McCain: “I Always Aspire To Be A Dictator”
Presidential nominee decries congressional rejection of bailout bill
During an interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board yesterday, John McCain - presumably making an attempt at humor - said with a completely straight face that he aspired to be a dictator, while decrying the Congressional rejection of the bailout bill.
“I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.”
McCain’s senior economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin has also called on the executive branch to ignore Congress and force through the bailout legislation, which was voted down on Monday.
Another senior economic advisor to McCain, Phil Gramm, vice chairman of UBS’s US division and a lobbyist for UBS, successfully pushed for foreign banks to be included in the bailout plan after they were initially excluded.
The fact that McCain said he yearned to be a dictator without so much as cracking a smile makes the comment all the more disturbing especially in comparison to similar sentiments expressed at least three times by George W. Bush.
Bush infamously said, “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” during a December 2000 speech.
He also remarked, “A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it,” in a July 2001 Business Week interview.
When Bush was Governor of Texas in 1998 he stated, “You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.”
“Since 9/11, our Constitutional rights have been systematically dismantled:
USA Patriot Act - A 342 page document presented to Congress one day before voting on it that allows the government access to your bank and email accounts, as well as your medical and phone records with no court order. They can also search your home anytime without a warrant.
USA Patriot Act II - This one allows secret government arrests, the legal authority to seize your American citizenship, and the extraction of your DNA if you are deemed a potential terrorist.
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Ends habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, and the right to court review of one’s detention and arrest. Without this most basic right, all other rights are gone too since anyone can be detained indefinitely. Now anyone may be arrested and incarcerated and nobody would know.
NSPD 51 - A directive signed by George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, that allows the President to declare martial law, effectively transforming the U.S. into a dictatorship with no checks and balances from the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Parts of this directive are considered classified and members of Congress have been denied the right to review it.
Protect America Act of 2007 - Allows unprecedented domestic wiretapping and surveillance activities with a reduction in FISA court oversight. Probable cause is not needed.
John Warner Defense Authorization Act - Signed by George W. Bush on October 17, 2007, this act allows the President to declare a public emergency and station troops anywhere in America without the consent of the governor or local authorities to “suppress public disorder.
Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act - Passed overwhelmingly by Congress on October 23, 2007, is now awaiting a Senate vote. This act will beget a new crackdown on dissent and the Constitutional rights of American citizens. The definitions of “terrorism” and “extremism” are so vague that they could be used to generalize against any group that is working against the policies of the Administration. In this bill, “violent radicalization” criminalizes thought and ideology while “homegrown terrorism” is defined as “the planed use of force to coerce the government.” The term, “force” could encompass political activities such as protests, marches, or any other form of non-violent resistance.
The clock is ticking on the shadow government’s tracking of your every move with the so-called National ID. For those who might not be familiar with this Nazi style snooping and forced production of “Show your papers,” Rep. Sam E. Rohrer, has very thoroughly and succinctly explained it in this column. It is a must read for all Americans (perhaps this weekend) to fully understand they may soon be forced to accept the loss of their rights or lose their job:
“A few weeks ago we introduced Lowell Rogers to you. He’s a tugboat engineer. His employer is about to be brought under a security/identity scheme — a Real ID card of sorts for maritime employees. It’s called the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC). Apparently, since the Department of Homeland Security can’t get Real ID implemented, due to the largest state rebellion since the Civil War, they’ve decided to pick us off — one occupation at a time.”[1]
Congressman Ron Paul explains the real issue here:
“National ID cards are not proper in a free society,” Paul stated. “This is America, not Soviet Russia. The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so.”[2]
Voluntary v mandatory
“Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.”[3]
The State of Arizona has signed into law: NO National ID:
“Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed a bill today that prohibits the implementation of the REAL ID in Arizona. SB2677 received a Final vote of approval in the House last week by an overwhelming margin of 51 to 1. Napolitano’s signature was uncertain until today when she signed the bill into law.
“The bill prohibits implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was passed by Congress as part of a supplemental spending bill for tsunami relief and the War on Terror. The bill did not receive a hearing in either the House or the Senate, and the public was largely unaware of it until it had already been signed into law.
“Everyone thinks that the REAL ID is just about protecting us against terrorism,” said co-sponsor Senator Karen Johnson (R-18). “But it really represents a cash cow for technology companies as well as the birth of the National ID card, complete with all the biometric information that technology can handle – face recognition, fingerprints, etc.”[4]
This mess was given to us by a Republican controlled Congress (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul) and signed off by George Bush. A few Democrats made an effort to repeal it, but Pelosi was too busy making sure the House cafeteria got organic food. You have to love her priorities. The House of Nitwits is killing this country.
