenda.

Freedom of Information and Parliamentary Answers

The US privacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has posted more than 250 pages of documents [17] it obtained from the TSA under the Freedom of Information Act concerning naked scanners. The documents reveal that the naked scanners used in the US can store and send images (when in "test mode") contradicting the TSA website claim that: "The machines have zero storage capability". The documents also show that the scanners have 10 variable privacy settings.

In the UK further details of government policy have been revealed via answers to Parliamentary Questions. When asked "what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of full body scanning security equipment for airports that does not use passive millimetre wave technology", Paul Clark (Department for Transport) replied [18] that:
The Department for Transport has assessed the effectiveness of active millimetre wave and backscatter Xray technology. It is envisaged that the body scanners to be deployed at UK airports will use either of these methods.
When asked if the government will "assess the compatibility with child protection legislation of the operation of full body scanners in UK airports", Paul Clark said [19]:
The introduction of the scanners is a necessary additional measure in response to the heightened threat to the travelling public. Their application to passengers including children, with the proposed safeguards as to their use, is a proportionate response to the heightened threat. The use of body scanners is compatible with the Protection of Children Act 1978. The use of scanners will be subject to a code of practice which is being developed by the Department for Transport and airport operators.
The question of compulsion

When asked in another Parliamentary Question "whether individuals who wish not to use body scanners at airports will be able to opt for a manual pat down search", Clark said [20]:
No. Individuals who are asked to use the body scanner but decline to do so will not be permitted to fly.
In the 5th January House of Commons debate, when asked by one MP whether the government will "respect those who may have a deep-felt objection to the scanners by allowing them to opt instead for a body-pat search", Johnson reiterated Clark's statement on compulsion with his reply: "I do not foresee a situation in which people can simply object to a body scan". Note he says he can't foresee a situation where people can object, not where people would object.

What's wrong with nudey scanners?

Naked scanners are an unnecessary and illiberal measure that like CCTV amounts to security theatre. Asking law abiding citizens to submit to a digital strip search is not acceptable. Security staff should have reasonable suspicion before subjecting anyone to a search of any kind. The blanket scanning of all passengers is not proportionate and treats everyone as a suspect. The police are governed by rules that state they must only search someone when they have reasonable suspicion to do so and, in the case of a strip search, after they have been detained. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE) Code of Conduct, Code C Annex A which deals with strip searches [21] states:
A strip search may take place only if it is considered necessary to remove an article which a detainee would not be allowed to keep, and the officer reasonably considers the detainee might have concealed such an article. Strip searches shall not be routinely carried out if there is no reason to consider that articles are concealed.
Code A gives guidance on the grounds required for conducting a search (the objective test of suspicion) [22]:
Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend on the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information, and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood of finding an article of a certain kind or, in the case of searches under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to the likelihood that the person is a terrorist. Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors alone without reliable supporting intelligence or information or some specific behaviour by the person concerned. For example, a person's race, age, appearance, or the fact that the person is known to have a previous conviction, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other as the reason for searching that person. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
Not that the UK government is particularly concerned by the inconvenience of legality. On 12th January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR - NB not part of the EU) ruled that UK police powers under The Terrorism Act (2000) to stop and search individuals without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing were unlawful [23]. The judgment states:
The absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion made it almost impossible to prove that that power had been improperly exercised.

In conclusion, the Court considered that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They were not, therefore, 'in accordance with the law', in violation of Article 8.
The use of such technology must surely fall fowl of many laws, not least the Data Protection Act (DPA). The DPA exempts personal data processing from various data protection principles when the processing is for the prevention, detection or resolution of crime but the Act states that the processing must be "necessary". Chris Pounder, a Data Protection expert at Amberhawk Training expands on this issue [24]:
each ghostly image will be associated with other identifying information already in the possession of the data controller (e.g. the boarding card identification details of the data subject). This means the data controller has to be fair - so not only has there to be signage (which alerts each data subject to the purpose of the scan and other information to make the processing fair) but also the outcome of the processing has to be fair (in this case, by allowing travellers an alternative to the scan so that personal data are not processed). In relation to Schedule 2, the processing has to be "necessary" in terms of the legal provisions that surround airport security.
Naked scanner as the answer to years of airport security theatre

For almost a decade now airline passengers have been subject to lengthy airport security delays as they pass through metal detectors; have nail files, pen knives and nail scissors confiscated; remove shoes, coats and belts; dispose of liquids; and have belongings wiped with a cloth and placed in a magic sniffer device. Now naked scanners are being sold to the public as a way of speeding up the check-in process - simply submit to a digital strip search and you can speed your way to the departure lounge to drink over-priced coffee and get that next shopping fix.

Growing opposition

There is growing opposition to naked scanners in the UK, the US and in Europe. Privacy International has issued a statement 'on proposed deployments of body scanners in airports' which states:
we are deeply concerned that airport and security authorities increasingly deploy fashionable and unproven technology or intrusive measures on the basis of one-off security breaches. Allowing our security to be determined by knee-jerk responses is dangerous and counter productive.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) issued a press release 'New security measures are a knee-jerk reaction to the recent failed terrorist attack' [25] that says:
IHRC is concerned that the use of full body scanners is a draconian step taken by the Gordon Brown government to appear strong on matters of security.
Action on Rights for Children (ARCH) commenting on suggestions in 2006 that children could be naked scanned [26] said:
Children have a right to their dignity, particularly at an age when many are extremely sensitive about their bodies. To degrade a child in this way is tantamount to abuse.
American Civil Liberties Union has said [27]:
Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing and should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane.
The US privacy group The Privacy Coalition has set up a 'Stop Digital Strip Searches' campaign [28] and Facebook group [29] and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [30] (also in the US) have been doing some campaigning on the issue and have created an excellent information resource.

Health risks

The long term health risks associated with naked scanners are unknown. Some of the scanners expose people to low levels of ionising radiation and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) produced a 'Presidential Report on Radiation Protection Advice: Screening of Humans for Security Purposes Using Ionizing Radiation Scanning Systems' [31] (prepared by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)) which points out that: "There is reasonable evidence that three to five percent of the population is significantly more sensitive to ionizing radiation than average". Assurances such as those made by the Civil Aviation Authority that: "The radiation received from the scanning process is the equivalent to 3 minutes radiation received on a transatlantic flight" [32] are not the same thing as saying that being exposed to yet more radiation or electromagnetic energy is safe.

How do we stop naked scans?

The obvious steps that can be taken to stop naked scans are to contact MPs, MEPS, members of Congress and the Senate, airports, airlines and travel companies to express concerns. But ultimately privacy conscious citizens the world over need to say NO to naked scanners. If you are asked to submit to a naked scan politely decline and ask why you are being digitally strip searched. If airports try to introduce compulsory naked scanning of passengers but the passengers refuse then at first they may stop people flying. But if enough people refuse they will stop naked scanning. Perhaps a no-fly insurance fund should be set up by civil liberties groups to reimburse costs of those at the vanguard of such refusal. A measure like this will only persist if we, the people let it. That is what democracy is - it is not about voting once every five years and then letting whoever "wins" do whatever they like no matter how illiberal or mad.

The next steps if we don't stop it - naked cameras.

CCTV cameras based on similar technology to naked scanners have also been developed. An Oxfordshire based company ThruVision Systems Limited has developed a range of naked CCTV cameras including the T5000 [33] which is "an outdoor people screening system that can detect concealed threats at distances". In other words such a naked camera could be used to scan crowds of people without their consent. In July 2009 a computer expert who worked on the same trading estate as ThruVision (the Milton Park estate, near Didcot) told local newspaper the Oxford Mail [34]:
One day I noticed a small white box-shaped trailer, which looked like a suitcase on a tripod, at the back of the ThruVision offices. The trailer was in the car park but there were wires connected to the camera four metres away on a small public grass area.
ThruVision refused to comment when asked to confirm whether they were testing the T5000 on the unsuspecting public passing through the business park.

Following the pants incident ThruVision issued a press release 'ThruVision Systems Ltd. announces how its products can assist in airport security screening' [35], in which they lay out their portfolio of products:
- ThruPort, a standalone screening solution for entrances and checkpoints.

- T5000, for primary screening and perimeter security indoors or outdoors at distances of up to 25 metres.

- T4000, for primary screening indoors at distances of up to 15 metres.

- T8000, for checkpoint security and secondary screening.
Crowded places and naked scans

ThruVision say these products can be used to "enhance security at checkpoints and elsewhere". The "elsewhere" was intimated in a Parliamentary Debate in the House of Commons on 20th January when Bob Spink MP asked "Does the Prime Minister agree that we must be vigilant in protecting passengers, particularly those who travel into London on trains and the tube, as that is probably still the main threat?" The Prime Minister replied [36]:
...we have to improve at all times the security of our trains and our transport infrastructure, and the protection of people in public places. Lord West [Security Minister] is co-ordinating the work that is being done to see what measures can be taken to improve security in all these areas, and we will continue to update our counter-terrorism strategy in the light of all the new information we have.
The use of naked scanners on the Rail and Underground was first suggested back in 2005. A November 2005 Department of Transport press release [37] describing a planned trial stated:
The trial will test equipment at a small number of UK railway and London Underground locations. [...] A small number of randomly chosen passengers will be asked to take part in the tests. This may involve either going through a scanner or being searched either by hand, with the use of portable trace equipment or with sniffer dogs. Bags may be passed through x-ray machines.
Last year the UK government ran a consultation entitled 'Working together to protect crowded places'. Published alongside the consultation was a supplement 'Safer Places' [38] that contains case studies, the supplement states:
At a major city station the whole station facility has been separated into security zones. The Restricted Zone (RZ) encloses the international departure and arrival lounges, platforms and trains and access is limited to ticketed passengers and authorised personnel. Passengers must pass through a security area operating airport standard screening systems.
In addition the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) has produced a guidance document 'Counter Terrorism Protective Security Advice for Stadia and Arenas' [39] that states:
When the building search is complete all persons entering the stadium should go through a search regime. Dependent on the threat this search could be restricted to random bag searches or at times of a high security risk extend up to full body searches of every person entering the ground.
In January 2007 the Sun newspaper obtained a leaked Home Office memo [40], which according to the Sun: "says 'detection of weapons and explosives will become easier' and says cameras could be deployed in street furniture."

According to media reports the Dutch police are also working on mobile naked cameras/scanners, the reports are said to be based on a confidential document which describes the plans to conduct searches in "high risk areas". According to DutchNews.nl [41]:
The document also mentions the possibility of carrying out long-distance scans and mass scans on crowds at events such as football matches. In addition, the scan could be combined with a sniffer detector which would analyse an 'air sample' from a suspect for traces of drugs or explosives
Governments around the world look set to exploit the pants incident to spread airport style screening to 'crowded places', which could of course be everywhere. Parliamentary debates in the UK only seem to focus on how fast or how many crowded places can be turned into high security prisons as we move towards a total surveillance society. Governments always introduce measures that remove the freedoms of its citizens allegedly for the safety or security of those citizens - they rarely declare malevolent intent. That is why we have the concept of civil liberties - to protect citizens from the excesses of the state. They will continue to remove freedoms in the current climate of fear until we refuse to let them.

Prisoners and the BOSS chair

As the UK government moves towards making the entire country into a prison we would do well to bear in mind the type of scanning now routinely used on inmates in UK prisons since 2009. The "weakness" of naked scanners is that they can see through the clothes but they cannot see inside your body's cavities. Ministry of Justice minister Maria Eagle told the House of Commons last year [42]:
We have equipped all prisons with a body orifice security scanner (BOSS chair) [43] to detect internally concealed items such as mobile phones
Whist this has been touted in parliament as targeted at prisoners to disrupting the supply of illicit drugs into prisons, a 'Prison Service Instruction - Use of the Body Orifice Security Scanner (BOSS)' [44], reveals there is already function creep, the instruction states:
The BOSS may be used to scan prisoners, social, official and professional visitors and staff under Prison Rules 41, 64 and 71 (YOI Rules 47, 69 and 75) respectively. The frequency of searches using the BOSS and policies for its use are for local discretion and must form part of the Local Security Strategy (LSS), to be agreed by the Governor and Area Manager.
The introduction of naked scanning technology gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear' and it must be stopped.

