Bradenton man arrested for pointing finger

BRADENTON, FL -

A Bradenton man is facing assault charges after police say he pointed his finger and yelled at an off-duty sheriff’s deputy

Two things ray miller says you should know about him. One, he hates Muscovy Ducks.

“Our parking garage is littered with their feces. It’s like little bombs through there,” and two, he's a law-abiding citizen.

He has no criminal record at least until now.

Miller says it started when he and his wife saw someone feeding the ducks. They asked the woman to stop, but she ignored them. When she finally replied, miller says she told him "I’m a police officer, I can do what I want.”

The woman was Manatee County Sheriff's Deputy Kym Bennett. Bennett and Miller argued for a few minutes about the ducks, and about whether deputy Bennett was trespassing on the property since she didn't live in the condos there.

Miller says his wife decided to call the Bradenton Police department to ask them for a legal opinion on what they could do about the situation. But when police arrived, miller was in for a surprise.

deputy Bennett told police that miller had been aggressive, and had pointed his finger at her. Bennet pressed assault charges. Miller was arrested and taken to jail.

ABC 7 spoke with an attorney about this case. Mark Lipinski told us "I've never seen a case like this, don't know anybody who's seen a case like this. I've asked all the attorneys in the area, they've never heard of anything like this."

Lipinski says he understands why miller is crying foul. He says, "next time you want to shake your finger at somebody, you better think twice."

Miller thinks the whole thing is absurd. He will be arraigned in May 29th.

Australian government imposes military-police regime on Aborigines

By the Socialist Equality Party (Australia)

Under the cynical guise of protecting indigenous children from sexual abuse, the Howard government announced on Thursday a “national emergency” plan to take control of dozens of Aboriginal communities throughout the Northern Territory and impose virtual martial law conditions. Over coming weeks, police and troops will flood into as many as 60 towns and camps to enforce a series of draconian measures.

Welfare and family payments will be halved, with the seized portions transferred to food and clothing vouchers. All payments will be cut off if children fail to attend school, or are considered “at risk”. Forced labour will be imposed, via “work for the dole” programs, to “clean up” communities.

In “prescribed” zones across the Northern Territory, all children under the age of 16 will be subjected to compulsory medical checks for sexual abuse. Alcohol and X-rated pornography will be banned, with individuals as well as suppliers facing imprisonment.

At the same time, the existing permit system, which allows indigenous communities to restrict access to their lands, will be scrapped. Business managers—so-called “tsars”—will take charge of all public housing and government enterprises. These people will function as modern-day versions of the “administrators” and “protectors” who exercised complete authority over Aboriginal reservations in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Federal parliament will be recalled for a special mid-winter session to pass extraordinary, yet-to-be-seen legislation to authorise the takeover. The proposal was immediately endorsed by the Labor Party, whose leader Kevin Rudd pledged to give Prime Minister John Howard whatever support he needed.

Howard insisted that the catalyst for his government’s “hardline approach” was a recently released Northern Territory government inquiry report, “Little Children are Sacred,” which found that child sexual abuse was serious, widespread and often unreported. But Howard and Minister for Indigenous Affairs Mal Brough have brushed aside the report’s findings and recommendations, which called for better education and family support services, together with empowerment of Aboriginal communities.

The report concluded that “most Aboriginal people are willing and committed to solving problems and helping their children”. Aboriginal people were “not the only perpetrators of sexual abuse”—it existed throughout Australia and internationally. In indigenous communities, the roots lay in social problems that had developed over many decades: “the combined effects of poor health, alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, gambling, pornography, poor education and housing, and a general loss of identity and control”. Above all, “Improvements in health and social services are desperately needed.”

On the contrary, Howard’s package includes not a single cent for health care, education, housing or social services. Such is the acute shortage of medical staff throughout indigenous communities, the government is asking doctors to donate their services to implement the mandatory medical checks. While the myth is routinely peddled that millions of dollars have already been “squandered” on Aboriginal welfare, every available statistic points to decades of chronic under-funding.