Clearly, the National ID is voluntary to the states. However, the Bush Administration has used blackmail to force the states to go along with this draconian plan: Either your citizens give up their rights or they will not be able to fly on commercial airplanes, travel on AMTRAK or enter a federal building. Nevada has such a convoluted schedule for issuance date and forms of ID to get this ID, look to a big, fat mess to deal with if you live in that state.[5]
Millions of Americans throughout the 50 states do NOT want this National ID rammed down their throats and have fought their state legislatures hard; most of the states have caved into the blackmail. The ones who have caved, those state reps and senators who couldn’t find the guts to stand up to a tyrannical government, should be thrown out of office in November if they’re up for reelection. If your state has passed legislation and signed by your governor to reject the National ID, be sure to call their office, tell them thank you let them know you’re behind them. These elected officials need to know the people stand with them.
So what happens next? Let’s look at the State of Arizona. John America works for Gibraltar Insurance who says he must fly to Chicago from Phoenix for business. However, Mr. America won’t be allowed to board an airplane because his state has exercised their RIGHT to say no to Chertoff, his Department of Fatherland Security and retain their sovereignty. Mr. America fully supports the rejection of this National ID, but no National ID, can’t get on the plane. Now what does Mr. America do? Let’s say Arizona State Rep. Russell Pearce has to fly to Washington, DC, on official business for the State, or even Gov. Napolitano who signed the legislation saying no. Will these elected officials of the State of Arizona be barred from getting on an airplane?
This is the conundrum of enforcement staring the Bush Administration and the next one right in the face. The Feds have already had to back up and if the states remain strong and defiant, we will win:
“But the way this turned out is so odd it’s worth repeating. States including New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and Montana have enacted laws saying “hell no we’ll never comply with Real ID.” And Homeland Security officials carefully ignored those public votes of condemnation, instead pretending that those states really intend to acquiesce by the next major deadline of December 31, 2009. (See our special report on Real ID from earlier this year.)” [6]
I submit to you there has to be a showdown and the states MUST prevail. I see no other way for this to be resolved. The states who have rejected this scheme to retain their rights and the rights of their citizens must fight. This is clearly a Tenth Amendment issue and has squat to do with the war on terrorism. With states who caved to the pressure or agree with this “show your papers” identification system and those states who have said no through a state law, what you will have is chaos next year. Mrs. America from Portland can fly to see her grand kids in Florida because she was forced to surrender her rights by their legislature, while Mr. America in Phoenix has his rights protected by his state, but can’t get on a plane to do business in Chicago.
I’ve said it before: These cards are kid’s play to compromise and forge. The next step will be forced finger printing and then the bio chips. Here in Texas, not only will they begin issuing these IDs, but the fee for a former Texas DL will jump from $24 to $100 or more and: “People will be further identified through the use of biometrics, from fingerprints to retinal scans.” [7]
A few more comments about the financial meltdown because it’s moving fast and fluid:
“About $2.8 trillion of market value was erased from global stocks this week as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy, Bank of America Corp. purchased Merrill Lynch & Co. for $50 billion, and the U.S. government took control of American International Group Inc. in an $85 billion takeover to prevent the biggest financial collapse ever. Russian Banks. Russia halted stock trading for a second day and poured $44 billion into its three biggest banks in a bid to halt the worst financial crisis in a decade.” [1]
The underlying debt is still there even though the average American really has no idea what all this means, yet. Yesterday gold jumped dramatically
“Gold surged the most in nine years as investors sought the safety of precious metals on concern that the credit crisis will deepen, leading more financial institutions to fail. [2]
While the incompetent Nancy Pelosi sputters the Democrats had nothing to do with this current crisis, [3] she left out
“The current mortgage crisis came about in large part because of Clinton-era government pressure on lenders to make risky loans in order to “make home ownership more affordable for lower-income Americans and those with a poor credit history,” the DC Examiner notes today. “Those steps encouraged riskier mortgage lending by minimizing the role of credit histories in lending decisions, loosening required debt-to-equity ratios to allow borrowers to make small or even no down payments at all, and encouraging lenders the use of floating or adjustable interest-rate mortgages, including those with low ‘teasers.’
“The liberal Village Voice previously chronicled how Clinton Administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis through his pressure on lenders to promote affordable housing and diversity. “Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments.