Endnotes:

[1] theyworkforyou.com/debates

[2] ftp.cordis.europa.eu

[3] news.independentminds.livejournal.com

[4] fivethirtyeight.com

[5] schneier.com

[6] news.bbc.co.uk

[7] qinetiq.com

[8] security.homeoffice.gov.uk

[9] eur-lex.europa.eu

[10] europarl.europa.eu

[11] europeanvoice.com

[12] europarl.europa.eu

[13] english.ntdtv.com

[14] nytimes.com

[15] thomas.loc.gov

[16] www.govtrack.us

[17] epic.org

[18] theyworkforyou.com/wrans

[19] http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-01-11b.309952.h&s=date%3A20100111+column

[20] theyworkforyou.com

[21] police.homeoffice.gov.uk

[22] police.homeoffice.gov.uk

[23] cmiskp.echr.coe.int

[24] amberhawk.typepad.com

[25] ihrc.org.uk/activities

[26] archrights.org.uk

[27] aclu.org

[28] stopdigitalstripsearches.org

[29] facebook.com

[30] epic.org

[31] fda.gov

[32] caa.co.uk

[33] thruvision.com/Our_Products

[34] oxfordmail.co.uk

[35] thruvision.com/News_and_Events

[36] theyworkforyou.com

[37] egovmonitor.com

[38] homeoffice.gov.uk

[39] nactso.gov.uk

[40] thesun.co.uk

[41] dutchnews.nl

[42] theyworkforyou.com

[43] boss2chair.com

[44] psi.hmprisonservice.gov.uk

Invasion of the Body Scanners

2010-01-22T16:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Invasion-of-the-Body-Scann-by-Randall-Amster-100119-14.html

January 22, 2010
By Randall Amster

The concept of "stimulus" may soon take on new connotations in the days ahead. The federal government is poised to emplace full-body scanners at airports across the nation, capable of peering under a person's garments. As noted by a former Cabinet member, this new technology "will give us the ability to see what someone has concealed underneath their clothing." The prurient implications of this startling revelation are obvious, and one can only marvel at the full cultural import of widely available "x-ray vision" technology being deployed. Indeed, for those who remember the old X-ray Specs advertised on the back of comic books to see through women's clothes, it is apparently a longstanding boyhood fantasy now set to become national policy. This is essentially a form of high-tech voyeurism masking as security, and it portends more such incursions into liberty and privacy. How did it come to this, and so suddenly at that?

Contracting for Success

At the outset, someone is profiting from these scanners. In recent years, the company Rapiscan (a wholly-owned subsidiary of OSI Systems, Inc., which focuses on "healthcare, security, and defense") has made quite a name for itself. In January 2007, an article documenting its rising profile noted that "Rapiscan's presence on Capitol Hill pays off" with the company having opened a new Washington office and hiring a number of outside lobbyists. As this piece details:

The results have been apparent. Last year the company did $17 million to $20 million in contracts. Over the past six months, the company has had $40 million in sales to the U.S. government, compared with $8 million in 2004."We plan to dramatically expand in the next few years well above the multimillion-dollar [mark]," says Peter Kant, vice president of government affairs for Rapiscan". Rapiscan also decided last year to join the political money game in a more coordinated effort, by creating a political action committee. Kant says he expects the PAC to raise $50,000 to $75,000 a year and donate equally to both parties. Previously, about 60 percent of the political donations from the firm's executives went to Republicans". How Rapiscan and other homeland-security companies will fare in the new political climate is still unclear. Lawmakers are expected to increase oversight and investigation of homeland-security issues such as government contracts.

Rapiscan is a global security company that has systems being utilized, according to its website, "at airports, government and corporate buildings, correctional and prison facilities, postal facilities, military zones, sea ports and border crossings." Their products are deployed in locations including Pakistan (where mobile units are used in combat zones) and airports around the world. As reported on CNN, Rapiscan received $25.4 million from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by way of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e., the Stimulus Bill), to produce 150 new full-body scanners to be used at airports across the United States. Peter Kant, a vice president at Rapiscan, said that the government has given the TSA the green light to spend up to $173 million on new scanners, which could lead to the emplacement of hundreds of such devices in the near future. Interestingly, the $25.4 million tendered to Rapiscan for the first 150 scanners was formally awarded in September 2009, well ahead of the Christmas Day bombing attempt that has set off the recent flurry of scanner demands. According to recovery.gov, Rapiscan also received $2.9 million in stimulus monies in May 2009. The total number of jobs created by these millions in stimulus funds? Forty.

In addition to the stimulus money recently administered, the U.S. Army just announced an award of a no-bid contract to Rapiscan for 12 scanners to be used at military bases in Iraq and Kuwait. Previously, in December 2009, Rapiscan received a $5 million contract from NATO to provide screening devices for use in Afghanistan, as noted by WorldSecurity-index.com: "The award by NATO is the latest in a number of recent awards to Rapiscan Systems for integrated security systems that combine cargo, vehicle and personnel screening. Within the past twelve months, Rapiscan has also received contracts from the U.S. government, UK Customs, the European Union and multiple customers in Asia and the Middle East." This is, in short, a company with strong and steadily increasing ties to the U.S. military and the international defense industry.

Conflicts and Shortcomings

Following the Christmas Day incident, a particularly vocal proponent of full-body scanners has been former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff who, as reported by the Washington Post, has given "dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports." As it turns out, Chertoff has a direct stake in the issue:

What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client [Rapiscan] that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program". Chertoff's advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government's first batch of the scanners -- five from California-based Rapiscan Systems.

This new paradigm of high-tech security by way of scanning devices has become lucrative in recent years, and promises to become even more so in the near future. However, as Mother Jones Senior Washington Correspondent James Ridgeway notes in his blog Unsilent Generation, "the TSA has a dismal record of enriching private corporations with failed technologies, and there are signs that the latest miracle device may just bring more of the same." Citing an article from the Washington Examiner that details some of the major players in what is being called the "full-body scanner lobby" and that warns of the dangers of a rising "Homeland Security-industrial complex," Ridgeway observes that the new technologies are hardly fool proof:

Known by their critics as "digital strip search" machines, the devices use one of two technologies " to see through clothing, producing ghostly images of naked passengers.Yet critics say that these, too, are highly fallible, and are incapable of revealing explosives hidden in body cavities -- an age-old method for smuggling contraband. If that's the case,a terrorist could hide the entire bomb workswithin his or her body, and breeze through the virtual strip search undetected.Yesterday, the London Independent reported on "authoritative claims that officials at the [UK] Department for Transport and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation." A British defense research firm reportedly found the machines unreliable in detecting "low-density" materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquids -- precisely what the underwear bomber had stuffed in his briefs.

Still, despite these noted limitations, cheerleaders such as Chertoff continue to unabashedly assert that incidents of the sort that occurred on Christmas Day -- which has fanned the flames of public fear and ushered in calls for the widespread use of full-body scans -- could have been averted, thus providing "a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery." Even more disconcerting is the statement of Rapiscan vice president Peter Kant, who told CNN that this technology could be effective in detecting explosives such as those that were allegedly hidden in the underwear of the Christmas Day bomber. "If Rapiscan's scanners had been in place, according to Kant, the incident could have been averted. "We do believe, from what we know from published reports, that we would have detected it," he said." Considering that we are poised to fundamentally alter the balance of privacy in America (yet again) based on the fear-inducing qualities of the recent botched bombing attempt, it would seem that something more than a "belief" based merely on "published reports" is warranted under the circumstances.

Is the Technology Safe?

Beyond the lack of guaranteed functionality, a number of additional critiques have appeared questioning the untested nature of these technologies and whether they are in fact safe for widespread use. As an article from NaturalNews (recently reprinted by Truthout) observes:

In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA. Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers -- backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue. The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."

The Los Alamos study, which can be found in an online physics journal and is further analyzed in MIT's Technology Review (TR), opens the door for more in-depth investigations of this technology that is about to become pervasive, since, as TR notes, "a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe." And yet, as NaturalNews indicates, "no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans." Given what we already know about the effects of radiation, as well as the initial report from Los Alamos, this would seem at a minimum to be a circumstance requiring greater study before mass deployment. It is more likely, however, that these untested devices will be in place long before adequate testing is done, suggesting that any such safety analysis will simply be undertaken as the devices are being used on human subjects at airports across the U.S. and around the world.

Privacy Matters

And then there are the obvious matters of privacy and dignity. One need not be a constitutional scholar or privacy-rights advocate to appreciate the implications of conducting such invasive de facto "strip searches" on a widespread scale. While there may be humor to be found in this situation -- my contribution is "Bon Voyeur, and Have a Nice Strip" -- the import of intruding on personal privacy and conducting warrantless full-body searches is potentially staggering. Moreover, the capacity of modern technology to record and/or disseminate such images serves to further complicate the use and ethicality of body scanners, as noted in a recent CNN report:

A privacy group says the Transportation Security Administration is misleading the public with claims that full-body scanners at airports cannot store or send their graphic images. The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said. In the documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in "test mode." That requirement leaves open the possibility [that] the machines -- which can see beneath people's clothing -- can be abused by TSA insiders and hacked by outsiders, said EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg". The written requirements also appear to contradict numerous assurances the TSA has given the public about the machines' privacy protections.

As a subsequent report in The Raw Story indicates, the TSA's assertions of privacy protection are unpersuasive and potentially misleading:

On its website, the TSA explains that "this state-of-the-art technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image. In fact, all machines are delivered to airports with these functions disabled." The last part of the quote here is key -- the machines will be delivered with those functions disabled, not without those functions at all. The TSA's procurement guidelines (PDF) for the body scanners state that the machines will have two modes, a "test mode" and a "screening mode." The machines will not be able to store and transmit images when in "screening mode," but will be able to do so in "test mode." "When not being used for normal screening operations, the capability to capture images of non-passengers for training and evaluation purposes is needed," the TSA document states. It was not immediately clear from those documents how easy it is to switch a machine from "screening mode" to "test mode," or who would have the authority or ability to do so.

The New York Times further notes that "others say that the technology is no security panacea, and that its use should be carefully controlled because of the risks to privacy, including the potential for its ghostly naked images to show up on the Internet." Indeed, as Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer intones: "They say these full-body screening images -- in which I am pretty sure we are naked -- are immediately erased, but I don't believe them for a minute. Either somebody is keeping them on the hard drive to protect himself in case some terrorist gets by on his watch, or some enterprising guy is going to be selling Britney Spears' body scan to TMZ for a hundred thousand bucks. I mean this is America, land of the irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit." Absent clear and enforceable limitations, it seems likely that such scenarios will ensue.

Due to these privacy concerns, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced an amendment blocking the use of full-body scanners as the main way of screening passengers who don't fit risk profiles, and furthermore creating penalties for government employees who copy or share body-scan images. The House of Representatives passed the amendment in June 2009, but the Senate has yet to take it up. Still, despite the myriad concerns and unresolved issues of safety and privacy, recent events have fueled the drive by the TSA to emplace this technology. As the Wall Street Journal concludes, "political pressure on the agency since the alleged failed plot is likely to push officials to move fast." Disturbingly, and perhaps due to the effectiveness of media saturation and the impetus of fear, recent polling suggests that Americans support the new technologies:

Almost three quarters of the American public are in favor of full body x-ray scanners at airports, according to the findings of a new CBS News poll conducted in the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Of those questioned, 74 percent said airports should use the controversial machines because they provide a detailed check for hidden weapons and explosives and reduce the need for physical searches. Just 20 percent said the machines should not be used because they see through a passenger's clothing and thus constitute an invasion of privacy.