Less than three months ago, Oxfam Australia condemned Australia’s “health gap”—the fact that the federal government spent approximately 70 cents per person on the health of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for every $1 spent on the rest of the population. The “Close the Gap” report ranked Australia as the worst among wealthy nations at improving the health of indigenous people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders still died nearly 20 years younger than other Australians, and infant mortality was three times higher.

Dr Paul Bauert, head of pediatrics at Royal Darwin Hospital, denounced the government for ignoring the huge medical challenge produced by poverty-related illnesses. The indigenous children he had seen suffered “pus coming out of their ears, rheumatic heart disease, pus in their lungs [because] they’re living in a house with 20 other people, with three bedrooms and one bathroom and one toilet”. He said existing resources were “minimal,” with the Northern Territory having only a quarter of the doctors needed to conduct regular visits to remote townships.

Far from addressing this social catastrophe, Howard’s measures will deepen it.

What will happen to the families whose welfare payments are cut off? What will be done with those children who fail the medical checks? How many more Aboriginal men will be jailed, when the indigenous imprisonment rate is already 30 times the national average?

According to Aboriginal health specialist, Dr Ben Bartlett, conducting forced medical examinations would be traumatic and could, in itself, constitute sexual abuse. Another expert insisted that the inevitable result of the government’s “knee-jerk ... military response” would be increased suicide and violence. “There will be greater feelings of despair,” said Southern Cross University professor Judy Atkinson, the author of three previous reports on child sexual abuse in indigenous communities.

Child welfare workers are warning of a new “Stolen Generation” of children placed in institutions or foster homes. Already, figures released this month by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that the number of children aged between 12 and 17 removed from their family in 2006 rose to 9,276, up one-third since 1998. Of these children, 1,170, or about 13 percent, were indigenous, although indigenous people make up just 2 percent of the population.

Howard’s political agenda

At Thursday’s media conference, Howard declared that “constitutional niceties” had to be cast aside for “the care and protection of young children”. In the first instance, the new regime will be imposed in the Northern Territory, which operates under a different legal framework than the states. But Howard has called for urgent meetings with the six state Labor governments to adopt similar blueprints.

The prime minister claimed he detected a new “mood” among “average Australians” who felt shame and anger about the sexual abuse of indigenous children, and expected governments to respond. With the enthusiastic assistance of the media, he is seeking to divert legitimate public outrage at the terrible conditions in remote Aboriginal townships away from those responsible—successive federal, territory and state governments.

Howard’s claim to be concerned for the plight of poor indigenous children is contemptible. In reality, he is using the social distress caused by decades of official neglect and deprivation, on top of two centuries of massacres, dispossession and forced separation of children, as the pretext for a new form of state repression. Alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and sexual abuse are symptoms of deep and longstanding social problems: poverty, deprivation and denial of essential infrastructure and services, including health care and schools.

The government’s turn—with full bipartisan support—to punitive police-state measures against the most disadvantaged layers of the Australian population has far-reaching implications for the lives, social conditions and basic democratic rights of all working people. During his media conference, Howard revealed that federal cabinet is drawing up similar measures for all welfare recipients. Precedents are being established, using the most vulnerable members of society, that will be extended throughout the country.

At the centre of the new scheme is a massive land grab. The Howard government will override the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act and the 1976 Land Rights Act—which granted land tenure to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory—in order to take over land, initially through five-year leases. No compensation will be paid to the current landholders, despite a constitutional requirement to do so. Instead, they will be paid “in kind”—through government services—a proposal reminiscent of the days when cattle station owners gave Aboriginal workers rations of tea, sugar and flour in lieu of wages.

To enforce these deeply anti-democratic measures, police will be mobilised from across the country, backed by military units. According to Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough, a former army officer, the police will arrive in military vehicles and the army will provide logistical backup for frontline policing.

Brough likened the situation to a community being struck by a cyclone or flood. “Certain things have to be put aside. Certain normalities have to be discarded.” But the epidemic of ill-health and abuse among indigenous children is not a natural disaster—nor has it emerged overnight. It is a social disaster, which is now being exploited to radically extend the domestic role of the armed forces.