“He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.” (See Wayne Barrett, “Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie: How the Youngest Housing and Urban Development Secretary in History Gave Birth to the Mortgage Crisis,” Village Voice, August 5, 2008).” [4]
There can be no financial stability as long as we have a debauched currency and a corrupted monetary system:
“To be sure, when Americans are told that “justice” and “the rule of law” require them to forfeit their accumulated savings and economic security to the very institutions and individuals who enticed them out on the financial limb that the Establishment then sawed off, justifiably violent animosities towards the powers that be will arise among some citizens. For most victimized Americans, though, politicians, bankers, high finance, big business, and the intelligentsiia will finger scapegoats on whom wrongly to pin the blame for the crisis and its aftermath. This will generate increased confusion, recriminations, conflicts, and social chaos; and further divide, disarm, and ultimately defeat the forces that, if united, might effectively oppose the Establishment.
“In addition, rather than disseminating demands for sound money and honest banking in order to deal with the crisis, the controlled media will orchestrate calls for massive increases in the supply of fiat currency and credit, ostensibly in order to enable common people to pay their debts. Of course, this will necessitate the maintenance of fractional-reserve central banking to emit the new currency, as well as the creation of more, more, and even more debt to serve as “security” for these emissions–thereby perpetuating the cause of the crisis and ensuring that further crises will break out later on. In this way, credulous Americans will be duped into chaining themselves to new debts in order to pay off their old ones, rendering permanent their financial indentured servitude to the Establishment. March 21, 2005 [5]
I’ve spent most of the week helping my elderly parents and other members of my family with their banking situations, CDs and pension concerns. My email box has been drowning with desperate messages from people who are just now beginning to realize the enormity of what we’re seeing. People are also very concerned, actually feeling panic, over pension funds, 401(k)s - are they really safe? Despite the absolute stupidity out of Steve Doocy’s mouth on FAUX News Network, September 17, 2008, when he stated, “This financial crisis should be over by the end of the week,” ‘this’ isn’t going to be ‘over’ for years with the worst yet to come.
While I’m not an investment counselor nor do I sell gold or any other precious metal, you can discuss your situation with Eric at El Dorado Gold and find out your options. Gold is still the only real, safe money. As I have written so many times, the middle class is sliding into poverty and no amount of sound bites from McCain or the absurd Obama “plan” on the economy (more regulations and “universal homeowner tax breaks”) is going to stop this tragedy underway. I wish it were going to be different, but we’ve passed the point of no return. Arrogance and greed - twin monsters - has come back to bite the banking and lending industry and the American people will be the victims. When Ben Bernanke admits, “We’ve lost control,” We cannot stabilize the dollar. We cannot control commodity prices,”[5] it’s time to face the reality of this situation and act to protect yourself, your family and your future.
In late 2007, Richard Stengel wrote a cover story for Time magazine calling for a massive national service program to be imposed on American young people. If you’d like to read it, knock yourself out. Someone probably needs to smash it, but the avalanche of propaganda and nationalism you’ll find there was too demoralizing for me to attempt it. The very idea that helping someone in your neighborhood should be called “service to the nation” should be spooky and Orwellian enough, but for many people I guess it isn’t.
One thing I couldn’t get out of my head, even though it’s not by any means the weirdest aspect of the program, is Stengel’s proposal for a Cabinet-level Department of National Service. I think it was this piece of advice that struck me the most: “And don’t appoint a gray bureaucrat to this job; make it someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mike Bloomberg, who would capture the imagination of the public.”
Translation: the American people, too stupid to engage in government-approved service projects without being prodded by their betters, need a crowd-pleasing Hollywood actor to rouse them to action. Bloomberg, possibly the dullest human being in public life, would be a better choice than Schwarzenegger from my point of view: the American people would barely be able to keep awake through one of his droning appeals.
The issue has become especially important because Democratic nominee Barack Obama has embraced national service as a priority of his presidency should he win. Obama would not directly impose forced labor on young people, but would instead withhold educational funds from them and their institutions if they fail to comply. (Yes, they shouldn’t be taking these funds in the first place, but there is something sinister in Obama’s program all the same.) We should, he says, “set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year.”
That’s not quite Stengel’s proposed year to which morose and resentful young people would be sentenced to “volunteer” against their will, but it’s a start, and federal programs don’t exactly have a record of contracting once they get off the ground.
This is not just an Obama problem; Republican John McCain supports “volunteerism” funded by Washington, and just about everyone believes in the federal government’s power to conscript Americans into the armed forces. One way or another, whether it’s the empire’s welfare or warfare division, they have no compunctions about making you do what they want.
Not that anyone cares, but just where in the Constitution (that some people laughingly pretend limits Washington’s power) is there mention of a power to drive American citizens into involuntary service to the federal government? Kevin Gutzman and I ask the question in our new book, Who Killed the Constitution? The point of our book is not so much to wring our hands over the poor Constitution and dream about how wonderful it would be to return to it (as much of an improvement as that would surely be). The point, as in this example, is to show how government really works, in contrast to the pristine model kids learn in “social studies.” Alleged restrictions like the Constitution pose no restraints on government at all, which merely interprets them out of existence. This process is not only fascinating in its own right, but it also speaks volumes about the nature of government, which is why we wrote a book about it.
