Stop whining and get with The Progromme

Stop whining and get with The Progromme

Thursday, August 21, 2008

"Big Brother" Presidential Directive: "Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security


by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9296

The latest Big Brother police state measure emanating from the Bush administration, with virtually no press coverage, is NSPD 59 (HSPD 24) entitled Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security [Complete text of NSPD 59 (HSPD 24) in Annex below]

NSPD is directed against US citizens.

It is adopted without public debate or Congressional approval. Its relevant procedures have far-reaching implications.

NSPD 59 goes far beyond the issue of biometric identification, it recommends the collection and storage of "associated biographic" information, meaning information on the private lives of US citizens, in minute detail, all of which will be "accomplished within the law":

"The contextual data that accompanies biometric data includes information on date and place of birth, citizenship, current address and address history, current employment and employment history, current phone numbers and phone number history, use of government services and tax filings. Other contextual data may include bank account and credit card histories, plus criminal database records on a local, state and federal level. The database also could include legal judgments or other public records documenting involvement in legal disputes, child custody records and marriage or divorce records."(See Jerome Corsi, June 2008)

The directive uses 9/11 as an all encompassing justification to wage a witch hunt against dissenting citizens, establishing at the same time an atmosphere of fear and intimidation across the land.

It also calls for the integration of various data banks as well as inter-agency cooperation in the sharing of information, with a view to eventually centralizing the information on American citizens.

In a carefully worded text, NSPD 59 "establishes a framework" to enable the Federal government and its various police and intelligence agencies to: "use mutually compatible methods and procedures in the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information of individuals in a lawful and appropriate manner, while respecting their information privacy and other legal rights under United States law."

The Directive recommends: "actions and associated timelines for enhancing the existing terrorist-oriented identification and screening processes by expanding the use of biometrics".

"Other Categories of Individuals"

The stated intent of NSPD 59 is to protect America from terrorists, but in fact the terms of reference include any person who is deemed to pose a threat to the Homeland. The government requires the ability:

"to positively identify those individuals who may do harm to Americans and the Nation... Since September 11, 2001, agencies have made considerable progress in securing the Nation through the integration, maintenance, and sharing of information used to identify persons who may pose a threat to national security.


The Directive is not limited to KSTs, which in Homeland Security jargon stands for "Known and Suspected Terrorists":

"The executive branch has developed an integrated screening capability to protect the Nation against "known and suspected terrorists" (KSTs). The executive branch shall build upon this success, in accordance with this directive, by enhancing its capability to collect, store, use, analyze, and share biometrics to identify and screen KSTs and other persons who may pose a threat to national security.

The executive branch recognizes the need for a layered approach to identification and screening of individuals, as no single mechanism is sufficient. For example, while existing name-based screening procedures are beneficial, application of biometric technologies, where appropriate, improve the executive branch's ability to identify and screen for persons who may pose a national security threat. To be most effective, national security identification and screening systems will require timely access to the most accurate and most complete biometric, biographic, and
related data that are, or can be, made available throughout the executive branch."



NSPD 59 calls for extending the definition of terrorists to include other categories of individuals "who may pose a threat to national security".

In this regard, it is worth noting that in the 2005 TOPOFF (Top officials) anti-terror drills, two other categories of individuals were identified as potential threats: "Radical groups" and "disgruntled employees", suggesting than any form of dissent directed against Big Brother will be categorized as a threat to America.

In a previous 2004 report of the Homeland Security Council entitled Planning Scenarios, the enemy was referred to as the Universal Adversary (UA).

The Universal Adversary was identified in the scenarios as an abstract entity used for the purposes of simulation. Yet upon more careful examination, this Universal Adversary was by no means illusory. It included the following categories of potential "conspirators":

"foreign [Islamic] terrorists" ,

"domestic radical groups", [antiwar and civil rights groups]

"state sponsored adversaries" ["rogue states", "unstable nations"]

"disgruntled employees" [labor and union activists].