While Labor is marching lockstep with Howard, and a whole layer of privileged Aboriginal leaders is collaborating with the government, significant voices of opposition have already emerged among health professionals, scholars, lawyers and local Aboriginal leaders. Among them is the winner of the 2007 Miles Franklin literary award, indigenous writer Alexis Wright. She accused the government of “riding roughshod yet again, trampling heavily, bringing down the sledgehammer approach”. This opposition will grow and broaden as the true character of the government’s takeover becomes clearer.

As numbers of commentators have observed, there is an element of desperate election politics in Howard’s announcement. Facing the prospect of defeat at this year’s election, according to opinion polls, Howard is anxiously seeking another reactionary diversion, like the 2001 “children overboard” refugee accusations or the 2003 “weapons of mass destruction” fabrications.

But the plan is part of a wider agenda. Throughout his political career, Howard has made a point of whitewashing the genocidal policies carried out during the past 200 years against Australia’s indigenous population. His government has dismantled representative Aboriginal bodies, such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and consistently blamed Aboriginal people for their own plight. He has also sought to abolish native and communal title. Under the Northern Territory takeover, entire communities are likely to be dispersed and their land cleared for unfettered exploitation by mining companies and pastoralists.

Virtually every media outlet, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has adopted the government’s line. The Murdoch media, in particular, has hailed Howard’s announcement. According to Nicolas Rothwell’s “analysis” on the Australian’s front page, Howard moved with “rapier speed and devastating force” to sweep away “a generation’s worth of political assumptions” and impose a “completely new pattern of surveillance and control” on indigenous people.

While this assault has a distinctly racist component, it is directed against the entire working class. As the social polarisation produced by more than two decades of “free market” policies intensifies, the Howard government is erecting the scaffolding for a police state. At the same time as it turns to militarism abroad—in Iraq, East Timor and the South Pacific—to realise its economic and strategic agenda, the Australian ruling elite is trampling over basic civil liberties and democratic rights at home.

The Socialist Equality Party calls on the working class as a whole—indigenous and non-indigenous alike—to oppose Howard’s deeply reactionary plan and make a political break with the entire official political apparatus, including the Labor Party. What is required is the unification of the working class on the basis of a socialist program to completely reorganise economic and social life to meet human need, not corporate profit. Such a program must include the allocation of billions of dollars in resources to overcome the social disadvantage suffered by Australia’s indigenous population, and to rectify the historic crimes perpetrated against it.

Atlanta officials declare Constitution-free zone

By Jennifer Carden

The city of Atlanta has created a Constitution-free zone on public property for this weekend's 2007 Atlanta Pride festival, according to pastors and lawyers who have been trying to secure an assurance that Christians' free-speech rights will be protected.

"The Constitution does not apply in Piedmont Park this weekend," attorney Joel Thornton, of the International Human Rights Group told WND.

"The city of Atlanta, whose attorneys I have been negotiating with for the past six months, has just sent me a letter saying that they 'will not be able to offer you or your client[s] any assistance in this matter,'" he said.

The theme of the Piedmont Park event for Atlanta's "gay" community may be: "Our Rights, Your Rights, Human Rights," but the pastors have no doubts their Christian message will be silenced by the authority of the city's police force.

An estimated 300,000 people from all areas of the country attend the festival, which is the culmination of Atlanta's "Gay" Pride month, an event welcoming "diversity," "tolerance" and "rights."

But, said Thornton, "when officers of the Atlanta Police Department threaten to arrest Christians for sharing their faith at the event there will be nothing stopping them from keeping the Gospel message from being heard in this community."

Thornton's conclusion is supported by the experiences of a number of pastors who at the 2006 event were restricted for delivering "incongruent" messages at the homosexual event. That scene was captured on videotape:

Dick Christensen said he and his small group of urban missionaries hadn't even unfurled their banners on the grassy knoll outside the festival gate a year ago before they were threatened with arrest.

Atlanta Pride Committee Executive Director Donna Narducci approached Christensen with a personal security guard and an Atlanta police officer, asking him to move from his place outside of the public park.

