President of MEChA club at Palomar College deported
By Linda Lou
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
5:48 p.m. January 16, 2008
NORTH COUNTY– The president of the MEChA club at Palomar College has been deported to Mexico, immigration officials said Wednesday. Paola Oropeza, 22, was arrested Jan. 8 by a
fugitive operations team with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Lauren Mack, a
spokeswoman for the department in San Diego.
Oropeza had been ordered to leave the country by an immigration judge, but failed to comply with that order, Mack said. At the time of her arrest, Oropeza was in the country illegally and was taken to Tijuana, Mack said.
Oropeza did not have a criminal record, Mack said, but could not provide details about her
immigration background. Oropeza was arrested along with three other people who are believed to be her family members, Mack said. One is still in deportation proceedings.
When reached on a cell phone Wednesday, Oropeza declined to comment. She said her attorney has advised her not to talk to the media.
MEChA, or Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, is a Latino student group with chapters
in high schools and colleges. It focuses on empowerment through education as well as
political, cultural and social awareness.
A staff assistant in Palomar College's student affairs office who works with student clubs said
Oropeza was president in 2007 and remained in that role this year. She said MEChA is fairly
active on campus, especially in the fall. The group holds a cultural event on campus each
winter called a “Night of Culture” and collects toys for the needy through the event.
Linda Lou: (760) 737-7574;
linda.lou@uniontrib.com
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20080116-1748-bn16mecha.html
Thursday, January 17, 2008
México: The NAFTA, crude oil and something else
PROGRESO WEEKLY
January 17-23, 2008
México: The NAFTA, crude oil and something else
“Without corn there is no homeland, neither without bean.” And without petroleum?
By Eduardo Dimas
Ordinarily, little is said in the international media about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which became effective Jan. 1, 1994.
Recently, more has been printed about the ASPNA (Alliance for the Security and Prosperity of North America), a monstrosity intended to strengthen the neoliberal model and U.S. domination over the other two partners.
The enactment of the NAFTA coincided with the uprising of the Zapatistas in Chiapas and a major crisis in the Mexican economy, which provoked an urgent intervention by the government of William Clinton, which provided a loan of more than $14 billion so Mexico could get out of its mess.
The consequences of that economic disaster ("the tequila effect") lasted for a long time. Today, 14 years and a few days later, very few people remember those events. The Zapatistas make the headlines once in a while.
Now, the NAFTA has again attracted the attention of the media, as one of the clauses of the treaty takes effect in Mexico. That clause frees from import tariffs several agricultural products from the United States and Mexico, among them corn and beans, two of the main products of Mexican agriculture.
The media attention is directed not so much at the activation of that clause but at the protests it has raised among peasant organizations and agrarian labor unions, which see competition from U.S. and Canadian products as a serious threat to their economies.
To them, it is impossible to compete, because of the differences in technical development and because U.S. agricultural products are subsidized.
In 2006 alone, the U.S. government distributed $18 billion among U.S. farmers.
According to leaders of peasant organizations, since the NAFTA was signed, two million jobs have been lost in Mexican farms, the prices of farm products fell between 40 percent and 70 percent, and Mexico's alimentary dependence on the United States rose by 40 percent in 2006.
So far, the mobilization of farmers throughout Mexico to demand a renegotiation of the NAFTA, including a demonstration in the capital and a human wall in the city of Juárez, on the border with the U.S., have been unsuccessful.
Through its Secretary of Agriculture, the Mexican government has said that the NAFTA has brought more benefits than ills, and that Mexican production and the agricultural industry are doing well. Many analysts and observers counter that that assertion is either wrong or does not match reality.
According to some critics of the Mexican governments (from Salinas de Gortari to this date), it was no coincidence that the signing of the NAFTA was preceded by an amendment to Article 27 of the Constitution, which forbade the sale of the "ejidos," or communal lands.
Those critics say that the objective of Salinas de Gortari, Zedillo, Fox and now Felipe Calderón was -- and is -- to remove the largest possible number of people from the countryside, thus permitting the food transnational corporations to assume control of the Mexican agricultural industry.
Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but if we analyze how the big U.S. food producers and marketers today control the distribution of food in Mexico, it might be true. Only one of those companies is Mexican-owned.
In an article published in the daily La Jornada, titled "Agriculture and free trade: a fallacy," journalist Luis Hernández Serrano points out that "According to information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agricultural food trade balance between Mexico and the United States clearly represents a deficit for our country. It has been so ever since the start of the NAFTA. Until October 2007, Mexican imports totaled more than $10.487 billion, while exports barely added up to $8.479 billion.
"The same has happened since 1994. National purchases of food products to our neighbor totaled about $10.881 billion in 2006 and sales rose to $9.39 billion. In 2005, we imported $9.429 billion and exported $8.33 billion."
Hernández Serrano adds that what somewhat saves Mexico's food trade balance with the United States is the sale of beer, which in 2006 amounted to $1.3 billion. One might inquire if beer production remains in Mexican hands or if it went to foreign hands, like almost all other industries.
Even before the clause on the most sensitive farm products went into effect, the NAFTA had caused the ruination of 40 percent of Mexican farmers, several million people and a massive exodus from the countryside to the cities. Not to mention an increase in the number of people who want to enter the U.S. illegally.
According to some Mexican media, beginning in 1994, the Mexican authorities permitted the importation of corn and beans from the United States and Canada without charging tariffs, thus violating the rules established in the NAFTA itself. The same happened with rice, cotton and milk, products that Mexico used to export.
So, it is difficult to think that the current Mexican government will renegotiate the NAFTA with the United States and Canada. Rather, it may do everything possible to comply with the accord, no matter what the consequences.
The small and midsize farmer (with less than 100 hectares of land) is sentenced to ruination, because he cannot compete with U.S. farmers, particularly with the big producers and marketers of food, who are investing large sums of money in the Mexican agriculture.
Another issue at hand is the complaint by Mexican farmers about the use of genetically modified seeds, to the detriment of the homegrown seeds, which are beginning to disappear. To utilize those seeds means to depend, from now on, on companies like Monsanto, Cargill, Bayer or BASF, because the resulting product is a hybrid seed, that is, it cannot be planted again.
If you think of a policy designed so that the big transnational corporations may control Mexican agriculture, in collusion with the Mexican oligarchy, you will not be far from the truth. The NAFTA is the best expression of neoliberalism; the ASPNA is its purest application.
"The fields can take no more," says one of the slogans of the peasant protests. The next most used is "without corn, there is no country; without beans, the same." The slogans are accurate. But, what about without crude oil?
For years now, Mexican personalities from all political parties have been denouncing the systematic policy of the government to privatize Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), an endeavor prohibited by the Constitution and something that no government has convinced the Congress to amend.
Nevertheless, the different governments have created the conditions for such a privatization in a not-too-distant future. For example, little by little, they have postponed the necessary repairs and expansions of the industries that carry out the extraction, transportation and refinement of crude oil and natural gas.
They have also plunged PEMEX into debt, with the objective of eventually provoking the "necessary" intervetion of private enterprises. Last year, PEMEX's debt amounted to $107 billion. A paradoxical fact about that policy of privatization is that PEMEX contributes more than 50 percent of the state budget.
On Jan. 9, the Coordinating Commission for the Defense of Petroleum (CCDP) called for a national movement to denounce the delivery of Mexican crude to the foreign transnational corporations, even when the Constitution forbids it.
The reason for the call was the enactment of a contract given to Energy Maintenance to provide security to more than half of PEMEX's oil pipeline. According to the CCDP, the transaction initiated the transfer of PEMEX's strategic zones to private companies -- a concession that violates the Mexican Constitution.
The CCDP also pointed out that, for the past 25 years, the neoliberal governments have been looking for a pretext to privatize crude oil and electricity and that now they are drafting laws to permit a greater private participation in that industry.
The most significant aspect of the complaint is that PEMEX's leadership has kept secret its links to five foreign oil companies. PEMEX directors even made a commitment to those foreign firms not to report those links to the Federal Institute of Access to Information.
According to the CCDP, PEMEX signed the accords and agreed to pay a fine if it broke its pact of silence with Royal Dutch Shell (Anglo-Dutch), Chevron (U.S.), Nexen (Canada) and Statoil (Norway).
I think you will agree with me that PEMEX"s privatization is closer at hand than most people think, unless the Mexican people and progressive organizations form a common front to prevent that event.
The tendency of some sectors of the oligarchy and bourgeoisie to sell their country away is surprising. But let's not forget what happened in Argentina during the military dictatorship and later, during the 10 years of Carlos Menem's administration. They simply sold everything to foreign companies.