According to the DHS Planning Scenarios Report :

"Because the attacks could be caused by foreign terrorists; domestic radical groups; state sponsored adversaries; or in some cases, disgruntled employees, the perpetrator has been named, the Universal Adversary (UA). The focus of the scenarios is on response capabilities and needs, not threat-based prevention activities." (See Planning Scenarios )

Under NSPD 59, biometrics and associated biographical information will be used to control all forms of social dissent.

Domestic radical groups and labor activists envisaged in various counter terrorism exercises, constitute in the eyes of the Bush administration, a threat to the established economic and political order.

In the text of NSPD 59, these other categories of people have been conveniently lumped together with the KSTs ("known and suspected terrorists"), confirming that the so-called anti-terror laws together with the Big Brother law enforcement apparatus and its associated data banks of biometric and biographic information on US citizens are intended to be used against all potential domestic "adversaries" including those who oppose the US led war in the Middle East and the derogation of the Rule of Law in America.

It is worth noting that NSPD 59 was issued on June 5, 2008, 4 days prior to the publication of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush by the House of Representatives. Article XXIII of the Articles Impeachment underscore how in derogation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the military from intervening in civilian law enforcement, President Bush:

"a) has used military forces for law enforcement purposes on U.S. border patrol;

b) has established a program to use military personnel for surveillance and information on criminal activities;

c) is using military espionage equipment to collect intelligence information for law enforcement use on civilians within the United States"

In Article XXIV the president is accused on Spying on American Ctizens without a court-Ordered Warrant , In Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ANNEX

Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security [Complete text of NSPD 59 (HSPD 24) in Annex below]


National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive






NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD -- 59
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD -- 24

SUBJECT: Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security

Purpose

This directive establishes a framework to ensure that Federal executive departments and agencies (agencies) use mutually compatible methods and procedures in the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information of individuals in a lawful and appropriate manner, while respecting their information privacy and other legal rights under United States law.

Scope

(1) The executive branch has developed an integrated screening capability to protect the Nation against "known and suspected terrorists" (KSTs). The executive branch shall build upon this success, in accordance with this directive, by enhancing its capability to collect, store, use, analyze, and share biometrics to identify and screen KSTs and other persons who may pose a threat to national security.

(2) Existing law determines under what circumstances an individual's biometric and biographic information can be collected. This directive requires agencies to use, in a more coordinated and efficient manner, all biometric information associated with persons who may pose a threat to national security, consistent with applicable law, including those laws relating to privacy and confidentiality of personal data.

(3) This directive provides a Federal framework for applying existing and emerging biometric technologies to the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of data in identification and screening processes employed by agencies to enhance national security, consistent with applicable law, including information privacy and other legal rights under United States law.

(4) The executive branch recognizes the need for a layered approach to identification and screening of individuals, as no single mechanism is sufficient. For example, while existing name-based screening procedures are beneficial, application of biometric technologies, where appropriate, improve the executive branch's ability to identify and screen for persons who may pose a national security threat. To be most effective, national security identification and screening systems will require timely access to the most accurate and most complete biometric, biographic, and related data that are, or can be, made available throughout the executive branch.

(5) This directive does not impose requirements on State, local, or tribal authorities or on the private sector. It does not provide new authority to agencies for collection, retention, or dissemination of information or for identification and screening activities.

Definitions

(6) In this directive:

(a) "Biometrics” refers to the measurable biological (anatomical and physiological) and behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition; examples include fingerprint, face, and iris recognition; and

(b) "Interoperability" refers to the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged.

Background

(7) The ability to positively identify those individuals who may do harm to Americans and the Nation is crucial to protecting the Nation. Since September 11, 2001, agencies have made considerable progress in securing the Nation through the integration, maintenance, and sharing of information used to identify persons who may pose a threat to national security.

(8) Many agencies already collect biographic and biometric information in their identification and screening processes. With improvements in biometric technologies, and in light of its demonstrated value as a tool to protect national security, it is important to ensure agencies use compatible
methods and procedures in the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric information.

