Obama Administration: DHS Proposal for National License Plate Tracking

If you're like millions of other people, you probably woke up this morning, had breakfast, and performed the usual toiletries that clean, psychologically normal and healthy people perform. You then bustled yourself off to yet another exciting day of work, school, raising your children, enjoying your retirement or any other number of productive or leisurely activities. One thing you probably didn't do is stop by your local police station or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) office and provide those kind men and women a detailed, hour by hour itinerary of your plans for the day, how long you thought these things would take, who you'd be seeing and where you'd be for most of the day. I know that you're probably pretty busy. Perhaps the critical importance of letting the government and its running dog corporate lackeys know where you were slipped your mind. Never fear. DHS has got you covered.

In a sad reminder of just how far government has sunken and how contemptuous many governmental bureaucratic or law-enforcement types are of a citizen's right to privacy and to be left alone, the DHS confirmed that it is seeking a private agency to assist it in building a database of every US license plate and its real time location.

The Department of Homeland Security wants a private company to provide a national license-plate tracking system that would give the agency access to vast amounts of information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers, according to a government proposal that does not specify what privacy safeguards would be put in place.The national license-plate recognition database, which would draw data from readers that scan the tags of every vehicle crossing their paths, would help catch fugitive illegal immigrants, according to a DHS solicitation. But the database could easily contain more than 1 billion records and could be shared with other law enforcement agencies, raising concerns that the movements of ordinary citizens who are under no criminal suspicion could be scrutinized.

The agency said the length of time the data is retained would be up to the winning vendor. Vigilant Solutions, for instance, one of the leading providers of tag-reader data, keeps its records indefinitely. Nationwide, local police as well as commercial companies are gathering license-plate data using various means. One common method involves drivers for repossession companies methodically driving up and down streets with cameras mounted on their cars snapping photos of vehicles. Some police forces have cameras mounted on patrol cars. Other images may be retrieved from border crossings, interstate highway on-ramps and toll plazas.

Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which is part of the Justice Department, also have deployed cameras along the country’s borders. But DHS’s effort appears to be the first time a federal law enforcement agency is seeking such extensive access to a broad repository of data capturing the movements and images of American motorists from metropolitan ­areas...

Read the full article here. It's even worse than it sounds. 

DHS Solicitation of bids

If you've read this blog for more than a month or so you know where I stand on civil liberties and privacy. So you can probably guess what I think of this idea. Very simply this is bovine excrement. Wet stinky greasy foul bovine excrement. This is precisely the sort of thing that we read about states like Communist China or the former East Germany doing. A government that tries to know what its citizens are reading, with whom the citizens are communicating via phone, email, letter, and where the citizens are traveling and why is not a government that I have any respect for. It's a government that needs a radical haircut in its powers and so-called authority. If someone from the government wants to know what I did today they could ask me. And I could tell them to go  attempt airborne copulation with a rapidly revolving pastry. Unless I am under formal government control via imprisonment, parole or probation, who I talk to, why I talk to them, who I sleep with, where and why I travel, who my friends are and so forth and so on are none of the government's business. If the government REALLY needs to know, get a warrant. This is most definitely not a partisan issue. The great problem as I see it is that these increasing attacks on civil liberties and stepped up surveillance of citizen movements are sort of a Nixon to China moment. It took a right wing politician to attempt to woo China into the capitalist marketplace and make diplomatic concessions to the Chinese. This neutralized and isolated the rabid right-wing base that would have otherwise fiercely opposed such an action by a centrist or left leaning politician. Similarly if it had been widely reported under a Republican Administration that the FBI/DHS etc were seeking to maintain records of individual travel by all Americans, I suspect that many more left leaning activist groups and politicians might have slightly more than a few mild concerns to express. But because Obama is behind it you won't hear more than a few mumbles from most progressive people. This is wrong. Everyone should oppose these steps.

There are some fair minded people of goodwill who nevertheless still wonder why civil libertarians were so angered by warrantless wiretapping, metadata gathering, email and social network monitoring. They claim that as long as the government keeps us safe what's the big deal. To those people I would say that the big deal is exactly that giving the government a pass on the above activities, as we have largely done, just emboldens the government to take other bites out of our freedom. This really is a slippery slope.  People who come up with these sorts of ideas never ever have enough information. There's always someone out there who may have some fig leaf of privacy left. That bothers control freaks. There are many people who were alleged to have said this but it really is true that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  If you're still not convinced that this expansion is problematic I'm not sure what to say to you. The opportunities for abuse are endless in such a system. We know that the government already targets people with political views that it doesn't like. Is it such a leap to believe that armed with a real time database of people's travels that further abuses would proliferate?  Let's imagine for a moment that there is that is a pugnaciously righteous attorney general or governor of a large east coast state. This man has numerous bitter rivals and enemies among the political and financial establishment. So his detractors monitor his movements until they realize this pompous populist gadfly is spending quality time at a brothel or house of a woman not his wife. So the politician's rivals then try to blackmail this man into softening his stances or failing that charge him with a crime thus destroying his ability to seek higher office or threaten established financial power. Of course nothing like that would ever happen would it? I'm just being paranoid...