For example, the Thirteenth Amendment seems clear enough:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Very simple: there can be no involuntary servitude in the United States except in the case of those convicted of crimes. Right?
Let’s see what happened when the Supreme Court finally took up the issue. Although Chief Justice Roger Taney had written a memorandum on the subject in 1863, dismantling the government’s case for conscription point by point before the future Thirteenth Amendment had even been drafted, it was not until what became known as the Selective Draft Law Cases of 1917 that the Court took up the question formally. The defendants in these cases had refused to present themselves for the draft, enacted by the Conscription Act of 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson called on them to do so. They asserted that the draft law was unconstitutional on various grounds, among them that the Constitution had not given Congress a draft power. Lower courts upheld their convictions.
Chief Justice Edward White’s views on the subject were relatively unsurprising. “As the mind cannot conceive an army without the men to compose it,” he wrote, “on the face of the Constitution, the objection that it does not give power to provide for such men would seem to be too frivolous for further notice.” So if government has the power to raise armies, it therefore has the power to raise them by any means whatever, including by forcing people to serve. (I guess that falls under the “necessary and proper” clause.)
White pointed to “the almost universal legislation” allowing conscription around the world as evidence against the claim that the U.S. government lacked this power. He provided citations to the draft laws recently in effect in Argentina, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Belgian Empire, Brazil, the Bulgarian monarchy, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, the Chinese Empire, the Danish monarchy, Ecuador, the French Empire, the Greek monarchy, the German Empire, Guatemala, Honduras, the Italian monarchy, the Japanese Empire, Mexico, the Yugoslav monarchy, the Dutch Empire, Nicaragua, the Norwegian monarchy, Peru, the Portuguese monarchy, the Rumanian monarchy, the Russian Empire, the Siamese monarchy, the Spanish Empire, Switzerland, El Salvador, the Ottoman Empire, Canada, and South Africa. In short, the examples of Asian and European imperial republics (such as France) and monarchies of various stripes, South Africa, Switzerland, the Windsor Dominion of Canada, and a number of Latin American banana republics were marshaled by Chief Justice White to disprove the assertion that Americans were supposed to be free.
Daniel Webster, speaking half a century before the Thirteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, argued in a memorable speech for the unconstitutionality of the draft:
Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty.
That’s not quite what the Supreme Court would say, just over a century later, in the Selective Draft Law Cases. There, the possibility that anyone could describe forced labor in the service of the central state’s military ambitions as involuntary servitude is indignantly dismissed without even the pretense of an argument. That is, unless you consider this an argument: it’s an honor to serve the government, and an honor cannot be involuntary servitude. It is a “supreme and noble duty” to fight what Daniel Webster called “the battles of any war in which the folly or wickedness of government may engage,” so we’ll have none of this Thirteenth Amendment nonsense!
Here are Chief Justice White’s exact words:
Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
So Justice White is so appalled by the comparison of conscription to involuntary servitude that he declares, without argument, that it refutes itself. Well, that’s all I need to hear. The defendants must have marched out of the courtroom in shame when they heard that.
As usual, Ron Paul gets to the heart of things: “Young people are not raw material to be employed by the political class on behalf of whatever fashionable political, military, or social cause catches its fancy. In a free society, their lives are not the playthings of government.”
No kind of conscription, whether on behalf of the welfare or the warfare sectors of the imperial capital, can be reconciled with freedom. Nor can it be reconciled with the Constitution. But those who govern us laugh with contempt at such arguments. And yet Americans persist in the delusion that they have a Constitution that limits their government. There is something deeply pathological about this. What else can be said?
New microchipped passports designed to be foolproof against identity theft can be cloned and manipulated in minutes and accepted as genuine by the computer software recommended for use at international airports.
Tests for The Times exposed security flaws in the microchips introduced to protect against terrorism and organised crime. The flaws also undermine claims that 3,000 blank passports stolen last week were worthless because they could not be forged.
In the tests, a computer researcher cloned the chips on two British passports and implanted digital images of Osama bin Laden and a suicide bomber. The altered chips were then passed as genuine by passport reader software used by the UN agency that sets standards for e-passports.
The Home Office has always argued that faked chips would be spotted at border checkpoints because they would not match key codes when checked against an international data-base. But only ten of the forty-five countries with e-passports have signed up to the Public Key Directory (PKD) code system, and only five are using it. Britain is a member but will not use the directory before next year. Even then, the system will be fully secure only if every e-passport country has joined.