Sometimes we forget that neoliberalism is not only an economic model. It is also an ideology that places the free market, business, above any other consideration, be it nationalist or patriotic.
If the alimentary transnationals manage to control the Mexican agriculture and oil is privatized, how much economic and political independence would Mexico retain? It would become practically annexed to the United States, but with a dividing wall that would prevent Mexicans from crossing the border.
The people of Juárez do not deserve that fate.
January 17-23, 2008
México: The NAFTA, crude oil and something else
“Without corn there is no homeland, neither without bean.” And without petroleum?
By Eduardo Dimas
Ordinarily, little is said in the international media about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which became effective Jan. 1, 1994.
Recently, more has been printed about the ASPNA (Alliance for the Security and Prosperity of North America), a monstrosity intended to strengthen the neoliberal model and U.S. domination over the other two partners.
The enactment of the NAFTA coincided with the uprising of the Zapatistas in Chiapas and a major crisis in the Mexican economy, which provoked an urgent intervention by the government of William Clinton, which provided a loan of more than $14 billion so Mexico could get out of its mess.
The consequences of that economic disaster ("the tequila effect") lasted for a long time. Today, 14 years and a few days later, very few people remember those events. The Zapatistas make the headlines once in a while.
Now, the NAFTA has again attracted the attention of the media, as one of the clauses of the treaty takes effect in Mexico. That clause frees from import tariffs several agricultural products from the United States and Mexico, among them corn and beans, two of the main products of Mexican agriculture.
The media attention is directed not so much at the activation of that clause but at the protests it has raised among peasant organizations and agrarian labor unions, which see competition from U.S. and Canadian products as a serious threat to their economies.
To them, it is impossible to compete, because of the differences in technical development and because U.S. agricultural products are subsidized.
In 2006 alone, the U.S. government distributed $18 billion among U.S. farmers.
According to leaders of peasant organizations, since the NAFTA was signed, two million jobs have been lost in Mexican farms, the prices of farm products fell between 40 percent and 70 percent, and Mexico's alimentary dependence on the United States rose by 40 percent in 2006.
So far, the mobilization of farmers throughout Mexico to demand a renegotiation of the NAFTA, including a demonstration in the capital and a human wall in the city of Juárez, on the border with the U.S., have been unsuccessful.
Through its Secretary of Agriculture, the Mexican government has said that the NAFTA has brought more benefits than ills, and that Mexican production and the agricultural industry are doing well. Many analysts and observers counter that that assertion is either wrong or does not match reality.
According to some critics of the Mexican governments (from Salinas de Gortari to this date), it was no coincidence that the signing of the NAFTA was preceded by an amendment to Article 27 of the Constitution, which forbade the sale of the "ejidos," or communal lands.
Those critics say that the objective of Salinas de Gortari, Zedillo, Fox and now Felipe Calderón was -- and is -- to remove the largest possible number of people from the countryside, thus permitting the food transnational corporations to assume control of the Mexican agricultural industry.
Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but if we analyze how the big U.S. food producers and marketers today control the distribution of food in Mexico, it might be true. Only one of those companies is Mexican-owned.
In an article published in the daily La Jornada, titled "Agriculture and free trade: a fallacy," journalist Luis Hernández Serrano points out that "According to information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agricultural food trade balance between Mexico and the United States clearly represents a deficit for our country. It has been so ever since the start of the NAFTA. Until October 2007, Mexican imports totaled more than $10.487 billion, while exports barely added up to $8.479 billion.
"The same has happened since 1994. National purchases of food products to our neighbor totaled about $10.881 billion in 2006 and sales rose to $9.39 billion. In 2005, we imported $9.429 billion and exported $8.33 billion."
Hernández Serrano adds that what somewhat saves Mexico's food trade balance with the United States is the sale of beer, which in 2006 amounted to $1.3 billion. One might inquire if beer production remains in Mexican hands or if it went to foreign hands, like almost all other industries.
Even before the clause on the most sensitive farm products went into effect, the NAFTA had caused the ruination of 40 percent of Mexican farmers, several million people and a massive exodus from the countryside to the cities. Not to mention an increase in the number of people who want to enter the U.S. illegally.
According to some Mexican media, beginning in 1994, the Mexican authorities permitted the importation of corn and beans from the United States and Canada without charging tariffs, thus violating the rules established in the NAFTA itself. The same happened with rice, cotton and milk, products that Mexico used to export.
So, it is difficult to think that the current Mexican government will renegotiate the NAFTA with the United States and Canada. Rather, it may do everything possible to comply with the accord, no matter what the consequences.
The small and midsize farmer (with less than 100 hectares of land) is sentenced to ruination, because he cannot compete with U.S. farmers, particularly with the big producers and marketers of food, who are investing large sums of money in the Mexican agriculture.
Another issue at hand is the complaint by Mexican farmers about the use of genetically modified seeds, to the detriment of the homegrown seeds, which are beginning to disappear. To utilize those seeds means to depend, from now on, on companies like Monsanto, Cargill, Bayer or BASF, because the resulting product is a hybrid seed, that is, it cannot be planted again.
If you think of a policy designed so that the big transnational corporations may control Mexican agriculture, in collusion with the Mexican oligarchy, you will not be far from the truth. The NAFTA is the best expression of neoliberalism; the ASPNA is its purest application.
"The fields can take no more," says one of the slogans of the peasant protests. The next most used is "without corn, there is no country; without beans, the same." The slogans are accurate. But, what about without crude oil?
For years now, Mexican personalities from all political parties have been denouncing the systematic policy of the government to privatize Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), an endeavor prohibited by the Constitution and something that no government has convinced the Congress to amend.
Nevertheless, the different governments have created the conditions for such a privatization in a not-too-distant future. For example, little by little, they have postponed the necessary repairs and expansions of the industries that carry out the extraction, transportation and refinement of crude oil and natural gas.
They have also plunged PEMEX into debt, with the objective of eventually provoking the "necessary" intervetion of private enterprises. Last year, PEMEX's debt amounted to $107 billion. A paradoxical fact about that policy of privatization is that PEMEX contributes more than 50 percent of the state budget.
On Jan. 9, the Coordinating Commission for the Defense of Petroleum (CCDP) called for a national movement to denounce the delivery of Mexican crude to the foreign transnational corporations, even when the Constitution forbids it.
The reason for the call was the enactment of a contract given to Energy Maintenance to provide security to more than half of PEMEX's oil pipeline. According to the CCDP, the transaction initiated the transfer of PEMEX's strategic zones to private companies -- a concession that violates the Mexican Constitution.
The CCDP also pointed out that, for the past 25 years, the neoliberal governments have been looking for a pretext to privatize crude oil and electricity and that now they are drafting laws to permit a greater private participation in that industry.
The most significant aspect of the complaint is that PEMEX's leadership has kept secret its links to five foreign oil companies. PEMEX directors even made a commitment to those foreign firms not to report those links to the Federal Institute of Access to Information.
According to the CCDP, PEMEX signed the accords and agreed to pay a fine if it broke its pact of silence with Royal Dutch Shell (Anglo-Dutch), Chevron (U.S.), Nexen (Canada) and Statoil (Norway).
I think you will agree with me that PEMEX"s privatization is closer at hand than most people think, unless the Mexican people and progressive organizations form a common front to prevent that event.
The tendency of some sectors of the oligarchy and bourgeoisie to sell their country away is surprising. But let's not forget what happened in Argentina during the military dictatorship and later, during the 10 years of Carlos Menem's administration. They simply sold everything to foreign companies.
Sometimes we forget that neoliberalism is not only an economic model. It is also an ideology that places the free market, business, above any other consideration, be it nationalist or patriotic.
If the alimentary transnationals manage to control the Mexican agriculture and oil is privatized, how much economic and political independence would Mexico retain? It would become practically annexed to the United States, but with a dividing wall that would prevent Mexicans from crossing the border.
The people of Juárez do not deserve that fate.