Black Man Arrested for Drinking Arizona Iced Tea

This could just be reason # 345,754 as to why I generally don't like the police. I view them as at best a necessary evil. Police often escalate situations unnecessarily. Below the jump check out a May 2013 video from Fayetteville, North Carolina that somehow I missed but that The Janitor brought to my attention. It was hard even for me to believe that it was real at first just because the person arrested literally wasn't doing anything questionable, let alone wrong. The blog lawyers can discuss if any laws were broken. What I took away from this is that some police assume:

1. any black men gathering anywhere must be up to no good 
2. no black man anywhere has any right to not be pushed around by any cop. 

There's a lot of talk about school bullying or online "bullying" because someone implied on facebook or twitter that someone else could stand to drop a few pounds or wasn't the most beautiful person. I think this is real bullying. The citizen Christopher Beatty, a military veteran, is indeed lucky that the cop didn't shoot, tase or beat him. I think the cop made a wrong assumption. To pump up his ego and show Beatty who was the boss, he invented a reason for arrest. Fundamentally this is because some police and their enablers do not concede that black people have a right to public spaces. Watch the initial video and the updated interview video below. We've got driving while black, shopping while black, walking while black, and now standing and drinking iced tea while black. To be fair though it's not just a race thing. Police make mistakes and bad assumptions all the time with white people too. Such incidents are why I think that "victimless crimes" or "lifestyle crimes" should be decriminalized. Police should have limited reasons and authority to interact with or detain their fellow citizens. And no matter who you think you are I don't want your hands on my food or drink. It's just a pet peeve...

Updated Short Interview with Chris Beatty

Edward Snowden Christmas Message

If you didn't see this or hear about this already it's worthwhile in my opinion to view a quick message from the man whose actions continue to have extended repercussions both domestically and internationally. We're living in interesting times. I guess one man can make a difference after all. Say what you like about Snowden but he wasn't the one lying to you. Your government was. Wake up.

Who Makes Medical Decisions for You (or your kids)?

I have a bit of a libertarian left leaning streak when it comes to private decisions around your life, health, sexuality and so on. Basically if you're not bothering anyone I think the government should leave you alone. That's true whether you're a black New Yorker walking down the street or a white twenty-five year old who doesn't see a need to purchase health insurance. And I feel even more strongly about someone coming between a parent and a child. However intellectual honesty compels admission that there are some cases where government not only has the right but the duty to interfere with your decision making and/or that which impacts your children. We don't look kindly on heroin addicts. We look even less kindly on heroin addicts who share their drugs with their children. I don't care if someone wants to be a sex worker. If that person wants to recruit their underage child into their line of work then they should be as Bo Diddley sang, placed "so far back in the jail that they'll have to pump air in". You can't open a factory and dump lead in the water. And so on.

Those are obvious calls though. Medical care decisions are more complex.
Doctors and scientists have knowledge and information that the rest of us lack. There's nothing magical about that. It's their line of work. A doctor would likely look just as out of place in your line of work if you're not a doctor. If a doctor suggests an action plan for a particular disease you're probably going to listen to him/her..again assuming you're not a doctor yourself with the same or greater knowledge as the bozo who barely made it through medical school and has his papers routinely rejected by scientific journals.

BUT

The doctor does not own you. You can ignore the doctor's advice and continue doing everything the doctor told you not to do. None know the hour or day of our death. Ignoring the doctor's advice is probably a bad idea (lung cancer patient continuing his three pack a day habit, diabetes or gout sufferer continuing to eat second/third helpings at dinner and TONS of sugary desserts), but again, there are people who do just that and against all odds live longer and healthier than they should. There are some diseases for which the cure is almost as bad as if not worse than the disease. If the doctor tells us that we need to have a limb amputated, have our reproductive systems removed, have our digestive systems altered so that we have to use a colostomy bag or have chemotherapy, some of us might decide that we'd rather live with the disease instead of taking the cure. At least we might want to consider options. So we'd tell the doctor no thanks and keep it moving.

But what if the doctor smiled nastily and said, "No dummy I don't think you understood. That wasn't a request.You're getting the treatment whether you like it or not!"

An appeals court has sided with a hospital that wants to force a 10-year-old Amish girl to resume chemotherapy after her parents decided to stop the treatments. The court ruled that a county judge must reconsider his decision that blocked Akron Children's Hospital's attempt to give an attorney who's also a registered nurse limited guardianship over Sarah Hershberger and the power to make medical decisions for her. The hospital believes Sarah's leukemia is very treatable but says she will die without chemotherapy.

The judge in Medina County in northeast Ohio had ruled in July that Sarah's parents had the right to make medical decisions for her. The appeals court ruling issued Tuesday said the judge failed to consider whether appointing a guardian would be in the girl's best interest. It also disagreed with the judge's decision that said he could only transfer guardianship if the parents were found unfit. The family's attorney, John Oberholtzer, said Wednesday that the ruling essentially ordered the judge to disregard the rights of the parents. Andy Hershberger, the girl's father, said the family agreed to begin two years of treatments for Sarah last spring but stopped a second round of chemotherapy in June because it was making her extremely sick.