(9) Building upon existing investments in fingerprint recognition and other biometric modalities, agencies are currently strengthening their biometric collection, storage, and matching capabilities as technologies advance and offer new opportunities to meet evolving threats to further enhance national security.

(10) This directive is designed to (a) help ensure a common recognition of the value of using biometrics in identification and screening programs and (b) help achieve objectives described in the following: Executive Order 12881 (Establishment of the National Science and Technology Council); Homeland Security Presidential Directive‑6 (HSPD‑6) (Integration and Use of Screening Information to Protect Against Terrorism); Executive Order 13354 (National Counterterrorism Center); Homeland Security Presidential Directive‑11 (HSPD‑11) (Comprehensive Terrorist Related Screening Procedures); Executive Order 13388 (Further Strengthening the Sharing of Terrorism Information to Protect Americans); National Security Presidential Directive‑46/Homeland Security Presidential Directive‑15 (NSPD-46/HSPD-15) (U.S. Policy and Strategy in the War on Terror); 2005 Information Sharing Guidelines; 2006 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism; 2006 National Strategy to Combat Terrorist Travel; 2007 National Strategy for Homeland Security; 2007 National Strategy for Information Sharing; and 2008 United States Intelligence Community Information Sharing Strategy.

Policy

(11) Through integrated processes and interoperable systems, agencies shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, make available to other agencies all biometric and associated biographic and contextual information associated with persons for whom there is an articulable and reasonable basis for suspicion that they pose a threat to national security.

(12) All agencies shall execute this directive in a lawful and appropriate manner, respecting the information privacy and other legal rights of individuals under United States law, maintaining data integrity and security, and protecting intelligence sources, methods, activities, and sensitive law enforcement information.

Policy Coordination

(13) The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall be responsible for interagency policy coordination on all aspects of this directive.

Roles and Responsibilities

(14) Agencies shall undertake the roles and responsibilities herein to the fullest extent permitted by law, consistent with the policy of this directive, including appropriate safeguards for information privacy and other legal rights, and in consultation with State, local, and tribal authorities, where appropriate.

(15) The Attorney General shall:

(a) Provide legal policy guidance, in coordination with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), regarding the lawful collection, use, and sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information to enhance national security; and

(b) In coordination with the DNI, ensure that policies and procedures for the consolidated terrorist watchlist maximize the use of all biometric identifiers.

(16) Each of the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the DNI, and the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall:

(a) Develop and implement mutually compatible guidelines for each respective agency for the collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information, to the fullest extent practicable, lawful, and necessary to protect national security;

(b) Maintain and enhance interoperability among agency biometric and associated biographic systems, by utilizing common information technology and data standards, protocols, and interfaces;

(c) Ensure compliance with laws, policies, and procedures respecting information privacy, other legal rights, and information security;

(d) Establish objectives, priorities, and guidance to ensure timely and effective tasking, collection, storage, use, analysis, and sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information among authorized agencies;

(e) Program for and budget sufficient resources to support the development, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of biometric capabilities consistent with this directive and with such instructions as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may provide; and

(f) Ensure that biometric and associated biographic and contextual information on KSTs is provided to the National Counterterrorism Center and, as appropriate, to the Terrorist Screening Center.

(17) The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the DNI, shall coordinate the sharing of biometric and associated biographic and contextual information with foreign partners in accordance with applicable law, including international obligations undertaken by the United States.

(18) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), shall coordinate executive branch biometric science and technology policy, including biometric standards and necessary research, development, and conformance testing programs. Recommended executive branch biometric standards are contained in the Registry of United States Government

Recommended Biometric Standards and shall be updated via the NSTC Subcommittee on Biometrics and Identity Management.

Implementation

(19) Within 90 days of the date of this directive, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, the DNI, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, submit for the President's approval an action plan to implement this directive. The action plan shall do the following:

(a) Recommend actions and associated timelines for enhancing the existing terrorist-oriented identification and screening processes by expanding the use of biometrics;

(b) Consistent with applicable law, (i) recommend categories of individuals in addition to KSTs who may pose a threat to national security, and (ii) set forth cost-effective actions and associated timelines for expanding the collection and use of biometrics to identify and screen for such individuals; and

(c) Identify business processes, technological capabilities, legal authorities, and research and development efforts needed to implement this directive.