Institutionalized Spying on Americans
Institutionalized Spying on Americans - by Stephen Lendman
This article reviews two police state tools (among many in use) in America. One is new, undiscussed and largely unknown to the public. The other was covered in a December article by this writer called Police State America. Here it's updated with new information.\
The National Applications Office (NAO)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established a new domestic spying operation in 2007 called the National Applications Office (NOA) and described it as "the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States." The office was to begin operating last fall to "build on the long-standing workof the Civil Applications Committee (CAC), which was created in 1974 to facilitate the use of the capabilities of the intelligence community for civil, non-defense uses in the United States."\
\
With or without congressional authorization or oversight, the executive branch is in charge and will let NAO use state-of-the-art technology, including military satellite imagery, to spy on Americans without their knowledge. Implementation is delayed, however, after Committee on Homeland Security Chairman, Bennie Thompson, and other committee members raised questions of "very serious privacy and civil liberties concerns." In response, DHS agreed to delay operating (officially) until all matters are addressed and resolved. \
\
Given its track record post-9/11, expect little more than pro forma posturing before Congress signs off on what Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, calls "Big Brother in the Sky" and a "police state" in the offing.\
\
DHS supplies this background information on NAO. Post-9/11, the Director of National Intelligence appointed an Independent Study Group (ISG) in May, 2005 to "review the current operation and future role of the (1974) Civil Applications Committee and study the current state of Intelligence Community support to homeland security and law enforcement entities." \
\
In September 2005, the Committee produced a "Blue Ribbon Study," now declassified. Its nine members were headed by and included three Booz Allen Hamilton officials because of the company's expertise in spying and intelligence gathering. Its other members have similar experience. They all have a vested interest in domestic spying because the business potential is huge for defense related industries and consultants. \
\
ISG members included:\
\
Keith Hall, Chairman\
Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton\
\
Edward G. Anderson\
LTG US Army (Ret)\
Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton\
\
Thomas W. Conroy\
Vice President\
National Security Programs\
Northrop Grumman/TASC\
\
Patrick M. Hughes\
LTG US Army (Ret)\
Vice President, Homeland Security\
L-3 Communications\
\
Kevin O'Connell\
Director of Defense Group Incorporated (DGI)\
Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis (CIRA)\
\
CIRA is a think tank that calls itself "the premier open source and cultural intelligence exploitation cell for the US intelligence community." Its business is revolutionizing intelligence analysis.\
\
Jeff Baxter\
Independent Defense Consultant with DOD and industry ties\
\
Dr. Paul Gilman\
Director\
Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies\
Oak Ridge National Laboratory\
US Department of Energy\
\
Kemp Lear\
Associate\
Booz Allen Hamilton, and\
\
Joseph D. Whitley, Esq\
Alston & Bird LLP, Government Investigations and Compliance Group, former Acting Associate Attorney General in GHW Bush administration, and former General Counsel for DHS under GW Bush\
\
The ISG's report produced 11 significant findings and 27 recommendations based on its conclusion that there's "an urgent need for action because opportunities to better protect the nation are being missed." It "concluded a new management and process model (is) needed to effectively employ IC (Intelligence Community) capabilities for domestic uses."\
\
In March 2006, DHS unveiled the new agency to implement ISG's recommendations called the National Applications Office. In May, 2007, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Michael McConnell, named DHS as its executive agent and functional manager. At least in principle according to DHS, Congress agreed with this approach and to provide funding for it, beginning in the fall of 2007. \
\
The public knew nothing about this until a feature August 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal story broke the news. It was headlined "US to Expand Use of Spy Satellites." It noted that for the first time the nation's top intelligence official (DNI's McConnell) "greatly expanded the range of federal and local (civilian law enforcement agencies that) can get access to" military spy satellite collected information. Until now, civilian use was restricted to agencies like NASA and the US Geological Survey, and only for scientific and environmental study.\
\
The Journal explained that key objectives under new guidelines will be:\
\
-- border security, \
\
-- securing critical infrastructure and helping emergency responders after natural disasters, \
\
-- working with criminal and civil federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and \
\
-- unmentioned by the Journal, the ability to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime domestically for any reason - an unprecedented act using state-of-the-art technology enabling real-time, high-resolution images and data from space. \
\
NAO will also oversee classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and other US agencies involved in dealing with all aspects of national security, including "terrorism."\
\
NSA was established in 1952, is super-secret, and for many years was never revealed to exist. Today, its capabilities are awesome and worrisome. It eavesdrops globally, mines a vast amount of data, and does it through a network of spy satellites, listening posts, and surveillance planes to monitor virtually all electronic communications from landline and cell phones, telegrams, emails, faxes, radio and television, data bases of all kinds and the internet. \
\
NGA is new and began operating in 2003. It lets military and intelligence analysts monitor virtually anything or anyone from state-of-the-art spy satellites. Both NSA and NGA coordinate jointly with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) that designs, builds and operates military spy satellites. It also analyzes military and CIA-collected aircraft and satellite reconnaissance information. \
\
Combined with warrantless wiretapping, pervasive spying of all kinds, the abandonment of the law and checks and balances, intense secrecy, and an array of repressive post-9/11 legislation, Executive Orders and National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, NAO is another national security police state tool any despot would love. It's now established and may be operating without congressional approval.
Using spy satellites domestically "is largely uncharted territory," as the Wall Street Journal noted. Even its architects admit there's no clarity on this, and the ISG's report stated "There is little if any policy, guidance or procedures regarding the collection, exploitation and dissemination of domestic MASINT (Measurement and Signatures Intelligence)."
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the main DOD spy agency. It manages MASINT that's ultra-secret and sophisticated. It uses state-of-the-art radar, lasers, infrared sensors, electromagnetic data and other technologies that can detect chemicals, electro-magnetic activity, whether a nuclear power plant produces plutonium, and the type vehicle from its exhaust. It can also see under bridges, through clouds, forest canopies and even concrete to create images and collect data. In addition, it can detect people, activity and weapons that satellites and photo-reconnaissance aircraft miss, so it's an invaluable spy tool but highly intrusive and up to now only for military and foreign intelligence work.
Further, military spy satellites are state-of-the-art and superior to civilian ones. They record in color as well as black and white, use different parts of the light spectrum to track human activities and ground movements and can detect chemical weapons traces and people-generated heat in buildings.
This much we know about them. Their full potential is top secret and available only to the military and intelligence community. The Journal quoted an alarmed Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology, that advocates for digital age privacy rights saying: "Not only is the surveillance they are contemplating intrusive and omnipresent, it's also invisible. And that's what makes this so dangerous."
Anyone for any reason may be watched at all times (through walls) with no way to know it, but a June 2001 (before 9/11) Supreme Court decision offers hope. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled for petitioner 5 to 4 (with Scalia and Thomas in the majority). It voided a conviction based on police use of thermal imaging to detect heat in his triplex to determine if an illegal drug was being grown, in this case marijuana.
The Court held: "Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment 'search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant....To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment" protecting against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
In 1981, Ronald Reagan seemed to agree in Executive Order 12333 on United States Intelligence Activities. It bars the intelligence community from most forms of home eavesdropping while providing wide latitude to all government agencies to "provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information (needed to) conduct....foreign, defense and economic policy (and protect US) national interests from foreign security threats. (Collecting this information is to be done, however,) consistent with the Constitution and applicable law...."
That was then, and this is now. It's hard imagining congressional concern or DHS meaning that NAO will "prioritize the protection of privacy and civil liberties" and citing the Reagan Executive Order and the 1974 Privacy Act. That law mandates that no government agency "shall disclose any record (or) system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains." The Privacy act requires the US government to maintain an administrative and physical security system to prevent the unauthorized release of personal records.
Post-9/11, the Patriot Act ended that protection, so DHS is shameless saying NAO must comply with civil liberties and privacy laws and be subject to "oversight by the DHS Inspector General, Chief Privacy Officer, and the Officer for Civil Rights and Liberties" plus additional oversight. No longer post-9/11 when the national security state got repressive new tools to erode the constitution, ignore democratic principles, and give the President unrestricted powers in the name of national security. NAO is the latest one watching us as our "Big Brother in the Sky." Orwell would be proud.
Real ID Act Update - Another Intrusive Police State Tool
The Read ID Act of 2005 required states to meet federal ID standards by May, 2008. That's now changed because 29 states passed or introduced laws that refuse to comply. They call the Act costly to administer, a bureaucratic nightmare, and New Hampshire said it's "repugnant" and violates the state and US Constitutions.
The federal law mandates that every US citizen and legal resident have a national ID card that in most cases is a driver's license meeting federal standards. It requires it to contain an individual's personal information and makes one mandatory to open a bank account, board an airplane, be able to vote, get a job, enter a federal building, or conduct virtually all essential business requiring identification.
States balked, and that doomed the original version. On January 11, changes were unveiled when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued binding new rules. Under them, states have until 2011 to comply (instead of 2008), until 2014 to issue "tamper-proof licenses" to drivers born after 1964, and until 2017 for those born before this date. DHS said the original law would cost states $14 billion. The new regulations with an extended phase-in cuts the amount to around $3.9 billion or $8 per license.