"It put her down for two days. She was not like her normal self," he said. "We just thought we cannot do this to her." 

Sarah begged her parents to stop the chemotherapy and they agreed after a great deal of prayer, Hershberger said. The family, members of an insular Amish community, shuns many facets of modern life and is deeply religious...

LINK
I'm usually going to follow my doctor's orders. But there have been people quite close to me who have died from cancer. And it's my firm unyielding belief that the treatments killed them just as much as the disease did. If I ever got a cancer diagnosis I would think long and hard about my treatment plan. I've also known loved ones who, despite being repeatedly told that their diet and lifestyle would literally kill them, stubbornly refused to make changes and promptly died, just as the doctors told them they would.

For me the fundamental question is who decides on the course of treatment, the doctor or the patient? I believe that freedom requires that the patient decides. 

And if the patient is too young to decide her fate, then her parents get the last word. If the parents happen to be moronic that's unbelievably unfortunate, but as most parents are not moronic I don't want the government stepping in to override medical decisions unless the decision is obviously insane and the person will die immediately. For example, some devout fundamentalists of various religions do not believe that a woman should be viewed (naked, without her hair/face covered, at all) by any man except her husband. Let's say there was a car accident and a badly injured woman was trapped in a burning car. The only way to save her requires cutting through her outer garments. She will temporarily be only partially clothed. Her husband (sitting safely on the curb) objects on religious grounds. Clearly emergency personnel should ignore him and rescue the woman before she's burned to death. If that same woman goes to the doctor, is told she needs a hysterectomy and declines it on religious or personal grounds, I don't want the government overriding her choice and sending her to the surgeons. 

But those are adults. What about kids? Isn't that different? Doesn't the government have a role to play?

Parents, not the government, are the primary and best caretakers. They have responsibility for their child's medical care. Obviously they will need help on occasion. There are many decisions that parents make regarding their children. This includes everything from when, if or how to tell them the facts of life, to their diet, to what sort of social activities they engage in, to which books they can read, to when or whether to take them off life support after they've been in a coma. It's truly an awesome responsibility. So absent some immediate certainty of death, provable neglect or irrationality, I think the parents should have final say. Choosing not to undergo chemotherapy is not to my mind the same thing as drilling a hole in your child's head in order to let the demons out. It's not an easy call to watch a parent make what I think is a bad decision but I think it's the right one. Of course I could be full of it. It wouldn't be the first time. 

What do you think is the right decision here?

Who should have the final word? The state and/or hospital or the parents?

The Federal Government wants your passwords

Allegedly the U.S. Government is obtaining or trying to obtain your various internet passwords.
I can't say that I am surprised by this allegation. The horrible thing about the post 9-11 world to which Americans have eagerly submitted is that it gave permission to the most power-hungry authoritarian impulses on the both the left and the right to run amok. We have ceded so many rights and privileges of citizenship in order to be safe that I do not doubt that a future Administration will wish to put video cameras and screens in each American's home just to keep an eye on what everyone is doing. If we have to submit to a virtual strip search in order to fly, are subject to random stop-and-frisk walking the streets, have the Post Office scanning every piece of mail that has been sent and sharing that with intelligence or law enforcement agencies without a judge's approval, and have the NSA monitoring phone records and likely phone conversations and real time web conversations, why wouldn't the government just want to make things easy for itself by just getting user passwords? No muss no fuss. They can just sign on as you and read through your email or blog posts or facebook messages without any issues. What's the big deal right? If you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you want the government to have your passwords? What are you? An Al-Qaeda supporter? A fascist? A socialist? A Green Party voter?
LINK

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused."I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."

A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"The Justice Department has argued in court proceedings before that it has broad legal authority to obtain passwords. In 2011, for instance, federal prosecutors sent a grand jury subpoena demanding the password that would unlock files encrypted with the TrueCrypt utility.

The Florida man who received the subpoena claimed the Fifth Amendment, which protects his right to avoid self-incrimination, allowed him to refuse the prosecutors' demand. In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, saying that because prosecutors could bring a criminal prosecution against him based on the contents of the decrypted files, the man "could not be compelled to decrypt the drives."In January 2012, a federal district judge in Colorado reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that a criminal defendant could be compelled under the All Writs Act to type in the password that would unlock a Toshiba Satellite laptop.

Both of those cases, however, deal with criminal proceedings when the password holder is the target of an investigation -- and don't address when a hashed password is stored on the servers of a company that's an innocent third party.