(20) Within 1 year of the date of this directive, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, the DNI, and the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, a report on the implementation of this directive and the associated action plan, proposing any necessary additional steps for carrying out the policy of this directive. Agencies shall provide support for, and promptly respond to, requests made by the Attorney General in furtherance of this report. The Attorney General will thereafter report to the President on the implementation of this directive as the Attorney General deems necessary or when directed by the President.

General Provisions

(21) This directive:

(a) shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, including international obligations undertaken by the United States, and the authorities of agencies, or heads of such agencies, vested by law;

(b) shall not be construed to alter, amend, or revoke any other NSPD or HSPD in effect on the effective date of this directive;

(c) is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NSA Security Officer: We Should Just Kill These People

August 19, 2008 at 10:36:15

NSA Security Officer: We Should Just Kill These People

by Richard Volaar

When somebody within your own government calls you out, do you show up? How do you handle it?

Wayne Madsen, always spoiling for a fight with Bush and Cheney, or the chance to show off his undies to minimum wage airport TSA workers, has an executive level NSA staff person on record saying that significant sentiment exists within the NSA to kill troublesome bloggers and journalists.

The NSA executive staffer was, apparently, not the source of the sentiment, but this individual did pass along the context and the precise wording of the "junior G-man" working in the NSA. Prominent names listed in the NSA database of troublemakers?

1. Bill Gertz
2. James Bamford
3. Vernon Loeb
4. Jim Risen
5. Dr. John C. K. Daly
6. Wayne Madsen
7. Seymour Hersh

These were all the names Madsen published, but there are, of course, many others. Possibly you, gentle reader.

If not now, probably later.

http://cryptome.org/

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Support Your Local Rape Gang

By William N. Grigg at PRO LIBERTATE, One of the best liberty bloggers on the net!
http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/











Did these guys really tease an 18-year-old boy about his looks? Confessed jail rape facilitator Clinton Shawn Sydnor (left), and his accused co-conspirators Wesley Lanham (middle) and Shawn Freeman (right).



If you can stand to, take a careful look at the faces at the top of this page.

Do they inspire respect, confidence, a quiet sense of gratitude for public service courageously rendered? Or do they look like the kind of human detritus one would find lurking in the vicinity of the local Junior High, leering at underage girls (or boys)?


How would your answer change if, instead of being seen in a police mug shot, each of the individuals above were swaddled in a government-issued police costume and clothed in the supposed majesty of the "law"?


You see, these three guys, who are accused of conspiring in the jailhouse rape of an 18-year-old high school student, are former deputies in the employ of the Grant County, Kentucky Sheriff's Department. Sgt. Clinton Shawn Sydnor, the fetching item on the left, was the highest-ranking officer on duty that night at the Grant County Detention Center, located in tiny Williamstown, Kentucky.


Sydnor has entered a guilty plea and agreed to testify against the other two, Wesley Lanham and Shawn Freeman, in consideration of a reduced sentence, most likely 15 years in prison. The others, who insist that they're being used as scapegoats, confront the prospect of life sentences.


According to the indictment, these three decided to have a little fun with a terrified teenager who was arrested and jailed on Valentine's Day 2003 for driving 35 mph over the speed limit and attempting to elude the police.


These heroes in the cause of public order -- each of whom apparently considers himself the beau ideal of masculinity -- taunted the kid about his physical appearance: He reportedly weighed about 120 lbs., had blond highlights in his hair, and wore satin underwear.


Living down to every cinematic stereotype of the dim-witted, in-bred rural prison guard (stereotypes have to come from somewhere, I suppose), the deputies told the young boy he'd make a good "girlfriend" for some of the other inmates.