"It’s not like we had banners and bullhorns," Christensen told WND. "I was just wearing an ordinary shirt, no buttons, and I'm confronted before I even begin to exercise my First Amendment right to free speech."

"She was carrying a permit, and she said that I had to leave the public sidewalk surrounding the park," he recalled, "because, and I quote her, I was not 'carrying a message that is congruent with Atlanta Pride.' That is the reason I had to leave the public sidewalk or face arrest."

"I do not want to be arrested for preaching the Gospel," Christensen responded, adding, "This is a public access/public street."

"What happens if I don't move," Christensen asked. "The police officer stood nodding when Narducci said 'Yes, you will be arrested...'" he remembers.

After the street ministry moved across the street, Christensen said they were "attacked" by festival attendees. "One of the more disorderly participants knocked down one of the preachers, attacked one of our banners and ripped it off the pole," he recalled.

Christensen later found the exact permit Narducci referenced, which she had used to banish pastors from sidewalks surrounding the park. Upon reading the permit, Christensen said, "There was nothing there that excluded anyone carrying other messages or any person in general from entering the park. She was basically ad-libbing."

Bill Adams, one of Christensen's fellow street pastors, also was threatened with arrest, but he feels he was targeted before the festival even began, primarily due to his efforts to rid the parade of female nudity.

"This will be my sixth or seventh 'Pride' weekend," he said, "and every Saturday they have an official 'Dyke March.' Routinely, many of the women in the parade will be bare-chested, sometimes with 'pasties' on. There is visible, flagrant, unquestionable nudity."

A friend of Adams' made a DVD of photos to document the nudity and obscene acts in violation of city and state indecency ordinances. After Adams and several of his compatriots appeared separately at city hall without success, they appeared en masse, asking the city to enforce its indecency ordinance at this year's rally. Adams said they were hoping to protect local families in the public park and ensure that lawless nudity would not again be protected as free expression.

But according to Thornton, the city did not even admit it had an ordinance about indecency until Adams showed them the section where it could be found.

After meeting with Robin Shahar, an open lesbian on the mayor's legal counsel staff, Imara Canady, of the cultural affairs office, and an Atlanta police sergeant, Adams realized the problem would come down to a skewed definition of decency.

"The immediate response…was that Robin Shahar would not admit that topless women violated the indecency ordinance," he said. "They told me they weren't concerned, and that they certainly wouldn't put a stop to it. Their ultimate response was to do nothing."

According to Georgia State Code, Section 16-6-8, "A person commits the offense of public indecency when he or she performs any of the following acts in a public place." The third act listed is "a lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity."

Atlanta City Ordinance Section 4, Section 106-129 regards as indecent exposure: "An exposure of one's genitals or one's breast, if female."

But according to GLBT Liaison Officer Darlene Harris, indecency is "tricky" to define in Atlanta, as it technically only requires that part of the female breast be covered in public.

Harris doesn't feel nudity was "a problem" last year, although she admits "there were a few isolated incidents."

While she would not comment about last year's First Amendment violations, Harris assured WND that police protocol had changed.

"This year," she said, "things are very different. It is very clear that the protestors have their First Amendment rights. They will not be stopped by the police. They will not be stopped by festival coordinators. That will not happen this year."

In fact, she said, "The protesters are more than welcome to come to the park. They have their First Amendment right to free speech, and they will not have to worry about being locked up and going to jail."

The main concern of the Atlanta Police Department, according to Harris, is the possibility of riots. "As long as [protesters] aren't inciting a riot, they are allowed to be there. They are welcomed to come and speak."

When pressed for a definition of "speech inciting a riot," Harris said protestors were free to express their opinion without regard to its content, as long as it is cannot be construed as "egging on" the festival attendees.

"You can say, 'I believe that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and that means you're going to hell,'" she said, "and that is free speech."

But based on last year's unofficial standard of "congruency," Thornton believes Harris's terminology will be enforced differently than it is explained.