In a display of breathtaking spinelessness the House of Representatives recently refused to pass the Amash Libert-e Act. This bill would have stopped the NSA activities concerning phone records and made it EXPLICITLY clear that what the NSA has been doing is not legal. It's important to notice that most Democrats voted for this bill, while most Republicans were opposed. While it's certain that some of those Democratic aye votes were only allowed by House Minority Leader Pelosi because she knew she already had the votes to defeat it, the fact remains that on this issue at least the Democratic and Republican Leadership as well as the White House were all united in defending the right of the NSA to gather any records on anyone at anytime. Such bipartisanship. It sort of gives the lie to the idea that the House Republicans won't unite with the President on anything. Without Republican assistance this bill would have passed the House. The President and the House Republicans are both in agreement that you don't have any rights the NSA needs to be concerned with. It's also important to point out that the Michigan Republican who introduced this measure, Justin Amash, is a libertarian. I have my issues with libertarians but when it comes to civil liberties at least, many libertarians and liberals are reading from the same choir book. And their interpretation of constitutional scripture doesn't change depending on who's sitting in the pulpit.

It ought to go without saying but I'll say it anyway. Yes it is a dangerous world out there and people in the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies must make decisions I wouldn't want to make. They know things I'll never know. And I want everyone to be and stay safe. Yadda, yadda, yadda. But I still say that unless you have a reason specific to me there is no reason for a government agency to have my password. And thanks to that little thing called the Fifth Amendment I think if you ask me for my password I'm going to tell you to commit an anatomically impossible act.

I think the time has come for us to have a constitutional convention. I'm no attorney and certainly no conservative but it looks to me as if the practices of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are stretching the limits of what our laws were meant to prevent. The new allegations of password requests are just the latest evidence of the old truism that if you give people an inch they'll take a mile. Or put another way,

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations"-James Madison

Obama considers Ray Kelly to head DHS

One thing which my father and other mentors always told me is to pay less attention to what people say and more attention to what they do. Actions speak louder than words. A manager might say that she's impressed with your experience and skills but if she ensures she pays you less than everyone else in your department with equal or lesser experience then perhaps she's not really all that impressed. A couple might say they would enjoy coming to a get together at your house but if every time you invite them they're busy or you get voicemail then perhaps they're trying to politely send you a message. Another person might tell you that your business plan is going to take the world by storm but if he's unwilling to invest chances are he doesn't have faith in your supposed business acumen. 

So with all that in mind it was irritating to hear a President who has spoken eloquently about the evils of racial profiling in Arizona and elsewhere to, if not quite endorse, float a big fat trial balloon towards the appointment of NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly to replace outgoing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. New York Senator Chuck Schumer has been lobbying to get Kelly that job. Obama offered Kelly praise, saying he would be "well-qualified" for the position.

Ray Kelly's obviously done an extraordinary job in New York," Obama said. "And the federal government partners a lot with New York, because obviously, our concerns about terrorism often times are focused on big-city targets, and I think Ray Kelly's one of the best there is.

The problem with that is as you may have known from reading this blog and others is that Commissioner Kelly has been the overseer and architect of an official racially based stop-and-frisk policy that targets black and Hispanic New York citizens. It's primarily aimed at young black males but anyone and everyone with the requisite level of melanin is targeted regardless of gender, age, income, style of dress or other characteristics. You can be a twenty something hoodlum in a hoodie looking for someone to rob, a thirty something professional dressed to the nines for a career changing job interview, a fifty something grandparent walking to church in your Sunday best or a sneaker wearing pre-teen going to school. It doesn't matter. The police have quotas to meet. And they intend to meet them, no matter what because those are the incentives that Kelly has laid down. And as far as Kelly's boss, Mayor Lord Bloomberg is concerned the NYPD needs to be stopping fewer white people and more black people. One wonders if the President agrees with Bloomberg's statements. Kelly has been a vociferously nasty defender of the stop-n-frisk policy even as it finally starts to wind its way through court challenges. Kelly shows zero signs of being concerned with the constitutionality of his policy, its complete lack of effectiveness or the fear and hatred that it engenders among the black and brown population. Kelly has the ability to stop and frisk people on a level than Zimmerman could only dream of. There are over 8 million people in NYC. There are 53,000 in Sanford. At the time of this writing only NY Representative Hakeem Jeffries has had the guts to publicly criticize the idea of having Kelly as DHS head. 

"He's been a good administrator, and perhaps I could even support his potential appointment to this position in the absence of the massive aggressive stop-and-frisk program that he's run, and the unconstitutional Muslim surveillance program, but that's kind of like saying, I had a good year, if you don't count the winter, spring, and fall," Jeffries said.

There's got to be an effective balance between national security or effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect for our civil rights and civil liberties on the other. Ray Kelly, during his tenure as police commissioner under Michael Bloomberg, has consistently disrespected that balance, and that's why I think he would be a poor choice for secretary of Homeland Security"

We shouldn't be too surprised by President Obama's statements. After all it is under his watch and with CIA assistance that the NYPD has worked hand in hand with DHS/CIA to run surveillance of left-wing protesters and activists as well as Muslims of various backgrounds, outside of New York City and even outside of New York State. And the President has not as far as I can recall had an unkind word to say about Mayor Lord Bloomberg or Commissioner Kelly. NYC and NY State have not been threatened with loss of federal resources or sued in federal court after every policy change. This is is stark contrast to the President's words and actions against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  Again, neither of those people are running the kinds of programs which Kelly is running.  The Executive Branch has reigned them in. Actions speak louder than words.