Clothing their sadism in an imbecile's notion of pedagogy, the deputies decided to teach a "lesson" to the boy -- who was, remember, in police custody because of a minor traffic infraction: They invited a group of convicted felons to run a train on the terrified kid. Rather than placing him in the "drunk tank," as standard procedure would require, they threw him into a remote holding area with 14 feral convicts, locking the door behind him amid predatory taunts: "Come in here, girlfriend" -- "Bring him to me!" -- "Happy Valentine's Day!"


The victim was seized by the other inmates, stripped, taken to a shower, and raped until he passed out. When he regained consciousness, he began to scream for help -- only to be grabbed again and forced to perform oral sex on the other prisoners.


It's impossible to believe that specimens like those pictured above -- certified members of the Epsilon Semi-Moron caste, Huxley's taxonomy -- could have locked up the kid with a pack of recidivist felons without knowing exactly what would happen to the victim. They knew he would be sexually violated, physically traumatized, emotionally shattered. That's the result they were seeking, because the "lesson" they wanted to teach to this helpless kid was this: You are the State's bitch.


Granted, to the extent that the cerebral activity called "thought" took place within the craniums of these tax-subsidized perverts, they almost certainly didn't think of their actions in such expansive terms. Instead, they most likely acted on an atavistic tribal impulse to get this uppity kid to show some "respect for the uniform." But this is merely a particularized application of the general tendency on the part of those who exercise State-authorized coercion.


It wasn't just the three cretins pictured above who conspired in this hideous crime. Other deputies were on duty, and at least some of them played a hands-on role. All of them must have known what was going on, and since nobody tried to stop it, everyone on that shift must be considered an accomplice.


And this brings us to a point that has to be driven home with the pitiless force of a jackhammer: It is the guilty, collusive silence of good police officers that makes possible the ever-accumulating atrocities of the "bad" ones.


Had one conscientious deputy exclaimed, "You can't do that!" as the others prepared to feed the teenager to a rape gang, it most likely wouldn't have happened.


At least one deputy, a female guard, suffered a fit of conscience so severe that it caused her to have a seizure. She asked Freeman to drive her home, a fact from which he is trying to wring an alibi. That effort isn't likely to succeed, since the female guard has pointed out that the seizure was a reaction to her knowledge of what was happening to the boy -- a fact of which Freeman was likewise aware. She was also reacting to a threat I'll describe anon.


While the victim was being raped, those who facilitated that crime did what police in such circumstances always do. They lied, devising a cover story -- namely, that a plugged floor drain in the "drunk tank" made it necessary to confine the teenager with a pack of felons. They also falsified shift logs by reporting frequent visits to check on the welfare of the victim, when not a single such visit took place.


And Sgt. Sydnor, the ringleader of this criminal conspiracy, intimidated one would-be whistleblower -- the above-mentioned female guard -- by threatening her with harm unless she lied to support the cover story. Although the perpetrators disagree about allocating the blame, the facts are undisputed. The boy and his family sued the County and won a $1.4 million settlement. Three of the inmates involved in the attack have been prosecuted and convicted of the crime.


But this matter is being tried in federal court as a "civil rights" matter, rather than locally, as it should, because a state grand jury refused to indict any of the guards who were on duty the night of the gang-rape. I suspect, but cannot presently demonstrate, that this outcome reflects an absence of zeal on the part of the prosecutor, which is generally how things turn out in cases of this kind.


This was not the only case of deputy-abetted jail rape reported at the Grant County Detention Center (GCDC).


Just a few months prior to the Valentine's Day episode, deputies arranged for an inmate with a mental disability to experience prison rape: They locked him up with a federal prisoner serving a life sentence and claimed, falsely, that the mentally handicapped inmate had sexually molested a child. This could have led to homicide, given that child molesters are regularly beaten and killed behind bars. In this case, the victim was "only" raped and forced to perform oral sex on another prisoner.










Yes, it does look like a Government School: The Grant County Detention Center.