Some of the 45 countries, including Britain, swap codes manually, but criminals could use fake e-passports from countries that do not share key codes, which would then go undetected at passport control.
The tests suggest that if the microchips are vulnerable to cloning then bogus biometrics could be inserted in fake or blank passports.
Tens of millions of microchipped passports have been issued by the 45 countries in the belief that they will make international travel safer. They contain a tiny radio frequency chip and antenna attached to the inside back page. A special electronic reader sends out an encrypted signal and the chip responds by sending back the holder’s ID and biometric details.
Britain introduced e-passports in March 2006. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the United States demanded that other countries adopt biometric passports. Many of the 9/11 bombers had travelled on fake passports.
The tests for The Times were conducted by Jeroen van Beek, a security researcher at the University of Amsterdam. Building on research from the UK, Germany and New Zealand, Mr van Beek has developed a method of reading, cloning and altering microchips so that they are accepted as genuine by Golden Reader, the standard software used by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to test them. It is also the software recommended for use at airports.
Using his own software, a publicly available programming code, a £40 card reader and two £10 RFID chips, Mr van Beek took less than an hour to clone and manipulate two passport chips to a level at which they were ready to be planted inside fake or stolen paper passports.
A baby boy’s passport chip was altered to contain an image of Osama bin Laden, and the passport of a 36-year-old woman was changed to feature a picture of Hiba Darghmeh, a Palestinian suicide bomber who killed three people in 2003. The unlikely identities were chosen so that there could be no suggestion that either Mr van Beek or The Times was faking viable travel documents.
“We’re not claiming that terrorists are able to do this to all passports today or that they will be able to do it tomorrow,” Mr van Beek said. “But it does raise concerns over security that need to be addressed in a more public and open way.”
The tests also raise serious questions about the Government’s £4 billion identity card scheme, which relies on the same biometric technology. ID cards are expected to contain similar microchips that will store up to 50 pieces of personal and biometric information about their holders. Last night Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, called on ministers to take urgent action to remedy the security flaws discovered by The Times. “It is of deep concern that the technology underpinning a key part of the UK’s security can be compromised so easily,” he said.
The ability to clone chips leaves travellers vulnerable to identity theft when they surrender their passports at hotels or car rental companies. Criminals in the back office could read the chips and clone them. The original passport holder’s name and date of birth could be left on the fake chip, with the picture, fingerprints and other biometric data of a criminal client added. The criminal could then travel the world using the stolen identity and the original passport holder would be none the wiser.
The Home Office said last night that it had yet to see evidence of someone being able to manipulate data in an e-passport. A spokesman said: “No one has yet been able to demonstrate that they are able to modify, change or alter data within the chip. If any data were to be changed, modified or altered it would be immediately obvious to the electronic reader.”
The International Civil Aviation Organisation said: “The PKD ensures that e-passports used at border control points . . . are genuine and unaltered. In effect it renders the passport fool-proof. However, all states issuing e-passports must join the PKD, otherwise that assurance cannot be given.”
Going biometric
1999 International Civil Aviation Organisation begins study into possibility of worldwide use of travel documents carrying biometric data
2002 After 9/11 US announces all passports issued from 2006 and used to enter the country must contain biometric information or holder will require a visa
2006 Britain and many EU countries introduce biometric passports
2008 45 countries have introduced biometric passports. 100 million have been issued globally
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New Yorkers can soon take a bite out of city crime by uploading video or photo evidence directly to the New York Police Department, in a move welcomed on Thursday by civil rights groups.
“We’re putting that technology in place to enable us to do that,” said Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, adding that the service will be available soon.
“It’s a fact of life,” Kelly said. “Everybody has a camera in their telephones. When people can record an event taking place that helps us during an investigation, it’s helpful.”
Soon citizen sleuths can transmit evidence of criminal activity directly to the police and 911, including evidence of police misconduct, such as the recent video of a police officer shoving a bicyclist to the ground in Times Square.
The video of the incident has received over one million views on YouTube and has generated online discussion about police brutality and abuse of power.
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union said, “I think that while it’s appropriate for the police department to invite video reports of wrong doing both by ordinary people and police officers, the New York Police Department has a long way to go to ensure that police officers who engage in wrongdoing like what was captured in the two video tapes that were recently disclosed are held accountable.”
When travelers go to the airport, they know what kind of security to expect: luggage searches, metal detectors and shoe inspections.
It’s all part of our post 9-11 reality enforced by the Transportation Security Adminstration. But as CBS 2 Investigator Pam Zekman reports, thousands of travelers have complained that some of these screenings can become abusive and even x-rated.
For arguing with a TSA agent, Robin Kassner wound up being slammed to the floor. She’s filed a lawsuit.