"They're trying to categorize 'noncongruent' speech as 'fighting words' intended to incite riots," he said. "You can't say something is 'inciting a riot' just because it's making people mad, which is what they tried to do last year. You can't penalize people for what you think they're going to say. You can't penalize people for the way you think others might react."

He continued, "The police shouldn't be trying to stop the speech, they should be trying to stop those trying to riot. You don't say, 'This bank robbery wouldn't have happened if the bank didn't have all of this money;' you try to catch the robbers."

"There is only one viewpoint allowed," concluded Thornton, "and rights only matter if they're expressed in a fashion appealing to the homosexual community."

Pastor Billy Ball, one of the known five men arrested last year, knows firsthand that rights haven't always mattered at all, no matter their fashion of expression.

Ball was arrested last year for "criminal trespass" after walking, accompanied by several other pastors, within 300 yards of the Dyke Parade. The arresting officer, an avowed lesbian, responded to his inquiries about compelling governmental interest with an angry brush-off: "I'm not taking questions today, I'm giving orders."

Within minutes, five of the men were handcuffed and locked in a stainless steel paddy wagon across the street, where they would wait in 100-plus degree heat until they were paraded through an Atlanta precinct. Ball required medical attention after his stay in the steaming, unventilated paddy wagon, and recalls that the men were required to remain handcuffed even when they needed to use the restroom.

After a night in the Fulton County jail, the men were released under the condition that they notify the city of Atlanta of their whereabouts every month. To Ball's chagrin, the men have not yet been arraigned, their $2 million lawsuit is hung up in red tape, and a year later, the case has not even gone to trial.

Dick Christensen calls the situation, "virtual probation," noting that several of the men have been denied jobs because of their "new prison record."

The presence of Ball, his Sons of Thundr, and other pastors at the event has been an increasing source of angst for event organizers, Donna Narducci, executive director of the Atlanta Pride Committee, told "Southern Voice."

"It became of greater concern to the Atlanta Pride Committee over the past few years because the numbers of protesters has increased each year," she said. "We dealt with this issue [in 2006] in a more in-depth way [than previous years], and the city law department helped us with that."

Earlier this month, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin was forced to back down from a proposal to create "free speech zones" that would actually limit where pastors and other "protesters" can demonstrate during large city festivals. The mayor's proposal stemmed from incidents at Pride in recent years, but the measure was widely rebuked as Orwellian doublespeak.

The proposed ordinance would have allowed large event organizers to request the creation of "free speech zones," where protesters espousing viewpoints contrary to the overall theme of the event would be restricted to demonstrating. The ordinance would have also empowered event organizers to determine "who is authorized to exercise her/his First Amendment rights as part of the outdoor festival on that day, and shall issue such people a badge to be worn indicating such authorization."

While the ordinance was unanimously struck down in the city council, Bill Adams and other pastors fear it serves as clear evidence of the Atlanta city officials' slant towards the homosexual agenda.

Mike Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund confirmed this is a common occurrence. "There have been city officials who have enlisted as volunteers to promote the homosexual agenda," he said. "It doesn't work out well for them in the courts. In fact, it almost always turns against them because the Constitution is so clear."

Catherine H. Woodling, media relations officer in the mayor's office says that fear is unfounded, telling WND, "Free speech is treated the same by the city, regardless of the content of the speech. The Atlanta police department will enforce the law at this and all other festivals in the city. The city permit process and the Atlanta Police Department are guided by the law and not arbitrary enforcement of the law targeted to any one group."

Despite all of the assurances, Adams remains unconvinced. "We want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt," he said, "but this weekend, we're not quite sure what will happen. We're happy to comply with the law, but we're not here to be bullied and have our First Amendment free speech rights violated."

2 girls kicked off Ore. bus for kissing

A transit agency chief apologized Wednesday to two teenage girls who were kicked off a city bus for kissing each other.

The girls, both 14, said the driver called them “sickos” after a female passenger complained about their kiss. The driver then stopped the bus along the street and forced them off.

“Removing the girls from the bus was not consistent with our policy,” said TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen. “I want to reiterate that we welcome all riders on our system.”