Despite being known as a fairly Puritanical people in many respects -- at least in terms of what constitutes "public decency" and the like -- it seems that Americans perhaps are more permissive in their sense of decorum than we have been led to believe. Is it still voyeurism when the subject willingly desires to be watched? Must security and privacy exist in tension, or can they be fruitfully reconciled? Is constant surveillance becoming the baseline of our lives, and if so who is watching the watchers? With the proliferation of public cameras, digital recorders, webcams, cellphone cameras, and now terahertz scanners, we will be confronted with the implications of these technologies for the foreseeable future. The fact that our collective fears seem to be the leading edge of the debate doesn't bode particularly well for reasoned decision-making and the eventual utilization of new technologies for emancipation rather than subjugation.

And in the End

The matter of full-body scanners presents a critical cultural referendum on basic questions of freedom and autonomy. The circumstances under which the issue is being presented -- a climate of fear instilled by a well-hyped reminder of the shared trauma of 9/11 -- make it almost impossible to have confidence in a sound and sober resolution. Moreover, the primary players behind the use of these technologies exist within the workings of a growing military-industrial complex that continues to pervade more aspects of our lives. This watershed moment in the public dialogue about security and privacy is framed by an increasing militarization of everyday life in America, as indicated by a recollection of the loci in which companies like Rapiscan operate -- namely, "at airports, government and corporate buildings, correctional and prison facilities, postal facilities, military zones, sea ports and border crossings." This list could easily expand to include schools, hospitals, malls, arenas, banks, stores, and more.

Now is the moment to rein it in while we still have a window of self-determination in which to do so.

A Very American Coup: Coming Soon to a Hometown Near You

2010-01-21T15:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175193/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_going_rogue_in_combat_boots__/#more

January 20, 2010 by TomDispatch.com
by William Astore

The wars in distant lands were always going to come home, but not this way.

It's September 2016, year 15 of America's "Long War" against terror. As weary troops return to the homeland, a bitter reality assails them: despite their sacrifices, America is losing.

Iraq is increasingly hostile to remaining occupation forces. Afghanistan is a riddle that remains unsolved: its army and police forces are untrustworthy, its government corrupt, and its tribal leaders unsympathetic to the vagaries of U.S. intervention. Since the Obama surge of 2010, a trillion more dollars have been devoted to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries in the vast shatter zone that is central Asia, without measurable returns; nothing, that is, except the prolongation of America's Great Recession, now entering its tenth year without a sustained recovery in sight.

Disillusioned veterans are unable to find decent jobs in a crumbling economy. Scarred by the physical and psychological violence of war, fed up with the happy talk of duplicitous politicians who only speak of shared sacrifices, they begin to organize. Their motto: take America back.

Meanwhile, a lame duck presidency, choking on foreign policy failures, finds itself attacked even for its putative successes. Health-care reform is now seen to have combined the inefficiency and inconsistency of government with the naked greed and exploitative talents of corporations. Medical rationing is a fact of life confronting anyone on the high side of 50. Presidential rhetoric that offered hope and change has lost all resonance. Mainstream media outlets are discredited and disintegrating, resulting in new levels of information anarchy.

Protest, whether electronic or in the streets, has become more common -- and the protestors in those streets increasingly carry guns, though as yet armed violence is minimal. A panicked administration responds with overlapping executive orders and legislation that is widely perceived as an attack on basic freedoms.

Tapping the frustration of protesters -- including a renascent and mainstreamed "tea bag" movement -- the former captains and sergeants, the ex-CIA operatives and out-of-work private mercenaries of the War on Terror take action. Conflict and confrontation they seek; laws and orders they increasingly ignore. As riot police are deployed in the streets, they face a grim choice: where to point their guns? Not at veterans, they decide, not at America's erstwhile heroes.

A dwindling middle-class, still waving the flag and determined to keep its sliver-sized portion of the American dream, throws its support to the agitators. Wages shrinking, savings exhausted, bills rising, the sober middle can no longer hold. It vents its fear and rage by calling for a decisive leader and the overthrow of a can't-do Congress.

Savvy members of traditional Washington elites are only too happy to oblige. They too crave order and can-do decisiveness -- on their terms. Where better to find that than in the ranks of America's most respected institution: the military?

A retired senior officer who led America's heroes in central Asia is anointed. His creed: end public disorder, fight the War on Terror to a victorious finish, put America back on top. The United States, he says, is the land of winners, and winners accept no substitute for victory. Nominated on September 11, 2016, Patriot Day, he marches to an overwhelming victory that November, embraced in the streets by an American version of the post-World War I German Freikorps and the police who refuse to suppress them. A concerned minority is left to wonder (and tremble) at the de facto military coup that occurred so quickly, and yet so silently, in their midst.

It Can Happen Here, Unless We Act

Yes, it can happen here. In some ways, it's already happening. But the key question is: at this late date, how can it be stopped? Here are some vectors for a change in course, and in mindset as well, if we are to avoid our own stealth coup:

1. Somehow, we need to begin to reverse the ongoing militarization of this country, especially our ever-rising "defense" budgets. The most recent of these, we've just learned, is a staggering $708 billion for fiscal year 2011 -- and that doesn't even include the $33 billion President Obama has requested for his latest surge in Afghanistan. We also need to get rid of the idea that anyone who suggests even minor cuts in defense spending is either hopelessly naïve or a terrorist sympathizer. It's time as well to call a halt to the privatization of military activity and so halt the rise of security contractors like Xe (formerly Blackwater), thereby weakening the corporate profit motive that supports and underpins the American version of perpetual war. It's time to begin feeling chastened, not proud, that we're by far the number one country in the world in arms manufacturing and the global arms trade.

2. Let's downsize our global mission rather than endlessly expanding our military footprint. It's time to have a military capable of defending this country, not fighting endless wars in distant lands while garrisoning the globe.

3. Let's stop paying attention to major TV and cable networks that rely on retired senior military officers, most of whom have ties both to the Pentagon and military contractors, for "unbiased" commentary on our wars. If we insist on fighting our perpetual "frontier" wars, let's start insisting as well that they be covered in all their bitter reality: the death, the mayhem, the waste, the prisons, and the torture. Why is our war coverage invariably sanitized to "PG" or even "G," when we can go to the movies anytime and see "R" rated, pornographically violent films? And by the way, it's time to be more critical of the government's and the media's use of language and propaganda. Mindlessly parroting the Patriot Act doesn't make you patriotic.

4. It's time to elect a president who doesn't surround himself with senior "civilian" advisors and ambassadors who are actually retired military generals and admirals, one who won't accept a Nobel Peace Prize by defending war in theory and escalating it in practice.

5. Let's toughen up. Let's stop deferring to authority figures who promise to "protect" us while abridging our rights. Let's stop bowing down before men and women in uniform, before they start thinking that it's their right to be worshipped and act accordingly.

6. Let's act now to relieve the sort of desperation bred by joblessness and hopelessness that could lead many -- notably male workers suffering from the "He-Cession" -- to see a militarized solution in "the homeland" as a credible last resort. It's the economy, stupid, but with Main Street's health, not Wall Street's, in our focus.

7. Let's take Sarah Palin and her followers seriously. They're tapping into anger that's real and spreading. Don't let them become the voices of the angry working (and increasingly unemployed) classes.

8. Recognize that we face real enemies in our world, the most powerful of which aren't in distant Afghanistan or Yemen but here at home. The essence of our struggle to sustain our faltering democracy should not be against "terrorists," with their shoe and crotch bombs, but against various powerful, perfectly legal groups here whose interests lie in a Pentagon that only grows ever stronger.

9. Stop thinking the U.S. is uniquely privileged. Don't take it on faith that God is on our side. Forget about God blessing America. If you believe in God, get out there and start trying to earn His blessing through deeds.

10. And, most important of all, remember that fear is the mind-killer that makes militarism possible. Ramping up "terror" is an amazingly effective way of shredding our Constitution. Putting our "safety" above all else is asking for trouble. The only way we'll be completely safe from the big bad terrorists, after all, is when we're all living in a maximum security state. Think of walking down the street while always being subject to a "full-body scan."

That's my top 10 things we need to do. It's a daunting list and I'm sure you have a few ideas of your own. But have faith. Ultimately, it all boils down to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's words to a nation suffering through the Great Depression: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. These words came to mind recently as I read the following missive from a friend and World War II veteran who's seen tough times:

"It's very hard for me to accept how soft the American people have become. In 1941, with the western world under assault by powerful and deadly forces, and a large armada of ships and planes attacking us directly, I never heard a word of fear as we faced three powerful nations as enemies. Sixteen million of us went into the military with the very real possibility of death and I never once heard of fear, except from those exposed to danger. Now, our people let [their leaders] terrify them into accepting the destruction of our economy, our image in the world, and our democracy... All this over a small group of religious fanatics [mostly] from Saudi Arabia whom we kowtow to so we can drive 8-cylinder SUV's. Pathetic!

"How many times have I stood in ‘security lines' at airports and when I complained of the indignity of taking off shoes and not having water and the manhandling of passengers, have well educated people smugly said to me, ‘Well, they're just keeping us safe.' I look at the airport bullshit as a training ground to turn Americans into docile sheep in a totalitarian state."

A public conditioned to act like sheep, to "support our troops" no matter what, to cower before the idea of terrorism, is a public ready to be herded. A military that's being used to fight unwinnable wars is a military prone to return home disaffected and with scores to settle.

Angry and desperate veterans and mercenaries already conditioned to violence, merging with "tea baggers" and other alienated groups, could one day form our own Freikorps units, rioting for violent solutions to national decline. Recall that the Nazi movement ultimately succeeded in the early 1930s because so many middle-class Germans were scared as they saw their wealth, standard of living, and status all threatened by the Great Depression.

If our Great Recession continues, if decent jobs remain scarce, if the mainstream media continue to foster fear and hatred, if returning troops are disaffected and their leaders blame politicians for "not being tough enough," if one or two more terrorist attacks succeed on U.S. soil, wouldn't this country be well primed for a coup by any other name?

Don't expect a "Seven Days in May" scenario. No American Caesar will return to Washington with his legions to decapitate governmental authority. Why not? Because he won't have to.

As long as we continue to live in perpetual fear in an increasingly militarized state, we establish the preconditions under which Americans will be nailed to, and crucified on, a cross of iron.

© 2010 William Astore

Supreme Court's "Radical and Destructive" Decision Hands Over Democracy to the Corporations

2010-01-21T13:35:00.000-08:00

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
Posted on January 21, 2010, Printed on January 21, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145322/

"The Supreme Court has just predicted the winners of the next November election," Sen. Chuck Schumer announced this morning. "It won't be Republicans. It won't be Democrats. It will be Corporate America."

Indeed, in a momentous 5 to 4 decision that the New York Times has called a "doctrinal earthquake," the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an unprecedented ruling today that gives new significance to the phrase "corporate personhood." In it, the Roberts Court overturned the federal ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns, ruling that forbidding corporations from spending money to support or undermine political candidates amounts to censorship. Corporations, the Court ruled, should enjoy the same First Amendment rights as individuals.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the Supreme Court rejects "the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons.'"

In other words, as Stephen Colbert put it last year, "Corporations are people too."

On a conference call with reporters following the decision, critics could not overemphasize the enormity of the ruling, whose implications will be visible as early as the upcoming midterm elections. Bob Edgar, head of the watchdog group Common Cause, called it "the SuperBowl of really bad decisions." Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign called it an "immoral decision" that will make an already untenable mix of money and politics even worse.

"This is the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in the history of the Supreme Court," said Fred Wertheimer, President of Democracy 21. "With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."

Writing about the ruling, Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy described it as "a revolution in the law," one that has been in the works for years thanks to conservative activism.

"Today's decision is a huge gift to corporations from a Supreme Court that has been radicalized by right-wing ideology, whose political agenda was made obvious in the Bush v. Gore case and whose very political decision today only makes things worse."