If you are upset about profiling, if you think that Zimmerman was wrong to assume that Martin was up to no good because of his race and clothing then I don't see how you could possibly think that Kelly is doing a good job in New York City with stop-and-frisk or that he should be given national responsibility as DHS Secretary. The President often likes to have it both ways. He's a politician after all. But people nationwide and especially those in New York should recognize that the President's statements are troubling. You can't claim to be against racial profiling and speak positively of promoting one of the nation's most vigorous profilers. It would be a serious betrayal of the President's most fervent base to put someone like Kelly as DHS head. I think, as I have said before, that people in NYC and across the nation needed to make this stop-and-frisk policy a red-line issue in the same way in which Arizona's SB1070 became. This is a situation where the President must choose. It is also one where I think he already has...

What's your take?

A Modest Proposal

But my assessment and my team's assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that on net, it was worth us doing. 

Some other folks may have a different assessment of that, but I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy, and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society.
President Barack Obama
As you can see the President thinks his Administration's actions are modest and worth doing. How soothing. He just forgot to inform us about his actions. I'm sure that was a minor mistake. In the manner of Jonathan Swift, Dear Readers, I also would like to submit a modest proposal to solve the vexing problem of danger and evil in the world. We must have safety as many folks from across the political spectrum have demanded. I can offer you complete safety. There will just have to be a few minor, yes modest changes to make in our political system but if they keep you safe, then surely it's worth it yes?

This constitutional republic thing just isn't working out. Besides our nation is more diverse now. Why should this country be ruled under systems that came out of Anglo-Saxon and Western European 18th century political thought?  No we must update our political process to reflect today's needs. Elections are wasteful and give too many opportunities to our enemies or those sympathetic to them to gain power. In fact there's too much decentralization of power in our system. I commend the President for recognizing that, at least. But now, we must have autocracy. All legislative, executive and judicial authority will be handled by yours truly. Since I will be a permanent ruler the rest of you will save oodles of money on silly little things like elections or political campaigns. Political corruption will decline because there will only be one person in charge. Me. And I assure you I am not corruptible. Congress will be disbanded. Only my leadership will keep us safe. Don't you want to be safe?

Many people have said they have nothing to hide and really have no use for the outdated Fourth Amendment. I have heard you my subjects. I am humbled by your great wisdom and intelligence. Under my reign I also won't have any use for that rule created by dead white men. It fails to keep us safe. And we must be kept safe. That is the most important thing for government to do. So to make sure that we are kept safe I will be ordering random searches and checks of every single American's primary home, apartment and vehicle and any other domiciles. From time to time the police may just live with you for a few days to ensure you're not doing anything wrong. They'll stay in your house while you go to work, follow you to your doctor or dentist appointments or drop by while you're out. It goes without saying that they will stop any domestic violence before it starts, read your mail, and take every conceivable method to ensure that no one in your home is committing any crimes.  I'm also considering installing video screens in every home. This will stop domestic violence. I know you will thank me for this later when crime drops. After all I am keeping you safe.

Speaking of crime the Supreme Court just ruled, over the objections of that dammed left wing hack Antonin Scalia, to permit police to collect DNA from people accused of serious crimes. I say good for the court but why stop there? No my friends, what we need are total and complete DNA profiles. The only way to do this is to require everyone in America to visit their local police station and give a DNA sample along with their fingerprints and hair. That way we can have everyone in the database. Crime solving will be a breeze. And since so many of you intelligent folk have responded to NSA snooping reveals with witty aphorisms such as "I'm not afraid of the government knowing where I am or what I'm reading because I have nothing to hide" I am happy to report that I will be taking you all of you up on that offer. While you're down at the local constabulary giving DNA samples to Officer Friendly, the police will also be giving you something.
Microchips. 
This will allow the NSA to know where every single citizen, green card resident, visitor or illegal alien is  (within a 3-5 meter variation) at all times. Babies will of course have these chips implanted and DNA taken at birth, free of charge. Isn't that a wonderful benefit? I think so. Besides, it will keep you safe.

Since we don't need elections, I'm not too sure about the wisdom of such things as trials either. You will need to free your pretty little heads from ideas like "having your day in court"  or "innocent until proven guilty" or "the right to remain silent." Frankly I don't think you will miss them that much. Still to show that I'm a nice guy I will allow judges and trials to continue. We'll I'll just make a few, how did President Obama put it, "modest encroachments" on the trial process. First of all, all judges at all levels will be appointed by me to serve at my pleasure. Next we need to get rid of this silly "innocent until proven guilty" meme that has infected so many otherwise intelligent people. If you hadn't been doing something wrong you wouldn't have been arrested and charged. Everyone knows that. And in the RARE case that is otherwise, well any cook will tell you you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. 