The 64-year-old driver also violated company policy that requires operators to call for assistance before removing any minors, TriMet said in a statement.

The driver, an 11-veteran who was not identified, will be disciplined, TriMet officials said, though no details were released.

“TriMet sincerely apologizes to the girls and their families for this incident,” Hansen said in the statement.

The mother of one of the girls, Ronnda Zezula, welcomed the apology.

“The only thing I had a problem with is they didn’t really address why the driver broke those policies,” Zezula said. “He knew it was wrong. He’s been a driver for 11 years.”

She also said she wished the agency had made the extent of the disciplinary action public to show it will not “be just a slap on the wrist.”

Zezula said the family has been encouraged to consider a lawsuit, but they will “have to mull it over.”

Want your stolen car back? Bring your checkbook

By Chao Xiong, Star Tribune

Don Gunnon made his way into his home with the use of a cane to walk because of back issues caused by a bullet lodged near is spine by his sciatic nerve. After Gunnon’s car was stolen it was sent to the Minneapolis impound lot. After Gunnon’s car was stolen it was sent to the Minneapolis impound lot. Being a disabled vet, having a wife with cancer and living on a fixed income Gunnon is unable to pay the $800 to get his car.

Don Gunnon woke up one morning last month and his 1987 Cadillac was gone.

Someone stole the brown sedan in the middle of the night, a neighbor told him. A phone call later, Gunnon learned more news that floored him: Minneapolis police found his $800 car in the alley behind his house, but didn't know how to reach him and had it towed to the city impound lot. Gunnon would have to pay $138 to get it back.

Gunnon, who is 47 and on disability, said he couldn't afford it so he had to let the car sit. Now, with storage fees accrued at $18 a day, Gunnon said he'd need about $800 to retrieve his car. The car is now in danger of being auctioned off and Gunnon could be left with a $400 bill for its storage, he said.

"I would've been better off if the thieves took the car," Gunnon said.

His predicament isn't unusual. Impound fees for stolen cars are common complaints received by a crime victims advocacy group. The complaints are so common that state Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, wrote a bill passed this spring that sets aside $75,000 each year for two years to subsidize those fees statewide.

"Re-victimizing the victim by making them pay to get their car back seems grossly unfair to me," Paymar said.

The Council on Crime and Justice receives about 1,000 calls each year to its hot line; 200 of those are about impounded stolen cars, said the group's projects director, Michael Bischoff.

Paymar said a "significant" number of Minnesota cities impound stolen vehicles and charge car owners for the towing and storage. While police pointed out that insurance might pay, Bischoff and Paymar said basic insurance and even some comprehensive plans don't cover the fees.

Paymar's bill takes effect July 1. That's too late for Gunnon, who said his car is slated to be auctioned. That's standard procedure for cars unclaimed for more than 15 days in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis police officers exercise their discretion about contacting the owner first, said police spokeswoman Lt. Amelia Huffman.

"How much time should officers, particularly on the north side, dedicate to looking for the owner of a car?" Huffman said. "There are always [crimes] going on, particularly in the Fourth Precinct."I can agree with that," Gunnon said, "but when they're standing in the car owner's driveway ... and all they got to reach out is their arm and knock on the door, they should do that."

In Gunnon's case, the Cadillac was registered to his previous address in south Minneapolis and not his new house in the 4300 block of Humboldt Avenue N., which he said he moved into about three weeks before the theft. (The law requires the registration to be updated within a month of moving.) However, the 911 call made during the May 11 incident shows that the caller said he thought it was his neighbor's car.

For now, Gunnon is trying to scrape together the $800 he needs to get his car back, with the Council on Crime and Justice donating some to his fund.

"Our stuff gets stolen," Gunnon said. "We don't plan on that."

City procedure allows for people like Gunnon to appeal and try to get some of their money back, but only after paying the fee and retrieving their car.

Meanwhile his wife, Linda Powis, 45, said it can take her up to three hours on the bus one way to get to her job as a forklift operator in Mendota Heights.