Of course, corporate cash has long had a corrupting influence on our politics, but never before has this been seen as some sort of fundamental freedom. "This court has said its the constitutional right of a corporation to spend as much money as it wants to influence an election," said Wertheimer. The potential "fear factor" for politicians when it comes to the way they vote is huge. Members of Congress, who already spend a disproportionate amount of time fundraising to stay in office, now have reason to worry that their re-election chances will be derailed by corporations whose limitless funds can be aggressively used to protect their interests.

Writing for AlterNet last month, Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, argued that President Obama may never have been elected with these new rules on the books:

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.
Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. If the Supreme Court votes as expected, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new 'citizens' such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats."
The case before the Court, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, centered around a rabidly anti-Hillary Clinton documentary produced by the right-wing group Citizens United. In a statement, Citizens United called the riling "a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United but for every American who desires to participate in the political process."

Meanwhile, President Obama, whose critics on the left have accused him of being himself beholden to Wall Street, has called upon Congress to "develop a forceful response to this decision."

"With its ruling today," he said, "the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

Army-sponsored report suggests new 'police force'

2010-01-21T07:10:00.000-08:00

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122533

Domestic agents could be used in 'shaping an environment before a conflict'
Posted: January 20, 2010
9:16 pm Eastern
By Michael Carl
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment "Stabilization Police Force" that would be tasked with "shaping an environment before a conflict" and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.

But civil libertarians are worried just exactly what the force would do, domestically or overseas.

Page 16 of the 213-page report says the new elite unit's purpose depends on where it is and who would be in command.

"The answer to this question (about its purpose) depends on the situation into which an SPF might be inserted. The SPF could be used for missions such as: shaping an environment before a conflict; law enforcement duties in an active conflict environment; or security, stability, transition and reconstruction (SSTR) operations after a conflict. It could operate as an independent entity under a U.S. ambassador or a U.N. Senior Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG), or as a force element reporting to a Joint Task Force (JTF) commander," the report states.

The purpose statement doesn't say where the new unit would be deployed. However, Rand Corporation report co-author Terry Kelly said the Army-commissioned study primarily focuses on a force that would be sent overseas.

(Story continues below)

"The unit is supposed to deploy to places like Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe even places like Haiti where there's a tremendous disaster," Kelly said.

Learn what some organizations want in your future, read "Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World"

"Really, the purpose would be to help our military forces or whoever is in charge of maintaining stability to catch terrorists or prevent major criminals from operating," he added.

Mark Taylor, a private investigator and intelligence analyst with experience in Iraq, says he can't see the purpose for such a force.

"With regard to overseas missions, there is the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. If they need assistance, you have private military contractors such as XE and DynaCorp," Taylor said.

"In my case, the company I worked for moved in, did the mission and left. Period. In the case of a federal bureaucracy, you will fund it and it will do nothing but grow into a bureaucratic nightmare," Taylor said.

Taylor believes the additional force would just add to the confusion in any overseas situation.

"In addition the military and private contractor options, there are always the United Nations blue helmets, for whatever good they do. A federal police force would amount to nothing more than another colored helmet," Taylor said.

Taylor's comments about the U.N. point to the command structure of the overseas force. One of the statements in the report says the unit could serve under a U. S. foreign service officer or under U.N. authority.

Kelly admits the U.N. connection.

"It might be a U.S. ambassador who is in charge. It could work for the U.N. because there are plenty of U.N. missions that are working in different countries," Kelly said.

"That would be the decision that our government would make that this unit would work under U.N. authority. Usually when we have our forces under U.N. authority they're operating for a U.S. commander who is working with the U.N.," she said.

Although the report by the federally funded think tank spends most of its pages on overseas deployment, civil libertarians wonder if the proposed unit will only focus on foreign operations.

Kelly confirmed the force could be deployed in the United States.

"If there were a major disaster like Katrina it could be deployed in the U. S. but that's not the purpose of the research," he said.

"It's important to point out that the goal was to create a force that's deployable overseas. If it's to be used in the United States it would be a secondary thing and then only in an emergency," Kelly said.

But Taylor believes there is no need for a federal police force to function in the U.S.

"I cannot see any positives in setting up a national police force. Cities, counties and states have control over their own law enforcement and it should remain that way. Granting the federal government the power to police each individual locality is a Gestapo waiting to happen," Taylor said.

"If it became necessary to supplement local law enforcement in the case of another New Orleans, where a disaster situation is made more dangerous by lawless thugs looting, it would be more practical to hire a private contactor such as XE or DynaCorp to send their highly trained professionals in to stabilize the area. Once the job is done, they go on to the next (assignment)," Taylor said.

Darrell Castle is a retired Marine Corps officer with service in Vietnam, a practicing attorney and the Constitution Party's 2008 vice presidential nominee. Castle is skeptical of the report and believes the unit could be used in the U.S. against Americans.

"First, you have to approach anything done by or for the federal government in light of what I believe the ultimate goal of the federal government to be," Castle said.

"As I see it, the goal is to do the bidding of the international cartel of central bankers and financiers in order to assist them in building a world government police state which would entail total surveillance, total control, and the absence of what we think of as constitutional rights," he said.

Castle added that even though the report focuses mostly on foreign deployments, some of the language leaves open the possibility for domestic use.

"To that end, the question becomes, how does a stability police force for the United States move the federal government closer to its goal of totalitarian control? When the question is asked in that manner, the answer becomes fairly obvious," Castle warned.

Castle believes the goal is power, and a major springboard for such a power grab comes from the economy.

"Conditions have been intentionally created within the United States which make some kind of chaotic catastrophe very likely. This event could be anything the mind of man can dream up due to the overwhelming public debt and huge deficit which is budgeted to grow by trillions over the next few years," Castle said.

"Hyperinflation and the resulting loss of the dollar's reserve status seems unavoidable. The United States is now at deficit spending which is 40 percent of the budget and climbing," Castle said.

To illustrate his point, Castle turned to history.

"The Weimar government in pre-Hitler Germany accelerated deficit spending to 70 percent of budget and when it did, hyperinflation occurred with its ruination of the German nation that started a cataclysmic chain of events in motion," he said.

"The Stability Police Force then is necessary to control the population much as the U.S. military is attempting to control the remaining population of Haiti right now. It is part of a long existing effort to mingle and combine all law enforcement, federal, state, and local with the military into one force," Castle said.

Castle is not the only one who thinks the Stabilization Police Force is the next step in establishing a totalitarian state. The Rand Corporation's Kelly said that since the report's release, he's received a number of letters and phone messages making the same claim.

However, Kelly insists the study is not a master plan for authoritarian rule.

"There are all kinds of aspects of government that can be manipulated in a bad way. But it would require a whole bunch of things to go wrong. Any means of coercion that exist in the government can be manipulated if the right things go wrong," Kelly said.

"Is it is conceivable that it could be used for a malevolent purpose? Yes, but it's not designed to do that and its purpose would not be for power. Frankly there would be much easier tools for someone with bad intentions," Kelly said.

"The two options we thought were viable were as a reserve option where call a whole bunch of police officers from a whole bunch of precincts. That's a really hard thing to do," Kelly said.

"If someone wanted to use the unit for a bad purpose it would require the cooperation of a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of organizations," he said.

"The other option we picked was a military unit, to create a military police unit to do the specific tasks. Military police units do military police work, not civilian police work which is what you need in these countries like Iraq and Afghanistan," Kelly said.

"I don't think this unit will create any more danger than already exists. If somebody wanted to do something unfortunate, there are easier ways to do it than manipulating this force," Kelly said.

Command of the Stabilization Police Force is still a concern. Page 123 of the Rand Corporation report says the force would work best under a civilian federal agency or the military police.

"They (the data) suggest that the U.S. Marshals Service and the MP options are the only credible ones. The Marshals Service has sufficient baseline capabilities and a policing culture to build a competent SPF, and its location in the Department of Justice makes it well suited to achieve broader rule-of-law objectives. This finding is consistent with a significant body of academic and policy research, which strongly concludes that civilian agencies are optimal for the execution of policing functions."

Taylor's concerns about the creation of such a response force and placing the unit under a federal department come from seeing how federal operations have functioned in the past.

"Once you establish a government agency or program, it does nothing but grow into a huge bureaucratic monstrosity that feeds on the taxpayer. And, as with the case of health care, bank bailouts and the like, should the federal government even consider such an undertaking, it would amount to just another intrusion into the states' rights to govern and intrude into the liberties of the American people," Taylor said.

FBI broke law for years in phone record searches

2010-01-20T06:22:00.001-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html?hpid=topnews

By John Solomon and Carrie Johnson
Special to The Washington Post and Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 19, 2010; A01

The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist or simply persuading phone companies to provide records, according to internal bureau memos and interviews. FBI officials issued approvals after the fact to justify their actions.

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.

A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.

The records seen by The Post do not reveal the identities of the people whose phone call records were gathered, but FBI officials said they thought that nearly all of the requests involved terrorism investigations.

FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni said in an interview Monday that the FBI technically violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act when agents invoked nonexistent emergencies to collect records.

"We should have stopped those requests from being made that way," she said. The after-the-fact approvals were a "good-hearted but not well-thought-out" solution to put phone carriers at ease, she said. In true emergencies, Caproni said, agents always had the legal right to get phone records, and lawyers have now concluded there was no need for the after-the-fact approval process. "What this turned out to be was a self-inflicted wound," she said.

Caproni said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III did not know about the problems until late 2006 or early 2007, after the inspector general's probe began.

Documents show that senior FBI managers up to the assistant director level approved the procedures for emergency requests of phone records and that headquarters officials often made the requests, which persisted for two years after bureau lawyers raised concerns and an FBI official began pressing for changes.

"We have to make sure we are not taking advantage of this system, and that we are following the letter of the law without jeopardizing national security," FBI lawyer Patrice Kopistansky wrote in one of a series of early 2005 e-mails asking superiors to address the problem.

The FBI acknowledged in 2007 that one unit in the agency had improperly gathered some phone records, and a Justice Department audit at the time cited 22 inappropriate requests to phone companies for searches and hundreds of questionable requests. But the latest revelations show that the improper requests were much more numerous under the procedures approved by the top level of the FBI.

FBI officials told The Post that their own review has found that about half of the 4,400 toll records collected in emergency situations or with after-the-fact approvals were done in technical violation of the law. The searches involved only records of calls and not the content of the calls. In some cases, agents broadened their searches to gather numbers two and three degrees of separation from the original request, documents show.

Bureau officials said agents were working quickly under the stress of trying to thwart the next terrorist attack and were not violating the law deliberately.

FBI officials said they are confident that the safeguards enacted in 2007 have ended the problems. Caproni said the bureau will use the inspector general's findings to determine whether discipline is warranted.

The internal memos were obtained from a government employee outside the FBI, who gained access to them during the investigations of the searches. The employee spoke on the condition of anonymity because the release was unauthorized.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the need to get information quickly and connect the dots was considered paramount throughout the federal government. The failure to obtain timely and actionable information has been a recurrent theme in the U.S. counterterrorism effort, up to and including the recent shootings at Fort Hood, Tex.

Before 9/11, FBI agents ordinarily gathered records of phone calls through the use of grand jury subpoenas or through an instrument know as a national security letter, issued for terrorism and espionage cases. Such letters, signed by senior headquarters officials, carry the weight of subpoenas with the firms that receive them.

The USA Patriot Act expanded the use of national security letters by letting lower-level officials outside Washington approve them and allowing them in wider circumstances. But the letters still required the FBI to link a request to an open terrorism case before records could be sought.

Shortly after the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001, FBI senior managers devised their own system for gathering records in terrorism emergencies.

A new device called an "exigent circumstances letter" was authorized. It allowed a supervisor to declare an emergency and get the records, then issue a national security letter after the fact.

The procedure was based on a system used in the FBI's New York office in the days immediately after the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, officials said.

On Jan. 6, 2003, then-FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Larry Mefford issued a bureau-wide communique authorizing the new tactic, saying the bureau's telephone analysis unit was permitted in "exigent circumstances . . . to obtain specialized toll records information for international and domestic numbers which are linked to subjects of pending terrorism investigations."