These numbers may be bogus, however, the true costs may be far higher, and that's why the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) is lobbying for Real ID's passage. Its members include high-tech card makers like Digimarc and Northrup Grumman and data brokers like Choicepoint and LexisNexis that profit by selling personal information to advertisers and the government.
Under new DHS rules, licenses must include a digital photo taken at the beginning of the application process and a filament or other security device to prevent counterfeiting. They must also have three layers of security that states can select from a DHS menu. In addition, states must begin checking license applicants' Social Security and immigration status over the next year.
As of now, a controversial radio frequency identification (RFID) technology microchip isn't required. It may come later, however, and here's the problem. It'll let cardholder movements and activities be tracked everywhere, at all times - in other words, a police state dream along with other pervasive spying tools.
Even worse would be mandating human RFID chip implants. It's not planned so far (but not ruled out), and three states (California, Wisconsin and North Dakota) preemptively banned the practice without recipients' consent.
Think it can't happen? Consider a January 13 article in the London Independent headlined "Prisoners 'to be chipped like dogs.' " The article states that civil rights groups and probation officers are furious that "hi-tech 'satellite'.... machine-readable (microchip) tagging (is) planned (for thousands of offenders) to create more space in jails." Unlike ankle bracelets now sometimes used, tiny RFID chips would be surgically implanted for monitoring the way they're currently used for dogs, cats, cattle and luggage. They're more reliable, it's believed, as current devices can be tampered with or removed.
Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), was quoted saying: "We have looked at....the practicalities and the ethics (and we concluded) its time has come." The UK currently has the largest prison population per capita in western Europe. It sounds like authorities plan to expand it using fewer cells. It also sounds like a scheme to tag everyone after testing them first on prisoners. And consider the possibilities. RFID technology is advancing, and one company plans deeper implants that can vibrate, emit electroshocks, broadcast a message to the implantee, and/or be a hidden microphone to transmit conversations. It's not science fiction, and what's planned for the UK will likely come to America. In fact, it's already here.
In 2004, the FDA approved a grain-of-rice sized, antenna-containing VeriChip for human implantation that allows vital information to be read when a person's body is scanned. The company states on its web site that it's "the world's first and only patented, FDA-cleared, human-implantable RFID microchip....with skin-sensing capabilities." Reportedly, about 2000 test subjects now have them, but it may signal mandatory implantation ahead. Consider for whom for starters - prisoners, military personnel and possibly anyone seeking employment. After them, maybe everyone in a brave new global surveillance world.
It gets worse. Katherine Albrecht authored a report called "Microchip-Cancer Report - Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006." After reading it, Dr. Robert Benezra, Director Cancer Biology, Genetics Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center said: "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members. Given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's definitely cause for concern."
Albrecht's report evaluated 11 previously published toxicology and pathology studies. In six of them, up to 10.2% of rats and mice developed malignant tumors (typically sarcomas) where microchips were implanted. Two others reported the same findings for dogs. These tumors spread fast and "often led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases, the tumors metastasized and spread to other parts of the animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the cause of the cancers."
Report reviews, conclusions and recommendations were to immediately stop further human implantations, inform people with them of the dangers, offer a microchip removal procedure, and reverse all animal microchipping mandates.
Debate Ahead on New DHS ID Rules
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said new ID rules require states to verify each cardholder's personal information (including a person's legal status in the country) by matching it against federal Social Security and passport databases and/or comparable state ones.
States have time to adjust, but Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy wasted no time saying he'll recommend legislation to ban Real ID drivers' license provisions because "so many Americans oppose" them. They're intrusive, burdensome, and federal databases are full of false or out-of-date information that's hard to disprove, but unless it is Americans will be denied their legal right to a driver's license.
The ACLU also strongly opposes Real ID because it violates privacy, lets government agencies share data, and its "tortured remains" represent an "utterly unworkable" system that will "irreparably damage the fabric of American life." An ACLU January 11 press release further states that DHS "dumped the problems of the statute on future presidents like a rotting corpse left on (its) steps (and) whoever is president in 2018." Congress must "recognize the situation and take action." The Real ID Act and new DHS rules must be "repealed and replaced with a clean, simple, and vigorous new driver's license security law that does not create a national ID" or violate Americans' privacy.
Futuristic Hi-Tech Profiling
On January 14, Computerworld online revealed more cause for concern in an article called "Big Brother Really is Watching." It's about DHS "bankrolling futuristic profiling technology...." for its Project Hostile Intent. It, in turn, is part of a broader initiative called the Future Attribute Screening Technologies Mobile Module. It's to be a self-contained, automated screening system that's portable and easy to implement, and DHS hopes to test it at airports in 2010 and deploy it (if it works) by 2012 at airports, border checkpoints, other points of entry and other security-related areas.
Here's the problem. If developed (reliable or not), these devices will use video, audio, laser and infrared sensors to feed real-time data into a computer using "specially developed algorithms" to identify "suspicious people." It would work (in theory) by interpreting gestures, facial expressions and speech variations as well as measure body temperature, heart and respiration rate, blood pressure, skin moisture, and other physiological characteristics.
The idea would be detect deception and identify suspicious people for aggressive interrogation, searches and even arrest. But consider what's coming. If developed, the technology may be used anywhere by government or the private sector for airport or other checkpoint security, buildings, job interviews, employee screening, buying insurance or conducting any other type essential business.
Aside from Fourth Amendment issues, here's the problem according to Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at security consultant BT Counterpane: "It's a good idea fraught with difficulties....don't hold your breath" it will work, and a better idea is to focus on detecting suspicious objects. Schneier further compares the technology to lie detectors that rely on "fake technology" and only work in films. They're used because people want them although it's acknowledged, even when well-administered, their median accuracy percentage is 50% at best.
This technology is worse, it may never be reliable, but may be deployed anyway in the age of "terror." Something to consider next time we blink going through airport security, and ACLU Technology and Liberty Project director Barry Steinhardt states the concern: "We are not going to catch any terrorists (with it), but a lot of innocent people, especially racial and ethnic minorities, are going to be trapped in a web of suspicion." Even so, DHS spent billions on this and other screening tools post-9/11. Expect lots more ahead, and here's the bottom line:
As things now stand, Washington, post-9/11, suspended constitutional protections in the name of national security and suppressed our civil liberties for our own good. This article reviewed their newest tools and wonders what's next. This writer called it Police State America in December that won't change with a new White House occupant in 2009 unless organized resistance stops it. Complacency is unthinkable, and unless we act, we'll deserve Aleksandr Herzen's curse of another era - to be the "disease," not the "doctors."