The tax-fattened sadists at that brand-new facility (it opened in 2000, and received a 50-bed upgrade last year) routinely used criminal violence to "teach a lesson" to a prisoner.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Deputy tasers high school student against direct orders

02/19/2008 @ 10:18 am
Filed by David Edwards and Adam Doster


Outside a Maryland high school gym last Wednesday, sophomore Brandon Bennett got into a small altercation with a fellow student. It was after a basketball game and tempers were high, but the the two were separated by officials and students without much problem. Only then did things get really violent.

According to Julius Bennett, the student's father, Deputy Anthony Lenzi fired a Taser at his son after being told twice by a senior officer it was not necessary.

"He left two puncture wounds just above his heart in his chest," says Bennett. "And [Brandon] said to me that he was in quite a bit of pain because he could feel electric shocks going throughout his whole body."

The father says he has written proof Sgt. Mathew Kempel twice ordered Lenzi to holster the weapon, but Lenzi fired anyway, hitting the teen in the chest.

"Brandon did absolutely nothing wrong," says Bennett, "and there was no reason to use that type of force on my son."

The Queen Anne's County Sheriff's Office says Lenzi has been reassigned to internal duties while authorities investigate the allegations. Bennett is hoping fair punishment is given.

"I will not be satisfied until I know that Deputy Lenzi will be in a position to never to this to anyone else's child ever again."

http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=9345
This video is from CNN.com, broadcast February 19, 2008.

The Death if Timothy Souders



Scott Pelley On The Plight Of The Mentally Ill Behind Bars
July 22, 2007
from CBSnews.com


You wouldn't imagine these days that a mental patient could be chained to a concrete slab by prison guards until he died of thirst, but that’s how Timothy Souders died and he is not alone.

Souders suffered from manic depression. And like a lot of mental patients in this country, he got into trouble and ended up not in a hospital, but in jail. It was a shoplifting case and he paid with his life.

As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, no one would have been the wiser, but a medical investigator working for a federal judge caught wind of Souders' death and discovered his torturous end was recorded on videotape. The tapes, which are hard to watch, open a horrifying window on mental illness behind bars.

Clip showing the death of Timothy Souder and commentary

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Quit Resisting!

Don't Kill Me!
I can't breathe



Thursday, August 7, 2008

God save the mentally ill from the sick cops-Another taser/abuse death

I'm guessing that this man was having mental, emotional or some sort of altered state. The mentally ill are getting he worst of this. No compassion allowed.
Another big reason I cannot work with these bullys.

Lex
entire article here;


[. . . ]Another woman recounted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette what she saw after four officers forced Thomas to the ground. "'They killed that man. They killed him. They killed him,' she added, her hands trembling. The woman said she saw one officer stomp on Mr. Thomas's upper back, holding his foot there while the subject lay on the sidewalk with his head hanging over the curb. Another officer 'reared back and punched him in the head with all his might,' she said."

Thomas vomited, then lay motionless. An ambulance arrived and he was was treated at the scene by emergency medical personnel. Police allege Thomas was conscious at the time, but he was pronounced dead after being taken to a local hospital.

Teach her to march without a permit!




www.photoneil.net


Although he says Svoboda’s injury was “unfortunate,” Richard Fossa, chief of staff to North Providence Mayor Charles Lombardi, says, “The police officers weren’t found to be doing anything they don’t usually do,” and he confirms, “No one was reprimanded in any way.”




A series of 42 pictures of the march here;
http://jonathanmcintosh.smugmug.com/gallery/3293537_JGVms/1/182885443_Kim7L/Medium

All photography is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License.
photographer Jonathan McIntosh

"It's a good, nonlethal weapon for somebody who is out of control"

{CNN) -- Heidi Gill admits she had been drinking at a bar in Warren, Ohio, and gotten into a "disagreement" with a bartender earlier this month. But she said she didn't deserve to have a police officer use a Taser gun on her multiple times.


Warren, Ohio, officer Rich Kovach is on paid administrative leave pending an investigation.