The e-mail called this new method of gathering phone records "imperative to the continuing efforts by the FBI to protect our nation against future attacks," even as it acknowledged the phone records of many people not connected to a terrorism investigation were likely to be scooped up.

The 2003 memo stated that the new method "has the potential of generating an enormous amount of data in short order, much of which may not actually be related to the terrorism activity under investigation."

Within a few years, hundreds of emergency requests were completed and a few thousand phone records gathered. But many lacked the follow-up: the required national security letters.

Two individuals began raising concerns.

Special Agent Bassem Youssef, the new supervisor of the communications analysis unit that gathered the records, began to receive complaints from phone companies that they had not received documentation to show the searches were legal.

Youssef, a longtime counterterrorism investigator, had earlier fallen out of favor with FBI management as he pursued a whistleblower claim that he had been wrongly retaliated against and denied promotion because of his ethnicity.

He raised questions in spring 2005 with his superiors and the FBI general counsel's office about the failure to get national security letters. E-mails show he pressed FBI managers, trying to "force their hand" to implement a solution.

Youssef's attorney, Stephen Kohn, said Monday that he could not discuss the specifics of the investigation except to confirm that his client cooperated with the inspector general. FBI officials said they could not discuss the conduct of individual employees.

Separately, Kopistansky in the FBI general counsel's office learned in mid-December 2004 that toll records were being requested without national security letters. She handled a request that originated from then-Executive Assistant Director Gary Bald, who had "passed information regarding numbers related to a terrorist organization with ties to the US" and obtained toll records, the memos show.

The communications analysis unit asked Kopistansky to "draw up an NSL" to cover the search, but she was unable to get superiors to tell her which open terrorism case it involved. The request "has to specify why the numbers are relevant to an authorized investigation," she said.

An employee in the communications analysis unit wrote back that most of the emergency requests he received "come from upper mgmt. I don't always receive documentation or know all the facts related to the number, which is a problem for me when I try to get the NSL."

Kopistansky persisted, demanding an open terrorism case file for the legal rationale. "I am sure you know it is true and Gary Bald knows it's true, but it needs to be reflected on a piece of paper," she wrote.

Two months later, Kopistansky was still unable to issue a national security letter to comply with the FBI rules.

She took note of the overall problem. The issuance of a national security letter after exigent searches "rarely happens," Kopistansky warned in a March 11, 2005, e-mail seeking the help of the FBI's top national security lawyer and the deputy counsel.

By March 2005, Kopistansky and Youssef were discussing a worsening "backlog" of other cases where no national security letters had been issued and growing concerned that exigent letters were being abused, e-mails show.

"I also understand that some of these are being done as emergencies when they aren't necessarily emergencies," Kopistansky wrote in an April 26, 2005, e-mail to Youssef.

Kopistansky and the other FBI lawyers discussed a strategy to handle the past emergency searches and to allow the practice to continue.

The e-mails show that they conceived the idea to open half a dozen "generic" or "broad" preliminary investigative (PI) case files to which all unauthorized emergency requests could be charged so a national security letter could be issued after the fact.

The generic files were to cover such broad topics as "threats against transportation facilities," "threats against individuals" and "threats against special events," the e-mails show.

Eventually, FBI officials shifted to a second strategy of crafting a "blanket" national security letter to authorize all past searches that had not been covered by open cases.

A November 2006 e-mail chain indicates that then-FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Joseph Billy signed the blanket national security letter. But when FBI lawyers raised concerns about it, he wrote back that he did not remember signing.

"I have no recollection of signing anything blanket. NSLs are individual as far as I always knew," Billy wrote Caproni on Nov. 7, 2006.

Billy did not immediately respond to a message left at his office on Monday. Kopistansky and Bald, reached by phone Friday, said they could not comment without FBI approval. Mefford did not return calls.

In all, FBI managers signed 11 "blanket" national security letters addressing past searches, officials told The Post.

Although concerns about their legality first arose in December 2004, exigent searches continued for two more years. Youssef's unit began limiting the number of exigent letters it signed between summer 2005 and spring 2006, seeking more assurances the requests could be covered by a national security letter, the memos show.

Phone record searches covered by exigent letters ended in November 2006 as the Justice Department inspector general began investigating.

Among those whose phone records were searched improperly were journalists for The Washington Post and the New York Times, according to interviews with government officials.

The searches became public when Mueller, the FBI director, contacted top editors at the two newspapers in August 2008 and apologized for the breach of reporters' phone records. The reporters were Ellen Nakashima of The Post, who had been based in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez of the Times, who had also been working in Jakarta.

Is your home safe from the state?

2010-01-19T16:05:00.000-08:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/18/powers-entry-home-state

Henry Porter
The Guardian
Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:09 EST

A new bill restricting sweeping government powers of entry is desperately needed to restore the sanctity of our homes

"An Englishman's home is his castle" was a legal principle founded in 1604 after the famous Semayne's case: it gave protection to householders from bailiffs breaking down their doors in pursuit of money and goods. Of course its antiquity meant that Labour ignored the symbolic and practical importance of the tradition and busily set about allowing pretty much any peeping Tom, Dick or Harry to enter your home.

In the Lords last week Lord Selsdon produced the results of years of research into who has power of entry. Introducing a bill that would allow entry only allowed if authorised by the judge or magistrate, he revealed that about 1,200 powers of entry existed in dozens of different acts.

His proposal would limit entry to a maximum of four officials in working hours or between 8am and 1pm on a Saturday. That would certainly tidy up the appalling mess created by Labour's abhorrence of privacy and personal sanctuary. Lord Selsdon, one of 90 hereditary peers, said the problem was that no one knew exactly how many powers of entry there were, and added: "Worse than that, the householder has no idea either. The householder feels more and more insecure. He fears the knock on the door."

The powers of entry bill received backing from every quarter except the government, which in the shape of Lord Brett, unsurprisingly an ID-card zealot representing the Home Office, said the bill amounted to an "inflexible approach". The Tory peer Lord Skelmesdale summarised the feelings of many: "Powers of entry have become so widespread and so draconian over this government's time in office that there has arisen a considerable amount of unease, to put it mildly, both in and outside parliament."

The bill seems unlikely to become law without government support. What needs to happen now is that both Tories and Liberal Democrats commit to legislation in the new parliament that restores the sanctity of an individual's home and makes sure that it can only be breached with the householder's permission, or some proper legal authority. This may seem a small point, but an important piece of protection and a psychological shield were lost when these powers of entry were promiscuously included in so many laws.

Travellers to US will be denied boarding without e-authorisation

2010-01-19T14:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/business/article6984871.ece

The Times
Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:03 EST

Business travellers heading to the United States from 20 January must obtain electronic authorisation of their eligibility to travel or face not being able to board their plane.

The US Customs and Border Protection is to make it mandatory from that date for all passengers heading to the country under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) to have received authorisation under its Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA). The requirement also applies to those in transit through the US.

The system requires travellers to supply personal information including name, date of birth, and passport information, as well as travel information such as the flight number and destination address in the United States. The traveller will also be required to answer VWP eligibility yes/no questions regarding communicable diseases, arrests and convictions for certain crimes, and past history of visa refusal among others.

The authorisation process can take just a few seconds but the US authorities have warned that it may take up to 72 hours. You can apply for ESTA in advance, even if you have not yet booked a ticket - the authorisation is valid for up to two years and for multiple trips.

British Airways says that passengers without ESTA clearance from that date will not be issued with a boarding pass and will not be allowed to travel. Passengers travelling from countries in the VWP, which includes the UK and other European countries, have been able to use ESTA on a voluntary basis since August 2008.

ESTA will replace the traditional green paper form I94W for entry under the VWP. Passengers with a valid visa or a Green Card do not need to seek authorisation.

Scanners Aren't the Solution

2010-01-19T13:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Scanners-aren-t-the-soluti-by-Josh-Fulton-100114-547.html

January 17, 2010
By Josh Fulton

A mere three days after the attempted bombing of flight 253, Obama, well-rested from his Hawaiian vacation, strutted up to a microphone and told the world, "We're in an emergency!!!" The emergency was that we weren't afraid enough.

Despite the fact that air travel is the safest method of travel per passenger mile, the only thing that would keep us truly safe was something that would strip us naked in front of airport security, shoot us full of radiation, and possibly store our biometric information. You know, a full-body scanner.

The astonishing thing was that hardly anyone in the mainstream media mentioned that a full-body scanner would not have been able to detect the chemical Abdulmutuallah brought onto the plane with him. Full-body scanners only detect things that are high density, like metal or wax, not things that are low density, like chemicals or plastics. That is the entire idea behind the full-body scanner: its waves pass through lower density clothes to show the higher density body.

So, if the motivation of the people pushing for these things isn't actually to protect us, what is it? Well, it's to take power from us, and to give it to themselves, naturally. That isn't, however, something that the American people typically like, so let's take a closer look at these scanners and see just how angry the American people should be.

Aside from not being able to detect low density objects, full-body scanners also can't detect objects inside a body. Only a few months ago Abdullah Asieri proved that this is a danger by concealing a bomb inside himself while trying to assassinate the Saudi Arabian head of counterintelligence.

Even with the TSA's additional purchases, there will still also be hundreds, if not thousands, of airports with commercial airline flights inside the US that have no scanners. The United States alone has over 15,000 airports, and approximately 600 airports certified to serve commercial aircraft with nine or more seats. Worldwide, there are hundreds of airports that help bring over fifty million people into this country a year.

The US currently has 40 scanners in 19 airports. If the new scanners are installed in the same ratio, even if the TSA installs all 300 new scanners that it plans to buy, and the 150 that it simply allows to lay dormant, they will still only cover roughly 225 airports, barely making a dent in the total number of airports that have flights inside the US. This of course doesn't even address the fact that the TSA says they may actually deliver only 300 of the 450 scanners in 2010.

Cost is another issue. Obama directed Homeland Security to purchase $1 billion worth of advanced-technology equipment for screening at airports. Each scanner only costs $150,000, so Homeland Security clearly won't be using all that money to just buy scanners. We don't know exactly what they will be using it for, but we do know that it will be going into the pockets of the defense-industrial complex. We could be using that money on more important things, like bailing out banks, or one bank, ...one teenie weenie bank.

The scanners are also invasive. They take detailed nude pictures of everyone who walks through them: the old, the young, everyone. The images are so graphic that the British Department of Transport confirmed that images of people under eighteen may be considered "child porn."

TSA officials claimed that images of genitals would be blurred out, but in October of 2008, an Office of Transport official in Australia said that they would not blur out the genitals because it "severely limits the detection capabilities." Last week, scanners in use in the UK made images of people's genitals that were "eerily visible." Do we really think the TSA will be any different once the spotlight is off them?

Also, although a patch is put on the image of a person to distort its color, another patch can easily be put on the image to convert it into a clear black and white picture.

It also seems likely that these machines, although they might not do it now, are capable of measuring and storing our biometric data. Israel just introduced facial scanning into an airport. British CCTV cameras are already capable of being outfitted to recognize faces. With the importance of biometric data growing every day, do we really want the TSA to be one step away from being able to demand that we allow them to store virtually all of our biometric data before they let us on a plane?

As if that's not enough, the radiation from these scanners is dangerous. In only six seconds, they pump us full of as much radiation as 10,000 cell phone calls do. Your scan goes an extra second longer than usual? Woops. That's an extra 1666 cell phone conversations. In case you don't know, there is evidence linking cell phone usage and cancer.

Also, the type of radiation the scanners emit is particularly harmful. Terahertz waves, the type of radiation emitted, have been described by Los Alamos researchers as "ripping DNA apart." Apparently, strands of DNA are loosely joined, so they can separate easily for replication. The resonant effects of the terahertz waves "unzip" the strands. If your DNA has been "unzipped," it can't replicate properly.

Even the TSA's additional screening for US-bound flights from 14 nations is harmful, because it unfairly focuses on Muslim nations, while not even including the Netherlands, the country from which Abdulmutuallah departed.