“I kept begging them over and over again get off of me … and they wouldn’t stop,” Kassner said.
And it wasn’t enough for another woman to show TSA agents nipple rings that set off a metal detector. The agents forced her to take them out.
Mandi Hamlin said, “I had to get pliers and pull it apart.”
In Chicago, people like Robert Perry are subjected to exhaustive security checks. He was patted down, his wheel chair was examined and his hands were swabbed, all in public view in a see-through room at the security checkpoint. Perry, 71, is not alone
“It’s humiliation,” Perry said.
Perry was also taken to a see-through room by a TSA agent when his artificial knee set off the metal detector.
“He yelled at me to get the belt off. ‘I told you to get the belt off.’ So I took the belt off. He ran his hands down over and pulled the pants down, they went down around my ankle,” Perry said.
At that point, Perry was standing in his underwear in public view. He asked to see a supervisor. That made things worse.
“She was yelling ‘I have power, I have power, I have power,” Perry said. The power to stop him from flying to Florida with his wife that day to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.
“It makes you feel like you have no rights,” Perry said.
Perry said he always alerts TSA agents about his metal knee and wonders why they can’t just check his leg.
“If somebody told me that I would save the people on the airplane by taking my pants off out in public out there, I wouldn’t mind doing it, but this was not necessary,” Perry said.
TSA officials said that when the metal detectors go off, their agents must resolve what caused the alarm. But experts have said it’s important to use common sense when balancing security and customer service.
Carlos Villarreal, former director of security for the Sears Tower, said proper training is crucial. “When you’re wanding somebody and you can identify which part of the body set of the alarm, that should be sufficient to clear a person,” Villarreal said.
But all too often, it’s not enough for 16-year old Michael Angone. She frequently flies as a member of the Chicago Children’s Choir.
“I’ve had to completely take my pants off and show them like my entire leg,” Angone said.
As a baby, Angone was diagnosed with cancer. Her parents, both Chicago police officers, had to have her leg amputated. She said she always warns TSA security agents that her prosthetic leg will set off the metal detector, but many insist on doing an embarrassing full body pat-down.
“I feel like I’m being felt up in public,” Angone said.
Her father Bob Angone wanted to know, “What’s the reason for all the feeling up, you know the groping at the back of the neck, the chest, underneath the bra, all the groping on her body, her buttocks?”
CBS 2 News asked the TSA those questions, but got no answers.
“The key word here is reasonable, and they have gone off the track. They are not reasonable,” Bob Angone said.
The TSA declined to comment on the Angone and Perry cases, but the agency has announced that soon, passengers who set off an alarm that cannot be resolved will have a choice: Agree to a physical pat-down or what some believe is an even worse invasion of privacy.
This fall, O’Hare International Airport will get its first advanced digital x-ray machine. It allows TSA agents to see through clothes and discover any hidden weapons. Critics have likened it to a virtual strip search.
A spokesman said that out of 2 billion passengers screened nationwide since 9-11, there have been only 110,000 abuse complaints.
As for the nipple ring case, TSA did change its procedures regarding body piercings.
The private military contractor Blackwater Worldwide has frequently been embroiled in controversy for its activities in Iraq and elsewhere. Last fall, the Iraqi government attempted to revoke Blackwater’s license to work in that country after contractors opened fire at a Baghdad intersection, killing eight civilians.
In an interview with the Associated Press on Monday, Blackwater’s president, Gary Jackson, announced that the firm has already reduced its security contracting and expects to get out of that business almost entirely.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also raised questions about the use of private contractors to provide training for US forces, asking, “are we comfortable with this practice, and do we fully understand the implications in terms of quality, responsiveness and sustainability?”
However Blackwater founder and CEO Eric Prince doesn’t believe the US government can do without him. In a drive around Blackwater’s training center in Moyock, NC, Prince acknowledged that “we take a lot of grief for the work we’ve done,” but he also boasted to the Associated Press about his firm’s operations, including “the guys that fly into rough, unimproved strips to do tactical airlift support.”
“You know, we did 11,000 missions last year in Afghanistan,” Prince said. “Our total invoice … was less than the air force is spending on one C-27 aircraft. … It’s a benefit to the US government to go to the outside to do that mission.”
Prince does recognize that his firm’s focus will have to change. “The security business is what it is,” he opined. “I don’t see that growing a lot. I mean, Iraq is getting progressively better. … The experience we’ve had would certainly be a disincentive to any other companies that want to step in and put their entire business at risk.”
However, Prince foresees that “whoever takes over in January, whatever party, the US government is still going to need a lot of this kind of work done. Companies like us are going to be necessary to do the work.” He also noted that “at our core, we’ve always been trainers, and that will continue.”