1 of 2 Video footage from the police cruiser shows Gill, 38, crawling on the ground while the officer stands over her with the stun gun. She's screaming wildly. At one point, officer Rich Kovach shoves her with his foot as she struggles.

"I've never been electrocuted," she told CNN's "American Morning" on Wednesday. "I didn't know what this was. And I really didn't think this pain was ever going to stop. It was nonstop."

She said she was trying anything to get away "so I could live."

What's with Maryland these days-Raid Mayor and kill his dogs

What is the problem in Maryland? First we find out about the untoward state police surveillance of pacifists and now this.
Lex


Pr. George's Officers Lacked 'No-Knock' Warrant in Raid
Authorities, Who Broke Down Door During Search for Drugs at Home of Berwyn Heights Mayor, Had Said They Obtained Document


By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 6, 2008; B01



Prince George's County authorities did not have a "no-knock" warrant when they burst into the home of a mayor July 29, shooting and killing his two dogs -- contrary to what police said after the incident.

Judges in Maryland can grant police the right to enter a building and serve a search warrant without knocking if the judge finds there is reasonable suspicion to think evidence might be destroyed or the officers' safety might be endangered in announcing themselves.

A Prince George's police spokesman said last week that a Sheriff's Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers were operating under such a warrant when they broke down the door of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, shooting and killing his black Labrador retrievers.

But a review of the warrant indicates that police neither sought nor received permission from Circuit Court Judge Albert W. Northrup to enter without knocking. Northrup found probable cause to suspect that drugs might be in the house and granted police a standard search warrant.

"There's nothing in the four corners of the warrant saying anything about the Calvos being a threat to law enforcement," said Calvo's attorney, Timothy Maloney. "This was a lawless act by law enforcement."

Police spokesman Henry Tippett said yesterday that the statement about the warrant that public affairs officers released Friday was based on information provided by Maj. Mark Magaw, commander of the narcotics enforcement division. A request to interview Magaw was not immediately granted yesterday, and Tippett said he could not explain the discrepancy.

"That was the information that was given to us," he said.

Calvo's home was raided after he brought a package addressed to his wife inside from his front porch. Police had been tracking the package since a dog sniffed the presence of drugs in Arizona. It was delivered to the house by police posing as deliverymen and left on the porch on the instruction of Calvo's mother-in-law.

After the raid, police found the unopened package, containing 32 pounds of marijuana, in the house. According to law enforcement sources, police are investigating whether a deliveryman might have been the intended recipient of the package instead of Calvo or his wife. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is open.

Calvo has said that sheriff's deputies entered without knocking and began shooting immediately, killing 7-year-old Payton first, then shooting 4-year-old Chase as he ran to another room.

Sheriff Michael Jackson (D) has not returned several messages about the case. Sgt. Mario Ellis, a Sheriff's Office spokesman, said last Wednesday that deputies regretted shooting the dogs but that they had felt threatened by them. He has not returned calls since.

The case has highlighted friction between law enforcement agencies. The county police and Sheriff's Office have jurisdiction throughout Prince George's and typically handle major crimes, but they share jurisdiction with smaller police forces in some of the county's 27 towns and cities.

Berwyn Heights Police Chief Patrick Murphy has been highly critical of the county police for not alerting his eight-member department before the raid. He said his officers could have gained entry to the home without incident or informed county police that Calvo was unlikely to be violent.

Greenbelt Police Chief James R. Craze said yesterday that county officers contacted his 54-member department the day of the raid to ask whether his emergency response unit could serve the warrant. County police have said the Sheriff's Office was asked to participate because its team was busy at the time. Craze said it is not unusual for agencies to cooperate in such cases.

"From what I know, their SWAT team wasn't available, and that's why they were out shopping," he said.

He said his department, which conducts a drug raid a month, declined to take part because it is authorized to operate outside city limits only when the raid is conducted by a regional task force led by the Maryland State Police. County police are not part of the task force, Craze said.

Craze said county police do not always alert his officers when operating in Greenbelt. "Obviously, I would prefer that they do," he said.