The powers that be certainly have exploited this "crisis" well. France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Canada all plan to install full-body scanners in response to the attempted bombing. Other countries that already have scanners are planning to expand their usage. In Britain, the number of passengers agreeing to be scanned has risen from 72% to 92% since the attempted attack. The Dutch police are even working on developing portable body scanners that can be used on the street on people "suspected of carrying concealed weapons."

This is especially astonishing considering that in June of 2009 the House voted to bar scanners from airports by a margin of 310 - 118, and members of the European Parliament voted to ban them from airports in September 2008 by a margin of 361 - 16.

Perhaps the most upsetting part is that the focus on scanners diverts attention from where it should really be: the security failure that allowed this to happen. Let's just take a look at some things that should have garnered extra attention from the TSA and airport security:

Abdulmutuallah bought a one-way ticket with cash and had no carry-on luggage.
He was on the US terror watch list.
He was banned from entering Britain.

According to eye witnesses, he had no passport, and the only reason he was allowed on the plane was because an accomplice who was with him managed to convince an airline employee that Abdulmutuallah was a political refugee from Sudan.

If you think that any of these might be cause for suspicion, you're not alone. In fact, the TSA would agree with you, because as it turns out, even before the attempted bombing, TSA officials were actually waiting to question Abdulmutuallah when he landed in Detroit. Abdulmutuallah had clearly had triggered something in the security system, and the TSA and airport security simply weren't fast enough to act upon it.

As Rahm Emmanuel said, "you never want to let a crisis go to waste. [...][I]t lets you do things you think you couldn't do before." The truth of the matter is that we do have a crisis, but it is not what the people in charge of the government and the media tell us it is. It is not Umar Farouk Abdulmutuallah or Islamic fundamentalism, and it won't be solved by turning our country into a police state. Our crisis is that our leaders try to pump us full of fear in order to make it easier for them to achieve what they want, even if that comes at the expense of the country. Once we realize that is the real crisis, then we finally will be one step closer to truly becoming safe.

Obama Executive Order Seeks to "Synchronize and Integrate" State and Federal Military Forces

2010-01-19T13:52:00.001-08:00

http://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=62244

Tom Burghardt
January 16, 2010

In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year's Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11.

Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency."

According to the White House press release, the ten member, bipartisan Council was created "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards."

"When appointed" the announcement continues, "the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability.

One consequence of moves to "synchronize and integrate" state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism's endless "War on Terror." At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."

The real-world consequences of those changes weren't long in coming.

Following their criminal inaction during 2005's Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance.

At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the Insurrection Act, a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to "suppress rebellion." How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina's flood waters could be twisted into an act of "rebellion" was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents: "Drowning while Black."

Fast forward five years. Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media's deafening silence on Obama's Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in "new normal" America.

Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon "civil disturbance" plans such as Cable Splicer and Garden Plot, both of which are continuously updated, our "change" President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power.

Under color of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, an unsavory piece of Bushist legislative detritus, "The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions."

The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defense no less, "shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council."

Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly. They are relegated "to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security" and "the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism."

Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will "exchange views" include, "the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security."

In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat. EO 13528 continues, "Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defense; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

When news first broke last summer of Obama's proposal to expand the military's authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA).

Congressional Quarterly reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it "would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote.

According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that "without assigning a governor tactical control" of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the "strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander."

With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defense spending legislation, other means were required. Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power.

These maneuvers as I have previously written, have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State's writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people.

Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for "conspiracy theorists" railing against "FEMA concentration camps," Continuity of Government, and the nexus of "civil support" programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter.

Indeed, even members of Congress are considered "unauthorized parties" denied access "to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities," according to a Pentagon document published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20). In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House web site.

As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: "Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?"), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-page report in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a "civil support" operation that war games various disaster scenarios.

Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills. CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (EO 12656) that "directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises." EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as "as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), also removed from the White House web site, established "a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises." CRS avers, "The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities."

The Defense Department's role during such emergencies were intended to focus "principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events." DoD would play a "significant role" in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners.

The primary DoD entity responsible for "civil support," a focus of Obama's EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to "synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities," USNORTHCOM's role is shrouded in secrecy.

As researcher Peter Dale Scott revealed in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House. Scott wrote: "DeFazio's inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing."

One hammer blow followed another. In 2008, Army Times reported, that the "3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're training for the same mission--with a twist--at home."

Analyst Michel Chossudovsky commented, "What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a 'war theater' thereby justifying the deployment of combat units." According to Chossudovsky, "The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement."

"It is noteworthy, the World Socialist Web Site commented, "that the deployment of US combat troops 'as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters' ... coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s."

"Justified as a response to terrorist threats," socialist critic Bill Van Auken averred, "the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America's borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability."

Since USNORTHCOM's deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified. With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people.

After all, where the defense of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests...

Tracking People By Public Transportation Costs Three Times As Much

2010-01-19T13:26:00.000-08:00

This illustrates that tracking people's transportation costs a lot of money! The insanity of it all!

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/01/public_transport_prices_under.php

Public transport prices under fire again

Tuesday 19 January 2010

The government is to assess whether the switch to the new public transport smart card has made using buses and trams more expensive, Trouw reports on Tuesday.

There are have been numerous reports of price increases in recent months but the introduction of the ov-chipkaart had been coupled with a government pledge that travel would not become more expensive.

Junior transport minister Tineke Huizinga told MPs on Monday that a team of independent researchers will look into the charge structures attached to the cards, which are gradually being phased in nationwide.

Pay per kilometer

Passengers using the card pay a fee depending on the number of kilometers travelled. This can be cheaper or more expensive than the current paper ticket system. The card is the only form of payment accepted on the Amsterdam and Rotterdam metros -

But on the trains, for example, return tickets have disappeared for chip card users. They are forced to pay for two singles, which does cost more.

And in Amsterdam, it now costs €2.60 to buy a ticket on a tram, even if it is just a couple of stops. The basic charge used to be €1.45.

Prices have also gone up because different public transport companies don't accept each others chip cards, meaning passengers switching between services have to pay the start charge twice.

Compulsory

The research project will not stop Rotterdam making the chip card compulsory on all forms of public transport from February 11, Trouw said.

Huizinga warned that public transport charges will have to go up eventually because running the chip card system cost three times as much as issuing paper tickets.

© DutchNews.nl

Body scanners threaten children's rights

2010-01-18T12:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jan/04/airport-body-scanners

The troubled trial of body scanners at Manchester airport points to privacy problems with the counter-terrorism technology
Christina Zaba
guardian.co.uk
4 January 2010 17.31 GMT

The prime minister would have us believe that body scanners in airports are the latest catch-all for catching potential terrorists. Perhaps he wasn't looking when Manchester Airport launched the trial of the new Rapsican Secure 1000 Single Pose x-ray on October 13 2009.

Within a few hours of the announcement that the next generation of "convenient, hassle-free travel" was about to hit the security lanes, child protection campaigners were informing Manchester Airport management that any creation of an indecent picture of a child – "indecent" meaning showing the genitalia, and "child" meaning someone under 18 – is a criminal offence.

Director of Action on Rights for Children Terri Dowty noted that the Protection of Children Act 1978, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, makes it an offence "to take, permit to be taken, or to make any indecent ... pseudo-photograph of a child". That includes "an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph."

Consternation ensued. The airport's PR department backpedalled furiously, with their spokesperson Sarah Barrett saying live on BBC Radio: "Imaging technology does not allow security staff to see passengers naked ... these images cannot be linked back to an individual. Children will be asked to take part in the trial, but only with their parents' consent."

But in law, a parent cannot give consent to the making of an indecent image of their own or any other child. Union officials representing 6,000 of the 20,000 workers at Manchester said no one had even told them that the scanner was being trialled, let alone that using it could leave working people, as well as as the airport itself, potentially facing serious charges and criminal prosecution.

The managing director of Manchester Airport, Andrew Cornish, promised to respond fully to the points raised. Today, Unite's national officer for civil aviation, Steve Turner, told me that as far as they knew, the Manchester trials were still suspended pending advice on the legality of the scanner machines.

However, a spokesperson for Manchester Airport confirmed that the trials have in fact been resumed, with some 500 passengers already scanned. "Under-18s can't go through at the moment – there's a grey area in the legal system," the spokesperson said. "But we're hoping for more direction from the Department for Transport soon."

Rapiscan is a subsidiary of a much bigger, California-based company, OSI Systems, with branches in Finland, India, Malaysia, Singapore and the UK. British MEP Philip Bradbourn is among those arguing at the European Union level that use of devices such as Rapiscan's would be "disproportionate" to the security threat faced. The MEP also believed, his spokesman later told me, that these whole-body scanners offered "very little increased benefit for security". Other members of the European Parliament agreed: in the face of an EU Commission proposal to establish a regulatory framework for the use of full-body scanners at EU airports, the parliament passed a resolution criticising the devices in the autumn of 2008. This, and strong opposition from some member states, forced the Commission to back away from such plans, though a spokesman has made clear in recent days that the Commission continues to see such scanners as a "useful additional tool" in impeding terrorists. [See footnote.]

In a world of increasing electronic surveillance – where computer images can be stored, hacked, replicated and passed around the world instantly, and where airport scans link to other ID details about passengers, from passports equipped with RFID chips with the capability to contain enormous amounts of electronically readable personal information – the privacy and data-sharing implications of body scanners are huge for all passengers, let alone children. Can there ever be any guarantee that images of children would indeed be safe, and instantly destroyed?

ARCH's legal adviser, barrister Ian Dowty, has no doubt: it doesn't matter whether the image is kept or not – it's the making of the image itself that is the offence.

• This article was amended on 5 and 6 January 2010. The original quoted an MEP appearing to say that the EU Commission had withdrawn a proposal to use the Rapiscan whole-body scanner at a European level over a year ago after finding the scanner offered "very little increased benefit for security". This view on security was, rather, that of the MEP being quoted, Philip Bradbourn. The EU Commission has issued no finding on a specific company's scanner. The story text has been corrected accordingly. The original article also named the MEP as Andrew Bradburn. This has been corrected.

Police cuff citizens for videotaping arrests

2010-01-18T12:01:00.000-08:00

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/01/wall-street-thinks-you-are-envious-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+JessesCafeAmericain+

Dan Goodin
The Register
Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:28 EST

Film a cop, go to jail

Since the police beating of motorist Rodney King in 1991, men in blue have looked warily at the civilian videotaping of arrests and other police activities. Some cops are so opposed to the practice, they've begun arresting the amateur videographers and charging them criminally.

According to this article published by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, police in Boston and Pennsylvania have regularly arrested otherwise law-abiding citizens who videotape cops as they go about performing arrests on public streets. The charge: illegal electronic surveillance.

"The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public," Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, was quoted as saying.

Like 11 other states, Massachusetts is a two-party consent state, meaning that all parties to a conversation must agree to be recorded on telephones or other audio devices. Police in Boston and elsewhere have used the law to arrest videographers who use cameras with audio recording capabilities.

With the ubiquity of video cameras, just about every facet of public life - from fights on public transit to executions of megalomaniac world leaders - is regularly captured on tape. But if certain police get their way, the sole exception to that rule will be reserved for actions they carry out that they'd prefer remain secret.

The irony isn't lost on Jon Surmacz, who was arrested in December 2008 for videotaping police as they broke up a party he was attending.

"Had I recorded an officer saving someone's life," he said. "I almost guarantee you that they wouldn't have come up to me and say, 'Hey, you just recorded me saving that person's life. You're under arrest.'"

Brzezinski Tells Audience It Is Easier To Kill A Million People Than It Is To Control Them

2010-01-17T08:10:00.000-08:00

http://clareswinney.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/flashback-brzezinski-tells-elite-audience-it-is-infinitely-easier-to-kill-a-million-people-than-it-is-to-control-them/

Brzezinski Tells Audience It Is Easier To Kill A Million People Than It Is To Control Them
June 10, 2009 · 2 Comments

On November the 17th 2008, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a New World Order proponent and a founder of the Rockefeller-controlled Trilateral Commission, gave a speech to British elites at Chatham House. This venue is home to the Royal Institute of International Affairs which is believed by some to be behind the creation of the Bilderberg Group, [1] an elite cabal which uses its power and influence to impose its policies on nations throughout the world.