Henceforth, accused criminals will be considered guilty and have to prove their innocence. And as far as remaining silent, heck if you were falsely accused wouldn't you want to speak up? Remaining silent just confirms guilt in my book. And all this nonsense about a right to an attorney or a jury trial prevents efficiency in our system. So we'll be getting rid of that. If you can't afford an attorney well you should have thought about that before you committed a crime, you silly goose. And judges, being educated legal professionals, are much better at determining guilt than the yahoos who can wind up on juries. Society will save more money by not having to waste time by selecting juries. Besides my judges will keep you safe. And isn't that the most important thing to you? I thought so.

Because of the wise reforms described above there will be much less doubt about the innocence or guilt of an accused criminal. Yet I know that some of you may have atavistic attachments to such concepts as the Bill of Rights but believe me it's more important to keep you safe. I mean that's what you're telling me every day.

Finally it has come to my attention that many of you claim to have the right to dissent and point to such things as the First Amendment to guarantee your free speech, right to petition, assemble, disagree and so on. Well obviously you weren't paying attention. When I said I would be an autocrat, were you unclear on the concept? Anyway the First Amendment has been abused by those who would harm us Dear Readers. So until we can be sure the terrorist threat has been completely eradicated I'm afraid that I will be shutting down all publishing houses, newspapers, broadcast media, cable networks and Internet service providers. Don't worry I will reopen a select few, who agree to provide continuously vetted material that gives you accurate information about the world. This will stop cancerous ideas like free speech and dissent from spreading  prevent terrorists from communicating with each other. Now some of you may squawk and complain but (1) I really wouldn't do that in front of my security force if I were you and (2) it will keep you safe , which should be the most important thing to you. Right?

There are a few other minor changes to still be worked out but these modest proposals should be sufficient for now. You can thank me later. Remember, I've got my Eye on you.
Sincerely,
Sauron, First of His Name, Ruler of the World and King of Men. 

US Government Seizing Verizon Phone Records????

I don't have very much to add about the below story. It grows out of the Patriot Act, which was initially passed under President Bush and extended/expanded under President Obama. All I can say is IF this is true then it once again proves my point that when you give government expanded power to investigate you, violate your privacy and keep a watch over what you're doing, government will use it. This is not just about President Obama and/or his advisers and appointees having a disregard for privacy or limited actions to discover leaks or criminal wrong doing. Although in my opinion they certainly do have that disregard. No the problem here is that under the Patriot Act and associated legislation this is probably all completely legal. The only limitation to executive branch snooping is not the law or divided government but the caprices or morality of various people in the executive branch. This is not how our society is supposed to work but you know what I'm starting not to care any more. The Patriot Act was passed and passed again. People just don't care about civil liberties.

IF this report is true and that's a big IF it would just be another nail in the coffin of limited government and privacy. Again, this isn't just about "bad people". If I had powers to do things like this I couldn't be trusted either. No one could which is why historically the power of the state to invade your privacy had to be done under warrant, had to be specific to an action that you allegedly took and had to have some sort of probable cause.  I honestly think that eventually we ought to just get rid of the Bill of Rights, or at least the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Because IF this story is true, it's not as if anyone in power cares much about them...with the exception of whoever leaked this story.

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. 

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. 

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered. The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.

Welcome to surveillance society. But don't worry. I'm sure the Republicans would have been worse on this issue. Or something like that. Big government is your friend. And we know that the Administration will get to the bottom of this. No expense will be spared...to find out who told the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald about all of this...IF it's true. I keep saying IF it's true because after all we know the government would NEVER grab up millions of phone records just because it could...right? Can you hear me now??

Thoughts?

Obama, Holder, Clinton: Benghazi, and DOJ AP Subpoenas

Well well well, what a difference a day makes. It was seemingly just yesterday when the President was having his inauguration and sneering at people who didn't trust the government, or thought that they were taxed enough already, thank you very much. And it wasn't that long ago that rather than answer direct questions about her role in the Benghazi situation, Secretary Clinton was screeching "What difference does it make" at questioners.

Well Madame Secretary it may make some difference after all. Yes indeed. You know just like it makes a difference that you didn't actually land under sniper fire in Bosnia. With that record of truthfulness you might understand that people don't necessarily want to take your word on something without proof.
( When you have a moment after reading this post please check out this excellent C-SPAN discussion with CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson. It's very long and not strictly speaking necessary for this post but it does clarify a great many of the issues raised by this scandal)

                          

Or it may not, it could all indeed be much ado about nothing  h/t field negro
We don't know yet. What we do know is that Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff, called Gregory Hicks, the deputy Chief of Mission in Libya, and expressed her firm displeasure that Hicks had spoken to Representative Jason Chaffetz. She was also peveed that Hicks was raising questions about the initial official explanation on Benghazi. Hicks claims that his job and competence were harshly questioned and that he was demoted. We also know that Hicks stands firm that there was a stand down order that prevented a possible rescue mission from taking place. 