The warrant issue will probably only heighten anger in the community over the incident. Even when a search warrant has been issued, courts have held that police must generally knock to announce their presence, preserve the privacy of a homeowner and let occupants know they are not experiencing an illegal home invasion.

"It's a traditional constitutional protection, going back forever," said defense attorney Richard A. Finci, who is not involved with the Calvo case.

Police officers are sometimes allowed to search without knocking, even without getting authority in advance, but courts have ruled they can do so only if there are specific circumstances at the time of the search that lead officers to conclude evidence might be destroyed or law enforcement could be endangered, said lawyer William C. Brennan, who is not involved with the case.

Were Calvo or his wife, Trinity Tomsic, to be charged in the case, the issue of the search could come up if prosecutors tried to introduce the box of marijuana as evidence. More likely, experts said, the issue could form the basis of a civil rights lawsuit filed by the family against the county in the incident.

Another issue that could arise in court is whether officers provided Calvo a copy of the warrant at the time of the raid, as required by law. Maloney said they did not, even though a detective signed a sworn statement to the judge indicating that he had. Instead, the detective brought the warrant to Calvo several days later, Maloney said.

Maloney said that Calvo and Tomsic are waiting for an explanation from law enforcement and that it would be premature discuss legal action

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Kill Navy Seals disguised as Iranian-Cheney considers..



HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.



Yeah, What Dr. Ben Marble said. Ditto that.
Lex

Taser Death- Teen Tased for 37 seconds Dies

I have no background on this incident but looking at the video reveals no threatening motions by the 17 year old that would justify delivering a solid 37 second jolt to his sternal area.

What was he electrocuted for? Being a smart ass?


Friday, August 1, 2008

No Real Threat: The Pentagon's Secret Database on Peaceful Protest (1/17/2007)

In December 2005, major media outlets began reporting that a highly secretive component of the Department of Defense was accumulating and maintaining information on peaceful groups within the United States. The reports were a disturbing echo of an earlier era of unchecked and illegal government surveillance — an era when the FBI
under J. Edgar Hoover infiltrated civil rights and peace groups, and the United States military maintained secret files on tens of thousands of American citizens.

The disclosures cried out for congressional oversight and investigation. Yet Congress was silent. In an attempt to learn more about the extent of the Pentagon's surveillance activities and the policies that had authorized them, the American Civil Liberties Union and several of its state affiliates filed Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf
of dozens of groups that had protested against the Administration's foreign policy. What we have learned is troubling. What we still don't know may be even more disturbing. It is time for Congress to act, and to ensure that Americans may once again exercise their First Amendment rights without fear that they will be tracked in a government database of suspicious activities.


PDF
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/spyfiles_norealthreat_20070117.pdf

article;
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/27988pub20070117.html

Cellphone Tracking Powers on Request

I am researching the myriad of ways that we can be tracked and any evidence of law enforcement or government use of these methods in violation of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Any evidence of such activities must be met with outrage and action by Americans or we will bear, in part, responsible for the rapid downhill slide of our country into the common abyss of Fascism.

Lex Sentry



Cellphone Tracking Powers on Request
Secret Warrants Granted Without Probable Cause

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 23, 2007; A01



Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas. The requests and orders are sealed at the government's request, so it is difficult to know how often the orders are issued or denied.

The issue is taking on greater relevance as wireless carriers are racing to offer sleek services that allow cellphone users to know with the touch of a button where their friends or families are. The companies are hoping to recoup investments they have made to meet a federal mandate to provide enhanced 911 (E911) location tracking. Sprint Nextel, for instance, boasts that its "loopt" service even sends an alert when a friend is near, "putting an end to missed connections in the mall, at the movies or around town."

With Verizon's Chaperone service, parents can set up a "geofence" around, say, a few city blocks and receive an automatic text message if their child, holding the cellphone, travels outside that area.

"Most people don't realize it, but they're carrying a tracking device in their pocket," said Kevin Bankston of the privacy advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Cellphones can reveal very precise information about your location, and yet legal protections are very much up in the air."