Brzezinski, who authored Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era and The Grand Chessboard, is well known for his presentations at Bilderberg Conferences and is one of those who foresees no middle class, only rulers and servants under a New World Order, [2]. Tellingly, he endorsed Barack Obama in 2007, saying that he had both the “guts and the intelligence” to “change the nature of America’s relationship with the rest of the world” and since then Obama has been called a puppet of Brzezinski’s.

This Chatham House speech provides a window into the mindset of those at the top of the power structure. It is a 45 minutes talk on the Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President. You can download it and stream it from the webpage link here.

Chillingly, ten minutes into the presentation, Brzezinski who was the creator of Al-Qaeda, the group that has been used to justify the illusory “war on terror,” which has led to the slaughter of over a million people in Iraq, said: “And these new and old major powers face still yet another novel reality, in some respects unprecedented, and it is that while the lethality -the lethality of their power is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at an historical low.”

“I once put it rather pungently, and I was flattered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this, as follows… namely, in earlier times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people, than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill, than to control…”

References:

1. The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin, p. 37

2. As Above, p. 42.

Related:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Men Behind Obama.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-7064-0-22-22--.html

2010-01-17T06:04:00.000-08:00

Little by little, piece by piece, the cancer of fascism is spreading through the body of democracy...

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-7064-0-22-22--.html

Published on 01-16-2010 Email To Friend Print Version

By Tom Burghardt - BLN Contributing Writer

In the wake of the Flight 253 provocation, over-hyped terrorism panics, and last year's Big Pharma and media-engineered hysteria over the H1N1 flu pandemic, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13528 on January 11.

Among other things, the Executive Order (EO) established a Council of Governors, an "advisory panel" chosen by the President that will rubber-stamp long-sought-after Pentagon contingency plans to seize control of state National Guard forces in the event of a "national emergency."

According to the White House press release, the ten member, bipartisan Council was created "to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards."

"When appointed" the announcement continues, "the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

Clearly designed to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, EO 13528 is the latest in a series of maneuvers by previous administrations to wrest control of armed forces historically under the democratic control of elected state officials, and a modicum of public accountability.

One consequence of moves to "synchronize and integrate" state National Guard units with those of the Armed Forces would be to place them under the effective control of United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), created in 2002 by Bushist legislators in both capitalist parties under the pretext of imperialism's endless "War on Terror." At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called USNORTHCOM's launch "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."

The real-world consequences of those changes weren't long in coming.

Following their criminal inaction during 2005's Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, the Bush regime sought, but failed, to seize control of depleted Gulf Coast National Guard units, the bulk of which had been sent to Iraq along with equipment that might have aided the recovery. Bush demanded that then Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco sign over control of the Guard as well as state and local police units as the blood price for federal assistance.

At the height of the crisis, Bush cited presidential prerogatives for doing so under the Insurrection Act, a repressive statute which authorizes the President to federalize National Guard units when state governments fail to "suppress rebellion." How the plight of citizens engulfed by Katrina's flood waters could be twisted into an act of "rebellion" was achieved when Orwellian spin doctors, aided and abetted by a compliant media, invented a new criminal category to cover traumatized New Orleans residents: "Drowning while Black."

Fast forward five years. Given the serious implications such proposals would have for a functioning democracy, the media's deafening silence on Obama's Executive Order is hardly surprising. Like their role as cheerleaders in the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, media self-censorship tell us much about the state of affairs in "new normal" America.

Like his predecessors in the Oval Office, stretching back to the 1960s with Pentagon "civil disturbance" plans such as Cable Splicer and Garden Plot, both of which are continuously updated, our "change" President will forge ahead and invest the permanent National Security bureaucracy with unprecedented power.

Under color of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, an unsavory piece of Bushist legislative detritus, "The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions."

The toothless Council, whose Executive Director will be designated by the Secretary of Defense no less, "shall meet at the call of the Secretary of Defense or the Co-Chairs of the Council."

Will such a Council have veto power over administration deliberations? Hardly. They are relegated "to exchange views, information, or advice with the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of Homeland Security" and "the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism."

Additional entities covered by the EO with whom the Governors Council will "exchange views" include, "the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; the Commander, United States Northern Command; the Chief, National Guard Bureau; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; and other appropriate officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and appropriate officials of other executive departments or agencies as may be designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Homeland Security."

In other words, right from the get-go, the Council will serve as civilian cover for political decisions made by the Executive Branch and the security apparat. EO 13528 continues, "Such views, information, or advice shall concern: (a) matters involving the National Guard of the various States; (b) homeland defense; (c) civil support; (d) synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and (e) other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

When news first broke last summer of Obama's proposal to expand the military's authority to respond to domestic disasters, it was opposed by the National Governors Association (NGA).

Congressional Quarterly reported that a letter sent on behalf of the NGA opposed creation of the Council on grounds that it "would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors' constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens," Govs. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., wrote.

According to their August letter to Paul N. Stockton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, Douglas and Manchin III argued that "without assigning a governor tactical control" of military forces during a natural disaster such as a flood or earthquake, or an unnatural disaster such as a terrorist attack or other mass casualty event, the "strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors' control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handling than a federal military commander."

With slim prospects of congressional authorization for the scheme, in fact the 2008 language was removed from subsequent Defense spending legislation, other means were required. Playing bureaucratic hardball with the governors, this has now been accomplished by presidential fiat, further eroding clear constitutional limits on Executive Branch power.

These maneuvers as I have previously written, have very little to do with responding to a catastrophic emergency. Indeed, EO 13528 is only the latest iteration of plans to expand the National Security State's writ and as such, have everything to do with decades-old Continuity of Government (COG) programs kept secret from Congress and the American people.

Derided by neocons, neoliberals and other corporatists as a quaint backwater for "conspiracy theorists" railing against "FEMA concentration camps," Continuity of Government, and the nexus of "civil support" programs that have proliferated like noxious weeds are no laughing matter.

Indeed, even members of Congress are considered "unauthorized parties" denied access "to information on COG plans, procedures, capabilities and facilities," according to a Pentagon document published by the whistleblowing web site Wikileaks, as are the classified annexes of National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD 51/HSPD 20). In a new twist on administration promises of transparency and open government, even the redacted version of these documents have been removed from the White House web site.

As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: "Vigilant Shield 09: A Cover for Illegal Domestic Operations?"), the Congressional Research Service issued a 46-page report in 2008 that provided details on the COG-related National Exercise Program, a "civil support" operation that war games various disaster scenarios.

Among other things, the document outlines the serious domestic implications of military participation in national emergency preparedness drills. CRS researchers pointed to the Reagan-era Executive Order 12656 (EO 12656) that "directs FEMA to coordinate the planning, conduct, and evaluation of national security emergency exercises." EO 12656 defines a national security emergency as "as any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

Such programs, greatly expanded by the Bush-era Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), also removed from the White House web site, established "a national program and a multi-year planning system to conduct homeland security preparedness-related exercises." CRS avers, "The program is to be carried out in collaboration with state and local governments and private sector entities."

The Defense Department's role during such emergencies were intended to focus "principally on domestic incident management, either for terrorism or non terrorist catastrophic events." DoD would play a "significant role" in the overall response. Such murky definitions cover a lot of ground and are ripe with a potential for abuse by unscrupulous securocrats and their corporate partners.

The primary DoD entity responsible for "civil support," a focus of Obama's EO is USNORTHCOM and its active combat component, U.S. Army North. However, as with almost everything relating to COG and current plans under EO 13528 that propose to "synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities," USNORTHCOM's role is shrouded in secrecy.

As researcher Peter Dale Scott revealed in 2008, when Congressman Peter DeFazio, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney sought access to classified COG annexes, their request was denied by the White House. Scott wrote: "DeFazio's inability to get access to the NSPD Annexes is less than reassuring. If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing."

One hammer blow followed another. In 2008, Army Times reported, that the "3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team [BCT] has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they're training for the same mission--with a twist--at home."

Analyst Michel Chossudovsky commented, "What is significant in this redeployment of a US infantry unit is the presumption that North America could, in the case of a national emergency, constitute a 'war theater' thereby justifying the deployment of combat units." According to Chossudovsky, "The new skills to be imparted consist in training 1st BCT in repressing civil unrest, a task normally assumed by civilian law enforcement."

"It is noteworthy, the World Socialist Web Site commented, "that the deployment of US combat troops 'as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters' ... coincides with the eruption of the greatest economic emergency and financial disaster since the Great Depression of the 1930s."

"Justified as a response to terrorist threats," socialist critic Bill Van Auken averred, "the real source of the growing preparations for the use of US military force within America's borders lies not in the events of September 11, 2001 or the danger that they will be repeated. Rather, the domestic mobilization of the armed forces is a response by the US ruling establishment to the growing threat to political stability."

Since USNORTHCOM's deployment of a combat brigade on U.S. soil, the capitalist crisis has deepened and intensified. With unemployment at a post-war high and the perilous economic and social conditions of the working class growing grimmer by the day, EO 13258 is a practical demonstration of ruling class consensus when it comes to undermining the democratic rights of the American people.

After all, where the defense of wealth and privileges are concerned corporate thugs and war criminals have no friends, only interests...

Obama and the Global Police: More Friendly Fascism?

2010-01-17T06:01:00.000-08:00

"Friendly Fascism" remains friendly for a little while. Then it rears its ugly head and the monster is revealed...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/whitehead7.1.1.html

by John W. Whitehead

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." ~ James Madison

Over the course of his first year in office, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a skillful and savvy politician, saying the things Americans want to hear while stealthily and inexorably moving forward the government's agenda of centralized power. For example, in one breath, Obama pays lip service to the need for greater transparency in government, while in another, he issues an executive order that will result in even more government secrecy.

He is aided in this Machiavellian mindset by a trusting populace inclined to take him at his word and a mainstream media seemingly loath to criticize him or scrutinize his actions too closely. A perfect example of this is the media's relative lack of scrutiny over Obama's recent transformation of Executive Order (EO) 12425 from a document that constitutionally limits the International Criminal Police Organization's (Interpol) activities domestically to one that establishes it as an autonomous police agency within the U.S.

Those who have voiced their concerns about this domestic empowerment of Interpol by President Obama – and that's exactly what it is – have been soundly criticized for fomenting political hysteria. But there is legitimate cause for concern. This presidential directive could undermine civil liberties and render the Fourth Amendment null and void.

First, some background on EO 12425. Issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, EO 12425 recognized Interpol as an international organization with certain privileges and immunities afforded to foreign diplomats. However, Reagan structured his executive order to ensure that Interpol, like every other law enforcement agency in this country, was accountable to the rule of law.

Aided by some crafty legal editing, Obama has manipulated Reagan's directive in such a way as to remove those restrictions so that Interpol now stands apart from domestic law enforcement agencies, its actions and records effectively immune from legal scrutiny. It was a shrewd move on Obama's part, so shrouded in a legal parsing of semicolons and redactions that it is barely comprehensible to the average citizen (unless you happen to have a few attorneys on hand who can sift through the historical record to make sense of the changes). But when you compile all the changes, the amended text of the Executive Order reads:

Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

The key here is the word "inviolable," which means that Interpol assets, records and other property are no longer subject to the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment, nor are they subject to public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.

It should come as little surprise that when the White House issued the amended executive order on December 17, 2009, it issued no press releases and thus generated little in the way of media attention. It must be said, however, that had George W. Bush attempted to slip something like this through a week before Christmas, he would have and should have been soundly lambasted by the media.

Frankly, we should be hearing more about Obama's EO 12425 – from the White House, from Congress, from the media. In fact, Congress should be holding hearings on the ramifications of allowing Interpol to operate with complete autonomy outside the strictures of the Constitution and above the rule of law in this country.