The full truth has yet to reveal itself. This story is changing by the day.  By the time you read this new facts will almost certainly have been revealed. I doubt there was any sort of desire by the Obama Administration to allow attacks on American consulates. But I do think that, rightly or wrongly, whether it's in response to Republican hatred and intransigence or born out of pure technocratic arrogance that there is often an Obama Administration response to a crisis that privileges politics over all else. Maybe this is no different than any other Administration. After all why would you be kind or forthcoming with folks who have made it clear that they would like nothing better than to beat your brains out with a baseball bat?  Nevertheless when the State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, suggests removing or reworking talking points to be given to the public and media because "the information could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings" at the very least there is some inter-agency CYA behavior going on here.  At worst, well I don't think we have evidence to suggest the worst just yet. 

But withholding truthful but harmful information because you fear rivals will use it against you is wrong. It doesn't work. Think about your own job. If you or someone in your department have made a serious mistake, sooner or later it's going to come out. It's best to own up to it, put the truth out there, (wo)man up and take what you have coming to you. And this issue also shows the importance of maintaining calm and politesse under great stress. Perhaps if Mills and Jones hadn't felt entitled (for political reasons?) to tear Hicks a new one and demote him, perhaps he wouldn't be the country's newest whistleblower. But who can say. As I mentioned I don't think there's really anything here. The Republican eagerness to find something, anything on the President is too obvious. And Benghazi is just the latest in a long line of attacks on American institutions. 

Government agencies often defend overbroad exercises of power by tacitly assuming that the ends justify the means. So whether it's guns in New York where Mayor Lord Bloomberg sends out his minions to shake down anyone darker than Wentworth Miller, or California cops who enter a home without a warrant and taser a husband and wife on suspicion of domestic violence, people who are legally allowed to use coercion must be strictly watched and limited. Otherwise they have a tendency to get out of hand. I've written here and elsewhere that the Obama Administration has a mild to strong disdain for civil liberties. I think this comes from the top. It's nothing new in Washington. The entire reason that we theoretically want limited government authority is that the power of the government is so extensive. The government can compel you to do a lot of things against your will. But there are supposed to be limits. 

The Department of Justice ignored those limits. In a search for leaks around overseas activities in Yemen, the Department of Justice secretly obtained two months of phone records from AP reporters. It's unclear whether a judge signed off on this or not. 

NEW YORK –- The Associated Press revealed Monday that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of reporter and editor phone records from the spring of 2012, the latest and most illustrative example of the Obama administration's unprecedented war on leaks.

AP president and chief executive officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday that "there can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters." Pruitt demanded the DOJ return the records and destroy any copies.

The AP reported that the DOJ obtained lists of "incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery." The Justice Department seized records for more than 20 telephone lines from April and May 2012....

Obama and Holder can't be bothered to prosecute banks for bad behavior. Because that might impact the world economy or something. But evidently Holder, or to be precise, his deputy attorney general, has no issue in taking steps which make a mockery out of the First Amendment.  I think this is a much larger scandal than Benghazi. The press ignored the previous tell signs like FISA or the Patriot Act or several other laws or actions that make Swiss cheese out of constitutional protections. It's only when the press' own prerogatives are seemingly violated that it raises an uproar. Well better late than never I say. Self-interest comes through again.  It's critically important to remember that everyone leaks. People do it because they want to hurt the Administration or because they want to help the Administration or because they want to settle scores with rivals or because they've honestly run across something so bad they think every citizen needs to know about it. 

You can't have a functioning constitutional republic without an informed citizenry and a watchdog press. 

If citizens would rather read about which Hollywood starlet is sleeping with which musician/athlete and the press would rather act as the court stenographer for the King, then you can kiss democracy goodbye. You can't have a watchdog press if the government is obtaining phone records that, by their very nature, show to whom the press is talking, and what they're investigating. You would have to be extra special stupid to tell a news agency about something shady that's going on if you know that the government is getting your phone records (and tapping your phone??) Actions speak louder than words. As has been pointed out much of late, the Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Sometimes this moves into the realm of farce. The President grandly decided not to prosecute any of the CIA agents or others who tortured. How nice of him. I know if I were a torturer I'd be relieved. But a CIA agent who disclosed the torture was gleefully prosecuted and convicted. Actions speak louder than words, my friends.

Now on both the Benghazi and the AP situation there is no doubt that some of the President's critics are acting in bad faith. It was just a few weeks back that some Republicans were claiming that recognizing that the Boston bombing suspect had Miranda rights was somehow being soft on terrorism.  Good luck trying to find many mainstream Republicans or conservatives who enthusiastically support the Fourth Amendment. There are previous Presidents, Democrat or Republican, who have committed what I view as unethical, unconstitutional or outright criminal acts. But as the cop who stopped me for speeding a few years back told me when I angrily pointed out the other people exceeding the posted speed limit, "But I saw you." Obama has to live up his own standards of excellence, not just say he's like all the others. Despite Republican hostility, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The AP story in particular as well as the IRS issue which we wrote about yesterday may last a minute. And just as I am about to publish this I notice that the President is calling for a new federal shield law which would prevent the DOJ from doing what it just did. Right. In other news the New York Mafia's Five Families today urged passage of a law which would prevent extortion and loansharking....