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
This article reviews two police state tools (among many in use) in America. One is new, undiscussed and largely unknown to the public. The other was covered in a December article by this writer called Police State America. Here it's updated with new information.\
The National Applications Office (NAO)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established a new domestic spying operation in 2007 called the National Applications Office (NOA) and described it as "the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States." The office was to begin operating last fall to "build on the long-standing workof the Civil Applications Committee (CAC), which was created in 1974 to facilitate the use of the capabilities of the intelligence community for civil, non-defense uses in the United States."\
\
With or without congressional authorization or oversight, the executive branch is in charge and will let NAO use state-of-the-art technology, including military satellite imagery, to spy on Americans without their knowledge. Implementation is delayed, however, after Committee on Homeland Security Chairman, Bennie Thompson, and other committee members raised questions of "very serious privacy and civil liberties concerns." In response, DHS agreed to delay operating (officially) until all matters are addressed and resolved. \
\
Given its track record post-9/11, expect little more than pro forma posturing before Congress signs off on what Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, calls "Big Brother in the Sky" and a "police state" in the offing.\
\
DHS supplies this background information on NAO. Post-9/11, the Director of National Intelligence appointed an Independent Study Group (ISG) in May, 2005 to "review the current operation and future role of the (1974) Civil Applications Committee and study the current state of Intelligence Community support to homeland security and law enforcement entities." \
\
In September 2005, the Committee produced a "Blue Ribbon Study," now declassified. Its nine members were headed by and included three Booz Allen Hamilton officials because of the company's expertise in spying and intelligence gathering. Its other members have similar experience. They all have a vested interest in domestic spying because the business potential is huge for defense related industries and consultants. \
\
ISG members included:\
\
Keith Hall, Chairman\
Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton\
\
Edward G. Anderson\
LTG US Army (Ret)\
Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton\
\
Thomas W. Conroy\
Vice President\
National Security Programs\
Northrop Grumman/TASC\
\
Patrick M. Hughes\
LTG US Army (Ret)\
Vice President, Homeland Security\
L-3 Communications\
\
Kevin O'Connell\
Director of Defense Group Incorporated (DGI)\
Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis (CIRA)\
\
CIRA is a think tank that calls itself "the premier open source and cultural intelligence exploitation cell for the US intelligence community." Its business is revolutionizing intelligence analysis.\
\
Jeff Baxter\
Independent Defense Consultant with DOD and industry ties\
\
Dr. Paul Gilman\
Director\
Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies\
Oak Ridge National Laboratory\
US Department of Energy\
\
Kemp Lear\
Associate\
Booz Allen Hamilton, and\
\
Joseph D. Whitley, Esq\
Alston & Bird LLP, Government Investigations and Compliance Group, former Acting Associate Attorney General in GHW Bush administration, and former General Counsel for DHS under GW Bush\
\
The ISG's report produced 11 significant findings and 27 recommendations based on its conclusion that there's "an urgent need for action because opportunities to better protect the nation are being missed." It "concluded a new management and process model (is) needed to effectively employ IC (Intelligence Community) capabilities for domestic uses."\
\
In March 2006, DHS unveiled the new agency to implement ISG's recommendations called the National Applications Office. In May, 2007, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Michael McConnell, named DHS as its executive agent and functional manager. At least in principle according to DHS, Congress agreed with this approach and to provide funding for it, beginning in the fall of 2007. \
\
The public knew nothing about this until a feature August 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal story broke the news. It was headlined "US to Expand Use of Spy Satellites." It noted that for the first time the nation's top intelligence official (DNI's McConnell) "greatly expanded the range of federal and local (civilian law enforcement agencies that) can get access to" military spy satellite collected information. Until now, civilian use was restricted to agencies like NASA and the US Geological Survey, and only for scientific and environmental study.\
\
The Journal explained that key objectives under new guidelines will be:\
\
-- border security, \
\
-- securing critical infrastructure and helping emergency responders after natural disasters, \
\
-- working with criminal and civil federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and \
\
-- unmentioned by the Journal, the ability to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime domestically for any reason - an unprecedented act using state-of-the-art technology enabling real-time, high-resolution images and data from space. \
\
NAO will also oversee classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and other US agencies involved in dealing with all aspects of national security, including "terrorism."\
\
NSA was established in 1952, is super-secret, and for many years was never revealed to exist. Today, its capabilities are awesome and worrisome. It eavesdrops globally, mines a vast amount of data, and does it through a network of spy satellites, listening posts, and surveillance planes to monitor virtually all electronic communications from landline and cell phones, telegrams, emails, faxes, radio and television, data bases of all kinds and the internet. \
\
NGA is new and began operating in 2003. It lets military and intelligence analysts monitor virtually anything or anyone from state-of-the-art spy satellites. Both NSA and NGA coordinate jointly with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) that designs, builds and operates military spy satellites. It also analyzes military and CIA-collected aircraft and satellite reconnaissance information. \
\
Combined with warrantless wiretapping, pervasive spying of all kinds, the abandonment of the law and checks and balances, intense secrecy, and an array of repressive post-9/11 legislation, Executive Orders and National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, NAO is another national security police state tool any despot would love. It's now established and may be operating without congressional approval.
Using spy satellites domestically "is largely uncharted territory," as the Wall Street Journal noted. Even its architects admit there's no clarity on this, and the ISG's report stated "There is little if any policy, guidance or procedures regarding the collection, exploitation and dissemination of domestic MASINT (Measurement and Signatures Intelligence)."
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the main DOD spy agency. It manages MASINT that's ultra-secret and sophisticated. It uses state-of-the-art radar, lasers, infrared sensors, electromagnetic data and other technologies that can detect chemicals, electro-magnetic activity, whether a nuclear power plant produces plutonium, and the type vehicle from its exhaust. It can also see under bridges, through clouds, forest canopies and even concrete to create images and collect data. In addition, it can detect people, activity and weapons that satellites and photo-reconnaissance aircraft miss, so it's an invaluable spy tool but highly intrusive and up to now only for military and foreign intelligence work.
Further, military spy satellites are state-of-the-art and superior to civilian ones. They record in color as well as black and white, use different parts of the light spectrum to track human activities and ground movements and can detect chemical weapons traces and people-generated heat in buildings.
This much we know about them. Their full potential is top secret and available only to the military and intelligence community. The Journal quoted an alarmed Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology, that advocates for digital age privacy rights saying: "Not only is the surveillance they are contemplating intrusive and omnipresent, it's also invisible. And that's what makes this so dangerous."
Anyone for any reason may be watched at all times (through walls) with no way to know it, but a June 2001 (before 9/11) Supreme Court decision offers hope. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled for petitioner 5 to 4 (with Scalia and Thomas in the majority). It voided a conviction based on police use of thermal imaging to detect heat in his triplex to determine if an illegal drug was being grown, in this case marijuana.
The Court held: "Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment 'search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant....To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment" protecting against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
In 1981, Ronald Reagan seemed to agree in Executive Order 12333 on United States Intelligence Activities. It bars the intelligence community from most forms of home eavesdropping while providing wide latitude to all government agencies to "provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information (needed to) conduct....foreign, defense and economic policy (and protect US) national interests from foreign security threats. (Collecting this information is to be done, however,) consistent with the Constitution and applicable law...."
That was then, and this is now. It's hard imagining congressional concern or DHS meaning that NAO will "prioritize the protection of privacy and civil liberties" and citing the Reagan Executive Order and the 1974 Privacy Act. That law mandates that no government agency "shall disclose any record (or) system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains." The Privacy act requires the US government to maintain an administrative and physical security system to prevent the unauthorized release of personal records.
Post-9/11, the Patriot Act ended that protection, so DHS is shameless saying NAO must comply with civil liberties and privacy laws and be subject to "oversight by the DHS Inspector General, Chief Privacy Officer, and the Officer for Civil Rights and Liberties" plus additional oversight. No longer post-9/11 when the national security state got repressive new tools to erode the constitution, ignore democratic principles, and give the President unrestricted powers in the name of national security. NAO is the latest one watching us as our "Big Brother in the Sky." Orwell would be proud.
Real ID Act Update - Another Intrusive Police State Tool
The Read ID Act of 2005 required states to meet federal ID standards by May, 2008. That's now changed because 29 states passed or introduced laws that refuse to comply. They call the Act costly to administer, a bureaucratic nightmare, and New Hampshire said it's "repugnant" and violates the state and US Constitutions.
The federal law mandates that every US citizen and legal resident have a national ID card that in most cases is a driver's license meeting federal standards. It requires it to contain an individual's personal information and makes one mandatory to open a bank account, board an airplane, be able to vote, get a job, enter a federal building, or conduct virtually all essential business requiring identification.
States balked, and that doomed the original version. On January 11, changes were unveiled when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued binding new rules. Under them, states have until 2011 to comply (instead of 2008), until 2014 to issue "tamper-proof licenses" to drivers born after 1964, and until 2017 for those born before this date. DHS said the original law would cost states $14 billion. The new regulations with an extended phase-in cuts the amount to around $3.9 billion or $8 per license.
These numbers may be bogus, however, the true costs may be far higher, and that's why the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) is lobbying for Real ID's passage. Its members include high-tech card makers like Digimarc and Northrup Grumman and data brokers like Choicepoint and LexisNexis that profit by selling personal information to advertisers and the government.
Under new DHS rules, licenses must include a digital photo taken at the beginning of the application process and a filament or other security device to prevent counterfeiting. They must also have three layers of security that states can select from a DHS menu. In addition, states must begin checking license applicants' Social Security and immigration status over the next year.
As of now, a controversial radio frequency identification (RFID) technology microchip isn't required. It may come later, however, and here's the problem. It'll let cardholder movements and activities be tracked everywhere, at all times - in other words, a police state dream along with other pervasive spying tools.
Even worse would be mandating human RFID chip implants. It's not planned so far (but not ruled out), and three states (California, Wisconsin and North Dakota) preemptively banned the practice without recipients' consent.
Think it can't happen? Consider a January 13 article in the London Independent headlined "Prisoners 'to be chipped like dogs.' " The article states that civil rights groups and probation officers are furious that "hi-tech 'satellite'.... machine-readable (microchip) tagging (is) planned (for thousands of offenders) to create more space in jails." Unlike ankle bracelets now sometimes used, tiny RFID chips would be surgically implanted for monitoring the way they're currently used for dogs, cats, cattle and luggage. They're more reliable, it's believed, as current devices can be tampered with or removed.
Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), was quoted saying: "We have looked at....the practicalities and the ethics (and we concluded) its time has come." The UK currently has the largest prison population per capita in western Europe. It sounds like authorities plan to expand it using fewer cells. It also sounds like a scheme to tag everyone after testing them first on prisoners. And consider the possibilities. RFID technology is advancing, and one company plans deeper implants that can vibrate, emit electroshocks, broadcast a message to the implantee, and/or be a hidden microphone to transmit conversations. It's not science fiction, and what's planned for the UK will likely come to America. In fact, it's already here.
In 2004, the FDA approved a grain-of-rice sized, antenna-containing VeriChip for human implantation that allows vital information to be read when a person's body is scanned. The company states on its web site that it's "the world's first and only patented, FDA-cleared, human-implantable RFID microchip....with skin-sensing capabilities." Reportedly, about 2000 test subjects now have them, but it may signal mandatory implantation ahead. Consider for whom for starters - prisoners, military personnel and possibly anyone seeking employment. After them, maybe everyone in a brave new global surveillance world.
It gets worse. Katherine Albrecht authored a report called "Microchip-Cancer Report - Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006." After reading it, Dr. Robert Benezra, Director Cancer Biology, Genetics Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center said: "There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members. Given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's definitely cause for concern."
Albrecht's report evaluated 11 previously published toxicology and pathology studies. In six of them, up to 10.2% of rats and mice developed malignant tumors (typically sarcomas) where microchips were implanted. Two others reported the same findings for dogs. These tumors spread fast and "often led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases, the tumors metastasized and spread to other parts of the animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the cause of the cancers."
Report reviews, conclusions and recommendations were to immediately stop further human implantations, inform people with them of the dangers, offer a microchip removal procedure, and reverse all animal microchipping mandates.
Debate Ahead on New DHS ID Rules
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said new ID rules require states to verify each cardholder's personal information (including a person's legal status in the country) by matching it against federal Social Security and passport databases and/or comparable state ones.
States have time to adjust, but Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy wasted no time saying he'll recommend legislation to ban Real ID drivers' license provisions because "so many Americans oppose" them. They're intrusive, burdensome, and federal databases are full of false or out-of-date information that's hard to disprove, but unless it is Americans will be denied their legal right to a driver's license.
The ACLU also strongly opposes Real ID because it violates privacy, lets government agencies share data, and its "tortured remains" represent an "utterly unworkable" system that will "irreparably damage the fabric of American life." An ACLU January 11 press release further states that DHS "dumped the problems of the statute on future presidents like a rotting corpse left on (its) steps (and) whoever is president in 2018." Congress must "recognize the situation and take action." The Real ID Act and new DHS rules must be "repealed and replaced with a clean, simple, and vigorous new driver's license security law that does not create a national ID" or violate Americans' privacy.
Futuristic Hi-Tech Profiling
On January 14, Computerworld online revealed more cause for concern in an article called "Big Brother Really is Watching." It's about DHS "bankrolling futuristic profiling technology...." for its Project Hostile Intent. It, in turn, is part of a broader initiative called the Future Attribute Screening Technologies Mobile Module. It's to be a self-contained, automated screening system that's portable and easy to implement, and DHS hopes to test it at airports in 2010 and deploy it (if it works) by 2012 at airports, border checkpoints, other points of entry and other security-related areas.
Here's the problem. If developed (reliable or not), these devices will use video, audio, laser and infrared sensors to feed real-time data into a computer using "specially developed algorithms" to identify "suspicious people." It would work (in theory) by interpreting gestures, facial expressions and speech variations as well as measure body temperature, heart and respiration rate, blood pressure, skin moisture, and other physiological characteristics.
The idea would be detect deception and identify suspicious people for aggressive interrogation, searches and even arrest. But consider what's coming. If developed, the technology may be used anywhere by government or the private sector for airport or other checkpoint security, buildings, job interviews, employee screening, buying insurance or conducting any other type essential business.
Aside from Fourth Amendment issues, here's the problem according to Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at security consultant BT Counterpane: "It's a good idea fraught with difficulties....don't hold your breath" it will work, and a better idea is to focus on detecting suspicious objects. Schneier further compares the technology to lie detectors that rely on "fake technology" and only work in films. They're used because people want them although it's acknowledged, even when well-administered, their median accuracy percentage is 50% at best.
This technology is worse, it may never be reliable, but may be deployed anyway in the age of "terror." Something to consider next time we blink going through airport security, and ACLU Technology and Liberty Project director Barry Steinhardt states the concern: "We are not going to catch any terrorists (with it), but a lot of innocent people, especially racial and ethnic minorities, are going to be trapped in a web of suspicion." Even so, DHS spent billions on this and other screening tools post-9/11. Expect lots more ahead, and here's the bottom line:
As things now stand, Washington, post-9/11, suspended constitutional protections in the name of national security and suppressed our civil liberties for our own good. This article reviewed their newest tools and wonders what's next. This writer called it Police State America in December that won't change with a new White House occupant in 2009 unless organized resistance stops it. Complacency is unthinkable, and unless we act, we'll deserve Aleksandr Herzen's curse of another era - to be the "disease," not the "doctors."
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
San Diego Minutemen Adopt a Freeway
Fwd: Re: San Diego Minutemen Adopt a Freeway
San Diego Minutemen adopt a freeway
Email Picture
Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times
Opponents of the adoption say Caltrans ignored its own rule barring groups that advocate discrimination.
Caltrans grants a stretch of I-5 that includes a border patrol checkpoint to the foes of illegal immigration, a move some critics call "unfortunate."
By Richard Marosi, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 12, 2008
SAN DIEGO -- The Knights of Columbus have adopted a highway. So have the Japanese American Citizens League, biker groups, Indian casinos and the International House of Pancakes.
Now add the San Diego Minutemen.
Caltrans has granted an Adopt-A-Highway stretch of Interstate 5 to the ardent foes of illegal immigration -- and not just any stretch. The two miles of freeway the Minutemen will be charged with beautifying include the U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoint near San Clemente.
"How great is that," Jeff Schwilk, the group's founder, told his members in an e-mail.
Critics disagreed, saying the California Department of Transportation ignored its own rule that bars groups that advocate violence or discrimination from participating in the program.
"The Adopt-A-Highway program was designed to allow organizations to show pride in the state of California . . . and it is unfortunate that the Minutemen, whose approach . . . includes advocating violence, have been allowed by Caltrans into the program," said Tina Malka, associate director of the San Diego branch of the Anti-Defamation League.
Schwilk denied Friday that his group advocates violence and said no member has ever been arrested for immigrant-related violence.
Caltrans spokesman Edward Cartagena said the Minutemen got the stretch of I-5 purely by chance. The group submitted its application in November, he added, and it was reviewed and found to comply with the rule. According to the agency's website, it bars "entities that advocate violence, violation of the law, or discrimination based upon race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry" and other factors.
"The Department will not discriminate against groups that otherwise meet the program criteria based on the fact that some members of the public might disagree with the particular group's agenda or reputation," Caltrans said in a prepared statement.
The group's two signs -- one on each side of the freeway -- went up in late December. Members have been given a safety course on how to clean the freeway. Their first cleanup day is set for next Saturday.
Schwilk said Caltrans rules bar demonstrations, and he and his crew would just be beautifying the roadway. "We'll be out there in dorky-looking vests, hard hats and goggles, picking up trash," he said. "We're a community activist group, so why wouldn't we take other steps to help our communities?"
Enrique Morones, president of the Border Angels, a San Diego-based immigrant rights group, questioned the Minutemen's motives and called Schwilk's move a publicity ploy.
"They're desperate to get attention, even if it means sweeping the freeway," he said.
The San Diego Minutemen operate mostly in north San Diego County, where members often demonstrate at day labor sites and trade accusations of violent behavior with anti-immigrant groups. Schwilk says the group has 600 members. Others say membership has dwindled to no more than 30.
A former Marine, Schwilk says on his website that he worked alongside hardworking Mexicans in a carwash for more than three years in the 1980s and that his best friend in school was half Mexican.
Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, congratulated Schwilk on his great freeway location. It's entirely fitting, he said, that a group like his that supports the border patrol's mission be given the area near the checkpoint.
In fact, he said, "The irony is killing me. . . . Why didn't I think of that?"
richard.marosi@latimes.com
San Diego Minutemen adopt a freeway
Email Picture
Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times
Opponents of the adoption say Caltrans ignored its own rule barring groups that advocate discrimination.
Caltrans grants a stretch of I-5 that includes a border patrol checkpoint to the foes of illegal immigration, a move some critics call "unfortunate."
By Richard Marosi, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 12, 2008
SAN DIEGO -- The Knights of Columbus have adopted a highway. So have the Japanese American Citizens League, biker groups, Indian casinos and the International House of Pancakes.
Now add the San Diego Minutemen.