Operating in 188 countries, Interpol supposedly deals with crimes that overlap various countries such as terrorism, organized crime, war crimes, piracy, drug trafficking, child pornography and genocide. The agency maintains a bureau in each member country and channels information and requests to the appropriate law enforcement agency in each country. It also works closely with international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court, to locate and detain alleged fugitives.

In the U.S., Interpol is headquartered at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, one of the most powerful of the government agencies and the one responsible for overseeing all law enforcement within America. All law enforcement agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, including the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency, are subject to the rigorous safeguards of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the laws passed by Congress.

These safeguards no longer apply to Interpol, whose records cannot be obtained through FOIA requests – which act as an important safeguard against governmental abuse – nor are they subject to investigation by other federal agencies or the courts (unless Interpol itself consents).

It's hard to know exactly what the fallout from this executive order will be, but the ramifications for the American people could be ominous. For instance, if Interpol engages in illegal and/or unconstitutional activities against American citizens, it will be impossible for U.S. citizens to obtain information – via subpoena or other commonly used legal methods – regarding its records or activities.

Additionally, any information shared by the FBI or other American intelligence agencies with Interpol could also be exempt from FOIA and Fourth Amendment protections. At this point, the rule of law breaks down completely. American intelligence and police agencies, when and if they share information, would also be above the law.

This could also pave the way for a global police state – one in which information made available to Interpol by American agencies can and most likely will be shared with global police agencies around the world. In other words, foreign intelligence agencies could eventually spy on Americans.

Clearly, there are enough concerns about the impact of EO 12425 on our civil liberties to warrant further discussion. It must be remembered that James Madison, the "father" of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the fourth president of the United States, advised that we should "take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

Whether or not you consider President Obama's Interpol executive order to be cause for alarm, one must agree that this is far from the first experiment on our liberties. In fact, we've seen all this before. It's Bush redux. Slowly, more Americans are waking up to the fact that civil liberties violations that began under the Bush presidency are continuing under the Obama presidency.

Even the ACLU, which embraced Obama a mere year ago, has recently condemned his record on civil liberties. "We're increasingly disappointed and alarmed by the current administration's stance on accountability for torture," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, during a conference call with reporters. "On every front, the [Obama] administration is actively obstructing accountability. This administration is shielding Bush administration officials from civil liability, criminal investigation and even public scrutiny for their role in authorizing torture."

The bigger danger, however, is that a shift toward authoritarianism is underway and only small pockets of Americans realize it. Certainly, the mainstream media is not reporting on it, nor do they primarily function as watchdogs, guarding against encroachments of our rights. Yet it is unmistakable – we have been creeping towards fascism for some time now, as Bertram Gross foretold some thirty years ago. Writing in his insightful book Friendly Fascism, he predicted, "The new fascism will be colored by national and cultural heritage, ethnic and religious composition, formal structure, and geopolitical environment." He continues:

Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic – as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic façade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.

Obama Confidant's Spine-Chilling Proposal

2010-01-16T15:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html

January 15, 2010 by Salon.com
by Glenn Greenwald

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here .

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger , and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer.

There's no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper and the fact that Sunstein's position would include exactly such policies, that question certainly ought to be asked. Regardless, Sunstein's closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote. This isn't an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees. Additionally, the government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class. All of that makes Sunstein's paper worth examining in greater detail.

* * * * *

Initially, note how similar Sunstein's proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates. The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as "independent analysts" in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon . Bush officials secretly paid supposedly "independent" voices, such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher , to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts. In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens . In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda -- and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda. Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government "propaganda" within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

Covert government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves. His mentality is indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses, and he hardly tries to claim otherwise. Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln Park program as well as Paul Bremer's closing of Iraqi newspapers which published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably necessary to combat "false conspiracy theories" in Iraq -- the same goal Sunstein has for the U.S.

Sunstein's response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself. He acknowledges that some "conspiracy theories" previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples: the CIA really did secretly administer LSD in "mind control" experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters). Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government "conspiracy theories," discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements? Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good -- i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:

Throughout, we assume a well-motivated government that aims to eliminate conspiracy theories, or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so.

But it's precisely because the Government is so often not "well-motivated" that such powers are so dangerous. Advocating them on the ground that "we will use them well" is every authoritarian's claim. More than anything else, this is the toxic mentality that consumes our political culture: when our side does X, X is Good, because we're Good and are working for Good outcomes. That was what led hordes of Bush followers to endorse the same large-government surveillance programs they long claimed to oppose, and what leads so many Obama supporters now to justify actions that they spent the last eight years opposing.

* * * * *

Consider the recent revelation that the Obama administration has been making very large, undisclosed payments to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber to provide consultation on the President's health care plan . With this lucrative arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public justifications for Obama's health care plan, typically without disclosing these payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House -- falsely -- as an "independent" or "objective" authority. Obama allies in the media constantly cited Gruber's analysis to support their defenses of the President's plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that their plan would succeed. This created an infinite "feedback loop" in favor of Obama's health care plan which -- unbeknownst to the public -- was all being generated by someone who was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in secret from the administration (read this to see exactly how it worked).

In other words, this arrangement was quite similar to the Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher scandals which Democrats, in virtual lockstep, condemned. Paul Krugman, for instance, in 2005 angrily lambasted right-wing pundits and policy analysts who received secret, undisclosed payments, and said they lack "intellectual integrity"; he specifically cited the Armstrong Williams case. Yet the very same Paul Krugman last week attacked Marcy Wheeler for helping to uncover the Gruber payments by accusing her of being "just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals." What is one key difference? Unlike Williams and Gallagher, Jonathan Gruber is a Good, Well-Intentioned Person with Good Views -- he favors health care -- and so massive, undisclosed payments from the same administration he's defending are dismissed as a "fake scandal."

Sunstein himself -- as part of his 2008 paper -- explicitly advocates that the Government should pay what he calls "credible independent experts" to advocate on the Government's behalf, a policy he says would be more effective because people don't trust the Government itself and would only listen to people they believe are "independent." In so arguing, Sunstein cites the Armstrong Williams scandal not as something that is wrong in itself, but as a potential risk of this tactic (i.e., that it might leak out), and thus suggests that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," but warns that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed." In other words, Sunstein wants the Government to replicate the Armstrong Williams arrangement as a means of more credibly disseminating propaganda -- i.e., pretending that someone is an "independent" expert when they're actually being "prodded" and even paid "behind the scenes" by the Government -- but he wants to be more careful about how the arrangement is described (don't make the control explicit) so that embarrassment can be avoided if it ends up being exposed.

In this 2008 paper, then, Sunstein advocated, in essence, exactly what the Obama administration has been doing all year with Gruber: covertly paying people who can be falsely held up as "independent" analysts in order to more credibly promote the Government line. Most Democrats agreed this was a deceitful and dangerous act when Bush did it, but with Obama and some of his supporters, undisclosed arrangements of this sort seem to be different. Why? Because, as Sunstein puts it: we have "a well-motivated government" doing this so that "social welfare is improved." Thus, just like state secrets, indefinite detention, military commissions and covert, unauthorized wars , what was once deemed so pernicious during the Bush years -- coordinated government/media propaganda -- is instantaneously transformed into something Good.

* * * * *

What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world. That, he claims, is where these conspiracy theories thrive most vibrantly, and he focuses on various 9/11 theories -- both domestically and in Muslim countries -- as his prime example.

It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power: namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption.

Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation? And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government? The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and government resources: namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive is precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

UPDATE: I don't want to make this primarily about the Gruber scandal -- I cited that only as an example of the type of mischief that this mindset produces -- but just to respond quickly to the typical Gruber defenses already appearing in comments: (1) Gruber's work was only for HHS and had nothing to do with the White House (false ); (2) he should have disclosed his payments, but the White House did nothing wrong (false : it repeatedly described him as "independent" and "objective" and constantly cited allied media stories based in Gruber's work); (3) Gruber advocated views he would have advocated anyway in the absence of payment (probably true, but wasn't that also true for life-long conservative Armstrong Williams, life-long social conservative Maggie Gallagher, and the pro-war Pentagon Generals, all of whom mounted the same defense?); and (4) Williams/Gallagher were explicitly paid to advocate particular views while Gruber wasn't (true: that's exactly the arrangement Sunstein advocates to avoid "embarrassment" in the event of disclosure, and it's absurd to suggest that someone being paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars is unaware of what their paymasters want said; that's why disclosure is so imperative).

The point is that there are severe dangers to the Government covertly using its resources to "infiltrate" discussions and to shape political debates using undisclosed and manipulative means. It's called "covert propaganda" and it should be opposed regardless of who is in control of it or what its policy aims are.

UPDATE II: Ironically, this is the same administration that recently announced a new regulation dictating that "bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently." Without such disclosure, the administration reasoned, the public may not be aware of important hidden incentives (h/t pasquin ). Yet the same administration pays an MIT analyst hundreds of thousands of dollars to advocate their most controversial proposed program while they hold him out as "objective," and selects as their Chief Regulator someone who wants government agents to covertly mold political discussions "anonymously or even with false identities."

UPDATE III: Just to get a sense for what an extremist Cass Sunstein is (which itself is ironic, given that his paper calls for "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups," as the Abstract puts it), marvel at this paragraph:

So Sunstein isn't calling right now for proposals (1) and (2) -- having Government "ban conspiracy theorizing" or "impose some kind of tax on those who" do it -- but he says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions." I'd love to know the "conditions" under which the government-enforced banning of conspiracy theories or the imposition of taxes on those who advocate them will "have a place." Anyone who believes this should, for that reason alone, be barred from any meaningful government position.

Totalitarian “Synchronization” — Germany 1933 and USA 2010

2010-01-15T14:55:00.000-08:00

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/47234.html

January 12, 2010
Totalitarian “Synchronization” — Germany 1933 and USA 2010
Posted by William Grigg on January 12, 2010 12:20 PM

The German National Socialists used the term Gleichschaltung to describe the “coordination” or “synchronization” of all government functions by centralizing power in the Chief Executive. This process was carried out through a series of executive decrees supposedly authorized by the 1933 Enabling Act, formally known as the “Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich.”

The September 14, 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force” has served a similar function for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That measure has been invoked to justify the war in Iraq, the institutionalization of torture, the presidential designation of individuals as “unlawful enemy combatants,” the summary execution of suspected terrorists by means of unmanned Predator drones, and other tyrannical exercises of presidential “authority” in the context of the “war on terror.”

Yesterday (January 11), Barack Obama added another critical element to the architecture of wartime presidential dictatorship by signing an executive order establishing a “Council of Governors” for the supposed purpose of strengthening federal-state “partnership” in military and homeland security affairs.

The body would consist of a bipartisan panel of ten state governors who will “meet at the call” of various executive functionaries, including the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to assist the Supreme Leader in carrying out the “synchronization” — again, what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung — “and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States.”

According to an official White House press release, this new body will be invaluable in the effort to “relieve the distress of the people and Reich.” No, not really; the statement actually said that the Council “will provide an invaluable Senior Administration forum for exchanging views with State and local officials on strengthening our National resilience and the homeland defense and civil support challenges facing our Nation today and in the future.” Which, come to think of it, is pretty much the same thing.

Taken by itself, this executive order does little more than add another layer of bureaucracy dealing with the use of the National Guard. It should be remembered, however, that in 2006 Congress turned the National Guard into something akin to a Praetorian Guard to be used — whether at home or abroad — as the president desires. This helps explain an obvious and ominous change in the Guard’s definition of its mission and responsibilities, which include hands-on involvement in domestic law enforcement.

It’s also worth pointing out that this new Council represents yet another avenue through which the president can circumvent congressional resistance to military adventurism, in the highly unlikely event that such resistance were to coalesce.

While it’s true that Obama’s executive order will not immediately result in troops flooding our cities and detention camps springing from the soil, it represents a critical milestone on the road to undisguised dictatorship.