This video is from The Associated Press, broadcast July 21, 2008.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has figured prominently in recent political news for his attempts to begin impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush, today announced that the congressional subcommittee he chairs will look into reports of peace groups being surveilled by police and private investigators.
“[M]ost people would be upset to know that police were spying on lawful citizens and infiltrating peaceful organizations, rather than chasing down real criminals,” said Kucinich in a press release delivered to RAW STORY. “At a minimum, such police spying is clearly a waste of taxpayer dollars and a diversion from the mission of protecting and serving the people.
“I want the subcommittee to determine how widespread these activities are and who ordered them,” the Ohio Democrat and former presidential candidate said.
Kucinich chairs the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The press release referred to reports that Maryland state police officers infiltrated peace and anti-death penalty groups and that private investigators working on behalf of “several large corporations” had surveilled environmental groups.
Such surveillance is apparently not limited to law enforcement and private investigators. In January 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a report showing “widespread Pentagon surveillance of peace activists.”
Terrorism liaison officers have been getting a lot of attention in the national press lately. But the bottom line of what they do is basically old-fashioned police work, according to the state police coordinating the effort in Arizona.
The TLOs, as they are called, keep their eyes and ears open for any suspicious activity.
The three-year-old program is part of the Arizona Department of Public Safety and its Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, the state’s intelligence fusion center. The 75 to 80 TLOs are specially trained police officers, firefighters and police crime analysts. They report suspicious behavior they see in the course of their jobs. The reports are put in the state database for further investigation, and could be sent to federal terrorist databases.
DPS Lt. Larry Perry, the man in charge of Arizona’s TLOs, thinks they are necessary. Although he admits their jobs include a concept that all police officers and firefighters should follow, he says TLOs have learned a lot more than that during 40 hours of special training.
“This is situational awareness where people who work in critical infrastructures throughout the state are reporting suspicious activities,” Perry said. “TLOs are not getting information on private citizens in their homes. This is a speciality unit that links TLOs together for the purpose of reporting suspicious activity.”
Perry said TLOs in Arizona have reported theft of military clothing, police or fire uniforms and equipment. He added that TLOs are deployed to large public gatherings of 500 or more people where the potential for terrorism exists so they can assist law enforcement officials.
“If we were to see one person taking a lot of pictures of the power plant at Palo Verde (nuclear plant), that could be a terrorist opportunity,” Perry said.
The program has received four federal and state grants ranging from $200,000 to $500,000, according to Perry. They range from 24 months to 36 months.
Sgt. Brent Olson, a member of the Mesa Police Department emergency services and counter terrorism teams, is a TLO. He believes the program provides an important link between law enforcement and fire protection agencies.
“A lot of it is straight-up crime prevention, but with a twist,” Olson said.
“We’re focused with speciality other units. Something may happen here in Mesa and TLOs can work their counterparts in other cities to check if there’s anything going on there. We can contact each other directly and share information. We don’t have to go through others as we might have had to do. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a good program.”
Perry scoffs at the notion that the program may be likened to snooping.
“It’s not ‘Big Brother’ at all, but I can see that the ACLU might have a problem with it,” he said.
Alessandra Soler Meetze , executive director of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said her concern is the program might give inexperienced or undertrained volunteers the opportunity to target people because of ethnicity or religion.
“What we don’t want is a policy that encourages non-law enforcement personnel to keep tabs on their neighbors,” Meetze said. “This sounds like good police work and smart profiling based on behavior rather than racial or ethnic factors. The policy clearly targets behavior. We just need to keep tabs on DPS to make sure their officers and volunteers in practice don’t cross the line and begin replacing suspicious activity with skin color when targeting individuals.”
Perry said the reporting of suspicious information by TLOs is based upon suspicious activities and incidents, not on race or religious preference.
Suspicious activity is defined in TLO training as behavior that could lead to terrorism, such as taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value, making measurements or notes, espousing extremist beliefs or conversing in code, according to a draft Department of Justice/Major Cities Chiefs Association document.
Last night on MSNBC’s Coundown, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley noted that just this week, a federal judge rejected President Bush’s claim that his “constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped” the FISA wiretapping law. Judge Vaughn Walker explicitly stated that the President is bound by FISA
Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted. Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.
In other words, when Bush contravened the FISA law by authoring warrantless wiretaps through the National Security Agency, he broke the law. Turley said last night that this is an “inconvenient fact” for many in Congress to admit:
Nobody wants to have a confrontation over the fact that the President committed a felony – not one, but at least 30 times. That’s a very inconvenient fact right now in Washington.
Bush has acknowledged that he reauthorized his illegal wiretapping program “more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks.”