Caltrans has granted an Adopt-A-Highway stretch of Interstate 5 to the ardent foes of illegal immigration -- and not just any stretch. The two miles of freeway the Minutemen will be charged with beautifying include the U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoint near San Clemente.
"How great is that," Jeff Schwilk, the group's founder, told his members in an e-mail.
Critics disagreed, saying the California Department of Transportation ignored its own rule that bars groups that advocate violence or discrimination from participating in the program.
"The Adopt-A-Highway program was designed to allow organizations to show pride in the state of California . . . and it is unfortunate that the Minutemen, whose approach . . . includes advocating violence, have been allowed by Caltrans into the program," said Tina Malka, associate director of the San Diego branch of the Anti-Defamation League.
Schwilk denied Friday that his group advocates violence and said no member has ever been arrested for immigrant-related violence.
Caltrans spokesman Edward Cartagena said the Minutemen got the stretch of I-5 purely by chance. The group submitted its application in November, he added, and it was reviewed and found to comply with the rule. According to the agency's website, it bars "entities that advocate violence, violation of the law, or discrimination based upon race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry" and other factors.
"The Department will not discriminate against groups that otherwise meet the program criteria based on the fact that some members of the public might disagree with the particular group's agenda or reputation," Caltrans said in a prepared statement.
The group's two signs -- one on each side of the freeway -- went up in late December. Members have been given a safety course on how to clean the freeway. Their first cleanup day is set for next Saturday.
Schwilk said Caltrans rules bar demonstrations, and he and his crew would just be beautifying the roadway. "We'll be out there in dorky-looking vests, hard hats and goggles, picking up trash," he said. "We're a community activist group, so why wouldn't we take other steps to help our communities?"
Enrique Morones, president of the Border Angels, a San Diego-based immigrant rights group, questioned the Minutemen's motives and called Schwilk's move a publicity ploy.
"They're desperate to get attention, even if it means sweeping the freeway," he said.
The San Diego Minutemen operate mostly in north San Diego County, where members often demonstrate at day labor sites and trade accusations of violent behavior with anti-immigrant groups. Schwilk says the group has 600 members. Others say membership has dwindled to no more than 30.
A former Marine, Schwilk says on his website that he worked alongside hardworking Mexicans in a carwash for more than three years in the 1980s and that his best friend in school was half Mexican.
Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, congratulated Schwilk on his great freeway location. It's entirely fitting, he said, that a group like his that supports the border patrol's mission be given the area near the checkpoint.
In fact, he said, "The irony is killing me. . . . Why didn't I think of that?"
richard.marosi@latimes.com
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Director de FBI niega que supo sobre las citaciones de los Macheteros
SAN JUAN/corresponsal EDLP — El congresista José Serrano (D-NY) expresó ayer su preocupación por lo que esté pasando en el Buró Federal de Investigaciones luego que el director de esa agencia, Robert Mueller, dijera que “no sabía” sobre las citaciones a tres independentistas boricuas de Nueva York para una supuesta pesquisa sobre los Macheteros.
“Como que hay dos FBI, uno en los cincuenta estados y otro en Puerto Rico, que hace lo que quiere”, comentó Serrano, quien indicó que está consciente de que Mueller pudo no haberle dicho todo lo que sabía en la conversación telefónica que sostuvieron el martes en la noche.
Serrano agregó que “si es cierto (lo que Mueller le dijo), ahora lo sabe” y puntualizó que le hizo saber al jefe del FBI que en su opinión “esto es más de lo mismo” en referencia a “los sesenta años de abusos” de esa agencia en Puerto Rico. Esa historia está documentada en los dos millones de folios que se están desclasificando desde el año 2000, precisamente por su gestión desde el Congreso.
El informe de Serrano sobre la conversación con Mueller resulta insólito debido a que se supone que el FBI lleva a cabo una investigación sobre terrorismo doméstico contra el Ejército Popular Boricua-Macheteros y que, como parte de esa pesquisa, al menos un agente de San Juan viajó a Nueva York y participó junto con agentes de esa otra oficina en las gestiones para emplazar a los tres independentistas. Además, a éstos se les mostró una veintena de fotografías de individuos sobre los cuales se les pidió información.
Sobre ese particular, también Serrano cuestionó la acción del FBI y comentó que le hizo saber a Mueller que le parecía “un abuso” porque conoce a los citados y que todo aparenta que “se están empezando a ver de nuevo” las persecuciones contra los independentistas.
Los nuevos emplazamientos, para el día 11 de los corrientes, han provocado una fuerte reacción en el movimiento independentista, que ha convocado manifestaciones para mañana y el viernes en San Juan, Nueva York, Chicago, Cleveland, Filadelfia, Orlando, Los Ángeles y San Francisco.
Serrano comentó que es de la opinión que el FBI no sólo está dispuesto a perseguir a los independentistas sino a los también a los anexionistas. Sobre el caso de Puerto Rico en el Congreso, dijo que “cada vez que los federales dan la impresión” negativa sobre los puertorriqueños “eso no ayuda a la causa de la independencia y tampoco ayuda a la causa estadista”. Explicó que eso puede provocar la preocupación de que no conviene un Puerto Rico independiente hostil a EEUU.
“Como que hay dos FBI, uno en los cincuenta estados y otro en Puerto Rico, que hace lo que quiere”, comentó Serrano, quien indicó que está consciente de que Mueller pudo no haberle dicho todo lo que sabía en la conversación telefónica que sostuvieron el martes en la noche.
Serrano agregó que “si es cierto (lo que Mueller le dijo), ahora lo sabe” y puntualizó que le hizo saber al jefe del FBI que en su opinión “esto es más de lo mismo” en referencia a “los sesenta años de abusos” de esa agencia en Puerto Rico. Esa historia está documentada en los dos millones de folios que se están desclasificando desde el año 2000, precisamente por su gestión desde el Congreso.
El informe de Serrano sobre la conversación con Mueller resulta insólito debido a que se supone que el FBI lleva a cabo una investigación sobre terrorismo doméstico contra el Ejército Popular Boricua-Macheteros y que, como parte de esa pesquisa, al menos un agente de San Juan viajó a Nueva York y participó junto con agentes de esa otra oficina en las gestiones para emplazar a los tres independentistas. Además, a éstos se les mostró una veintena de fotografías de individuos sobre los cuales se les pidió información.
Sobre ese particular, también Serrano cuestionó la acción del FBI y comentó que le hizo saber a Mueller que le parecía “un abuso” porque conoce a los citados y que todo aparenta que “se están empezando a ver de nuevo” las persecuciones contra los independentistas.
Los nuevos emplazamientos, para el día 11 de los corrientes, han provocado una fuerte reacción en el movimiento independentista, que ha convocado manifestaciones para mañana y el viernes en San Juan, Nueva York, Chicago, Cleveland, Filadelfia, Orlando, Los Ángeles y San Francisco.
Serrano comentó que es de la opinión que el FBI no sólo está dispuesto a perseguir a los independentistas sino a los también a los anexionistas. Sobre el caso de Puerto Rico en el Congreso, dijo que “cada vez que los federales dan la impresión” negativa sobre los puertorriqueños “eso no ayuda a la causa de la independencia y tampoco ayuda a la causa estadista”. Explicó que eso puede provocar la preocupación de que no conviene un Puerto Rico independiente hostil a EEUU.
MEXICO: Army, Paramilitary Build-Up in Zapatista Stronghold
MEXICO: Army, Paramilitary Build-Up in Zapatista Stronghold
By Diego Cevallos
MEXICO CITY, Jan 10 (IPS) - The Zapatista guerrillas and their supporters in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas are experiencing the worst onslaught by state forces in the last 10 years, although most people are unaware of the fact, according to reports from a research centre working in the area.
On Monday, in the area under Zapatista influence, "we rescued a wounded Indian grassroots supporter of the guerrillas who had been shot by paramilitaries. The situation is serious," Ernesto Ledesma, head of the Chiapas-based non-governmental Centre for Political Analysis and Social and Economic Research (CAPISE), told IPS.
According to CAPISE, which has had brigades out for the past five years, monitoring military movements in areas held by the barely-armed Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), in recent weeks there has been an increased presence of uniformed soldiers who are acting in concert with paramilitary groups.
Also, agrarian reform institutions have initiated an "irregular" distribution of land that had been occupied by indigenous people when the EZLN rose up in arms for two weeks in January 1994, according to CAPISE.
Title deeds to about 250,000 hectares are being distributed, but Zapatista sympathisers are being excluded, Ledesma said.