Questions

1) Do you think the Benghazi and AP scandals matter or not?

2) Will Benghazi damage Clinton's future political plans, if any?

3) Do you think the DOJ subpoenas were overbroad?

4) Should Holder resign?

Marine Joshua Boston on Gun Ban: Unconstitutional Laws aren't Laws

f

The atrocity at Sandy Hook caused much discussion about what the United States Congress and/or the President can do about gun violence in this country. There has been a lot of talk about Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban, Vice-President Biden's task force on guns and President Obama's hints about assault weapons bans or other possible actions that he can take without Congressional approval. As you might imagine almost none of these ideas have gone over very well with people with expansive or as they would term it strict constitutional views on gun rights. One man who is getting some attention for speaking out against such possible gun control legislation is (former) Marine and Afghanistan Veteran Joshua Boston, who recently responded online at CNN to Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed assault weapons ban legislation
in pretty much the same manner as King Leonidas responded to a Persian demand to throw down his weapons all those centuries ago. His letter in full is just below:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one. 

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public. We, the people, deserve better than you. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston Cpl, United States Marine Corps 2004-2012

This letter quickly went viral. It summed up succinctly and some would say ominously the issues faced as the US struggles with the problems posed by gun violence. In order to further illuminate his stance Cpl. Boston was recently interviewed. He reiterated his viewpoint and gave a little more insight into where he was coming from regarding the right to keep and bear arms.  He didn't take anything back.

                            

As you can see these beliefs are fervently held. One person can be written off as a kook or gun nut. But if Boston is just the tip of the spear so to speak, this could mean that any legislation, even if passed, won't have the desired impact, just as the previous ban did not. After all rifles are used for a very very small portion of murders. Check out the 2011 numbers for handguns or for other weapons used.

Let's dive a little deeper and use a quick analogy to see if we can understand where Boston and people like him might be coming from. Since 1973 there has been a right to have an abortion. Millions of people consider that fundamentally settled law and don't much care to hear the other side's objections. If there ever were a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade and/or a President and Senate that would appoint justices who would do such a thing, I expect that roughly 50-55% of the country would have a serious problem with any new anti-abortion laws that proliferated. In fact I think that millions of people would simply and proudly refuse to abide by such laws, viewing them as unjust and unconstitutional. Period. I do not see any scenario in which the heads of NOW or NARAL would simply say "Well the law's the law" and agree to accept it.

Well you may not agree with the analogy but I think that is pretty close to how many gun rights people view Feinstein's proposed legislation. You are never going to get them on board because in their view owning a weapon is a fundamental constitutional right. Unlike abortion, there is a specific amendment which supports their POV. Giving that up is simply not an option. Feinstein's proposed legislation wouldn't just ban the future sale or importation of "assault weapons" however those might be defined. It would also require anyone with a grandfathered weapon (various semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns) to register them under the National Firearms Act. This is the same law under which machine guns are handled. So according to Feinstein, owning a semi-automatic weapon means that the government could and should treat you exactly the same as if you own a machine gun. That is you should be on a national list and agree that the BATF and/or other agencies could stop by your home at any time with or without warrant to inspect your weapons and insure that you are abiding by every single law which applies. You wouldn't be able to transfer this weapon without governmental permission. Any violation could result in fines, criminal charges and/or confiscation. There are also extra fees and other restrictions but I think you get the idea. It would be a massive expansion of governmental control over legally acquired handguns. It would have the over night potential of turning millions of gun owners into criminals. Obviously this is the proverbial camel nose under the tent. 

So Feinstein's legislation could be dead on arrival. It certainly won't get much (any??) Republican support in the House. If passed, we know of at least one person who would ignore it. And I imagine there are several others. Here however there are valid and important competing claims to the cries of defiance and "Come get them" emanating from some gun owners. In a republic, aren't we often obligated to obey laws that we don't like? Isn't that the whole point of civil society? Isn't the military sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution? If people feel free to ignore laws they don't like how can we possibly have a functioning society? Who the bleep does Boston think he is? If Feinstein's law passes will overfed weekend warriors really have the guts to stand up and tell the US government to stick it where the sun don't shine? Regulating guns is not the same as banning them, after all.

I don't have the answers to those questions. All I can say is that obedience to the law is not always or even necessarily the highest moral good. A country that can't seem to find and remove 11-20 million illegal immigrants is a country that will not be able to nationally register, track or ban upwards of 200 million semi-automatic weapons. We do need to have a national conversation on access to guns. We also need to talk about many other things. But having that conversation with senators and mayors who have already shown their contempt for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments doesn't make me think they will show any more respect for the Second. I think that many gun rights advocates will be getting in touch with their inner Thoreau.

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law so much as for the right. 
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law
-Henry David Thoreau

Thoughts?

Was Boston showing contempt for his oath of enlistment? 

Do you support an updated and improved Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

Do you think a Ban will pass?

Can you ever justify breaking the law? If so, when and how?