Tomorrow, July 8th, could mark the beginning of official condoning of warrantless surveillance of law-abiding citizens in the US, not to mention foreign nationals. Much of this information has been covered by Glenn Greenwald in the past week.
In the video below, I talk about what every American needs to know — and do in the next 24 hours — about the new FISA (Federal Information and Surveillance Act) amendments. The interview, and below partial transcription, answers questions like…
-I don’t have anything to hide. How does this affect me?
-What if this type of surveillance is what has prevented another 9/11 from happening?
-What are common inaccuracies about FISA reported in the media?
Find below how you can make a real impact in less than 60 seconds. Every person counts — the Senators who will vote are watching the numbers. 41 Senators can block the bill, and it’s not too late.
Please do the following: How I ask you to spend 60 seconds
1. ALL AMERICANS: Go to the EFF website here and put in your zipcode to find your Senator’s phone number. Call them and read the short script on the same page. If no answer, click the link at the bottom of the page to e-mail them.
(Tell others verbally to go to “www.eff.org” and click “take action”)
2. OBAMA SUPPORTERS: Go to My.BarackObama.com here and join the group requesting he oppose (as he did earlier) the amendment. This takes about 30 seconds. I suggest changing “ListServ” in the bottom right to “Do not receive e-mails.” (Tell others verbally to search “obama please vote no” on Google and My.BarackObama.com will be in the top 3 results, currently #1)
1. Why does the vote this Tuesday, July 8th matter to normal people who have nothing to hide?
Ordinary citizens who want to live in a democracy — including those with nothing to hide — should be concerned about the ability of the government to use private, sensitive personal information to blackmail, manipulate, and intimidate their representatives, journalists and their sources, potential whistleblowers, and activists or dissenters of any sort.
2. Couldn’t it be argued that this type of surveillance ability has prevented another 9/11 from happening? Isn’t it possible that this type of legislation has saved American lives?
The administration has claimed that is has, but without presenting a single piece of evidence that this is so, even in closed hearings to Senators with clearances on the Intelligence Committee. The FISA court has granted warrants in virtually every request that’s been made of it that has any color of helping national security. The administration’s decision to bypass that court, illegally, leads to a strong suspicion that they are abusing domestic spying, as some of their predecessors did, in ways that even the secret FISA court would never approve.
3. What are the most important factual inaccuracies about FISA found in the media?
Advocates of the bill take pride that it makes this amended FISA the exclusive basis for overhearing citizens, but that exclusivity is, in fact, in the current 30-year-old FISA bill already. President Bush simply ignored it in bypassing FISA, and there’s not reason that he and his successors would not continue to do the same here.
It’s been inaccurately stated that if this amendments didn’t pass, FISA would expire. This is flatly false. FISA is open-ended and will continue as it already has, adequately for 30 years. What would expire are some blanket surveillance orders authorized last year, which the majority of Democrats, including Senator Obama, voted against.
The current bill does include one useful amendment to FISA, which could be passed with virtually unanimous approval in an afternoon, to allow warrantless interception of foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to pass through the United States. No one opposes this.
Various administration officials have claimed that the requirement of applying for a warrant from the FISA court deprived them of speed and flexibility. This is false. The FISA allows for surveillance to be implemented in an emergency situation before a warrant is sought, and that could undoubtedly be extended with Congressional approval without controversy.
What the administration seeks, and this bill provides, is permanent warrantless surveillance.
4. Let’s consider an analogy: police officers have the legal right to stop you if you’re going 56 mph in a 55-mph zone, but this right isn’t often abused or applied to harass citizens. What makes you think the administration would abuse their surveillance powers if this amendment is approved?
The abuses of surveillance to which governments are drawn are those that keep them in office, used to intimidate and manipulate their rivals, and to avoid debate and dissent on their policies. These are exactly the abuses that the Church Committee discovered in 1975, which had been conducted on a wide-scale by the Johnson and Nixon administrations, and in some cases even earlier, which is what lead to FISA in the first place.
To remove judicial oversight, which this amendment would effectively do, is to invite the same kind of repressive abuse that lead to FISA in the first place.
5. Why would the current administration want this amendment to pass, if not for safety of citizens and prevention of attacks?
Using NSA to spy without judicial oversight or constraint on American citizens provides the infrastructure for dictatorship. George W. Bush has frequently said what other presidents may only have thought: “It would be a heck of a lot easier in a dictatorship, if only I were the dictator.”
Other presidents have violated the law and the Constitution in much the same way as Bush, so long as they could do it secretly, but they haven’t proclaimed that as a right of their office as Bush, Cheney and their legal advisors have done.
The oath of office they took, along with all members of Congress, was to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. I believe that, in the matters we’ve been discussing, the Founders had it right, not only for their time but for ours.