"Around 30 Zapatista communities are under enormous pressure from the military, the paramilitaries and the authorities, with the intention, we presume, to undermine the strength of the EZLN. This has not happened since 1998," said the head of CAPISE.
The Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre has also been reporting, for months now, that the situation in Zapatista areas is serious, because of the increasing presence of the army and of indigenous groups opposed to the guerrillas.
An anonymous source in the government of conservative President Felipe Calderón told IPS that the reports from Chiapas came as a complete surprise, and stated that the executive branch has no harassment strategy towards the EZLN, who have not fired a single shot since the second week of 1994.
The authorities in Chiapas, headed by Governor Juan Sabines of the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), have not reported any changes in the situation in the area, while lawmakers and social activists have lost interest in the once-famous guerrilla group.
Ledesma said that on Monday he travelled through jungle and valley areas in Chiapas, and with the help of several companions rescued a wounded indigenous man who had been shot and pursued by groups that he identified as paramilitaries, in a conflict over land.
"A deliberate concerted action between paramilitaries (who are also indigenous people) and the police, army and authorities is taking place here, the purpose of which is to attack the Zapatistas," Ledesma said.
One of the first actions undertaken by former president Vicente Fox (2002-2006) was to order the withdrawal of the army from the guerrilla-held areas and their surroundings, but human rights organisations say that this was merely a strategic relocation of troops.
Since 2001, when a convoy of EZLN delegates entered Mexico City to the cheers of hundreds of thousands of people, to call for approval of a law on indigenous culture and rights, the guerrillas have gradually faded from the political scene and their leader, ‘Subcomandante Marcos", has distanced himself from the left and the intellectuals who supported him.
In 2006 and 2007, beginning in parallel with the election campaign which brought Calderón to power on Dec. 1, 2006, Marcos travelled the country unarmed, with government permission, leading "The Other Campaign", an attempt to rally non-electoral political actors and press for the drafting of a new constitution.
But most Mexican saw and heard nothing of his cross-country travels.
Before the end of 2007, Marcos announced that he was returning to his stronghold in Chiapas and that he would neither emerge nor speak again until a future unspecified date. He warned, however, that the EZLN would retaliate if attacked.
Fourteen years ago, thousands of Mexicans mobilised against the army attacks on the EZLN, which led to a law declaring a ceasefire.
But now it appears that no one is prepared to react to the information that an onslaught against the rebel group is in progress.
"The situation in Chiapas is serious and violence is on the rise. The public should know this," Ledesma said.
Earlier reports by the Fox administration, confirmed by several researchers, indicate that the EZLN is in administrative and political control of 15 percent of Chiapas, the country’s poorest state, which has a total area of 75,634 square kilometres.
In that area, where government social programmes are inoperative, there are about 100,000 mainly indigenous people, who live in dire poverty, as do most of Mexico’s roughly 10 million Indians.
About 5,000 poorly armed men constitute the military forces of the EZLN. But Zapatistas have forsworn all offensive action.
CAPISE says that indigenous self-rule in the Zapatista area is a reality, and that their own health, education and development programmes are in place. But these achievements are increasingly threatened by the military and paramilitary presence and by pressure from indigenous campesino groups opposed to the guerrillas. (END/2008)
By Diego Cevallos
MEXICO CITY, Jan 10 (IPS) - The Zapatista guerrillas and their supporters in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas are experiencing the worst onslaught by state forces in the last 10 years, although most people are unaware of the fact, according to reports from a research centre working in the area.
On Monday, in the area under Zapatista influence, "we rescued a wounded Indian grassroots supporter of the guerrillas who had been shot by paramilitaries. The situation is serious," Ernesto Ledesma, head of the Chiapas-based non-governmental Centre for Political Analysis and Social and Economic Research (CAPISE), told IPS.
According to CAPISE, which has had brigades out for the past five years, monitoring military movements in areas held by the barely-armed Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), in recent weeks there has been an increased presence of uniformed soldiers who are acting in concert with paramilitary groups.
Also, agrarian reform institutions have initiated an "irregular" distribution of land that had been occupied by indigenous people when the EZLN rose up in arms for two weeks in January 1994, according to CAPISE.
Title deeds to about 250,000 hectares are being distributed, but Zapatista sympathisers are being excluded, Ledesma said.
"Around 30 Zapatista communities are under enormous pressure from the military, the paramilitaries and the authorities, with the intention, we presume, to undermine the strength of the EZLN. This has not happened since 1998," said the head of CAPISE.
The Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Centre has also been reporting, for months now, that the situation in Zapatista areas is serious, because of the increasing presence of the army and of indigenous groups opposed to the guerrillas.
An anonymous source in the government of conservative President Felipe Calderón told IPS that the reports from Chiapas came as a complete surprise, and stated that the executive branch has no harassment strategy towards the EZLN, who have not fired a single shot since the second week of 1994.
The authorities in Chiapas, headed by Governor Juan Sabines of the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), have not reported any changes in the situation in the area, while lawmakers and social activists have lost interest in the once-famous guerrilla group.
Ledesma said that on Monday he travelled through jungle and valley areas in Chiapas, and with the help of several companions rescued a wounded indigenous man who had been shot and pursued by groups that he identified as paramilitaries, in a conflict over land.
"A deliberate concerted action between paramilitaries (who are also indigenous people) and the police, army and authorities is taking place here, the purpose of which is to attack the Zapatistas," Ledesma said.
One of the first actions undertaken by former president Vicente Fox (2002-2006) was to order the withdrawal of the army from the guerrilla-held areas and their surroundings, but human rights organisations say that this was merely a strategic relocation of troops.
Since 2001, when a convoy of EZLN delegates entered Mexico City to the cheers of hundreds of thousands of people, to call for approval of a law on indigenous culture and rights, the guerrillas have gradually faded from the political scene and their leader, ‘Subcomandante Marcos", has distanced himself from the left and the intellectuals who supported him.
In 2006 and 2007, beginning in parallel with the election campaign which brought Calderón to power on Dec. 1, 2006, Marcos travelled the country unarmed, with government permission, leading "The Other Campaign", an attempt to rally non-electoral political actors and press for the drafting of a new constitution.
But most Mexican saw and heard nothing of his cross-country travels.
Before the end of 2007, Marcos announced that he was returning to his stronghold in Chiapas and that he would neither emerge nor speak again until a future unspecified date. He warned, however, that the EZLN would retaliate if attacked.
Fourteen years ago, thousands of Mexicans mobilised against the army attacks on the EZLN, which led to a law declaring a ceasefire.
But now it appears that no one is prepared to react to the information that an onslaught against the rebel group is in progress.
"The situation in Chiapas is serious and violence is on the rise. The public should know this," Ledesma said.
Earlier reports by the Fox administration, confirmed by several researchers, indicate that the EZLN is in administrative and political control of 15 percent of Chiapas, the country’s poorest state, which has a total area of 75,634 square kilometres.
In that area, where government social programmes are inoperative, there are about 100,000 mainly indigenous people, who live in dire poverty, as do most of Mexico’s roughly 10 million Indians.
About 5,000 poorly armed men constitute the military forces of the EZLN. But Zapatistas have forsworn all offensive action.
CAPISE says that indigenous self-rule in the Zapatista area is a reality, and that their own health, education and development programmes are in place. But these achievements are increasingly threatened by the military and paramilitary presence and by pressure from indigenous campesino groups opposed to the guerrillas. (END/2008)
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Chiapas: Zapatistas host Women's Encuentro —amid ongoing violence
Chiapas: Zapatistas host Women's Encuentro —amid ongoing violence
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 03:30.
To celebrate the 14th anniversary of their New Years Day uprising, Mexico's Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) hosted a Women's Encuentro ("encounter" or "meeting") at the jungle settlement of La Garrucha, Chiapas state. Officially dubbed the "Encuentro of the Indigenous Zapatista Women with the Women of the World," the meeting brought together women from throughout Mexico and several other countries around the globe. In a case of self-conscious role reversal, men at the gathering were confined to cooking and cleaning, while women did all the talking. Accounts and images are online at Chiapas IMC.
Meanwhile, Hermann Bellinghausen reports for La Jornada Jan. 2 on further attacks against Zapatista support bases by followers of the ironically-named Organization for the Defense of Indigenous and Campesino Rights (OPDDIC), which the EZLN charges is a paramilitary group. On Dec. 29, Zapatista supporter Pablo Silvano Jiménez was shot and wounded by an OPDDIC gunman apparently backed up by Chaipas state police officers in the community of Betel Yochiv, near the settlement of Agua Clara. On Dec. 27, Zapatista supporter Julio Hernández Gómez was attacked with machetes by OPDDIC militants at Cascadas de Agua Azul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