Paymar said he doesn't advocate eliminating the fees, saying cities need to be able to tow abandoned cars and recoup the costs.

Bischoff, of the council, said his group supported Paymar's legislation to help with price tag for some owners of stolen cars.

"A lot of people who call us already have limited financial means," he said. "A lot of people, even if they can afford it, feel a sense of injustice."

Bush is on a Mission from God

By Len Hart

Typically, Bush encourages the belief that he alone speaks with God. Meanwhile, there is evidence that like all cults, the GOP, communicates to its base in code words designed to assuage the base and dupe the rest of us.

The attack on Social Security was of this form. So, too, the war of aggression in Iraq.

There is only one reason a political party would want to communicate with its membership using "code words": it wants to hide its real agenda. It wants to keep non-members in the dark. That the GOP has eschewed good English for propaganda and "code words" is a dead give away: the GOP is not a political party. It's a kooky cult.

A very recent use of "code words" to communicate covertly with a cultist base, was found in a statement by Condi Rice:

"What we're seeing here ... are the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do, we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one."

"Birth pangs" is found prominently in scripture:

And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs."

(Matthew 24:3-8 RSV)

It is fair to ask if Condi Rice, a "self-professed evangelical" is, in fact, communicating a message to Bush's whacked-out, Republican base, many of whom have tried to justify the US war against Iraq with scripture and vague, weird references to rapture. Was Condo re-assuring the dogs of war who still support Bush? It would be alarming to know just how many of these folk truly believe that Bush is on a "Mission from God" to bring about Armageddon and, hence, the rapture.

The GOP has been taken over by hard core extremists and religious ideologues. I became aware of this in the early eighties. A state rep race used the term dynamic conservative to describe its candidate. I was curious -never having associated the word "dynamic" with conservatives. In this case, the code word dynamic conservative had been the product of a Chicago based political consulting firm that had been associated, at some point, with Congressman Phil Crane who had been, until his defeat in the elections of 2004, the longest-serving Republican member of the US House of Representatives. Interestingly, Crane went to Congress in 1969, succeeding Donald Rumsfeld who had been appointed to a position in the Nixon administration.

I had thought the phrase -dynamic conservative -an oxymoron. Was the candidate dynamic? Or was he conservative? Contradictory? Well, focus groups don't have a problem with that. And neither, apparently, do cults. There is a difference between mere jargon and code words, used by the GOP to both reveal and conceal. A code word is a signal to initiates, but a mask to everyone else.

Code words are designed to keep the public in the dark while GOP cultists communicate in code with one another. When Bush tried to destroy Social Security, he wished to reassure his radical base of robber barons and fanatics while concealing that fact from normal, hard working folk who depend upon Social Security. How to do it? Bush uses code words, understood by the base for what they are, but taken at face value by the rest of us. In this case, Bush's solution was the code word: privatization!

Admittedly, more odious and overt bigots have gone underground. And that is Bush's problem: how to communicate with them without giving the game away, without revealing to the world what he really is. Both dynamic conservatism and compassionate conservatism deserve special mention. Neither label, of itself, is a sure indicator of cultism. Both, however, serve a single purpose. They are the face the candidate shows his base; they are the glitzy store front he shows the world.

It is significant that both labels came into being at about the same time -a post Watergate world when the GOP began to realize that if they simply told the truth, they would lose. Lying, therefore, became GOP strategy. It must be kept in mind that the GOP had been under siege during Nixon's Watergate scandal and again when Ford pardoned Nixon. The bunker mentality born of those times is most certainly a defining characteristic of cults. There are others.

A cult is unquestioning in its commitment to a leader just as the GOP rank and file were unquestioning in their support of George W. Bush. Indeed, there were numerous billboards, presumably paid for by local GOP groups, which proclaimed Bush "Our Leader" or "The Leader". In another language that is "Der Führer".

As with any cult, the GOP leadership dictates how members think, act or speak. Until Iraq fell utterly apart, it was verboten to question, doubt, or disagree with "Der Führer". This was a time of "freedom fries", the Dixie Chicks boycott, and the orchestrated demonization of Michael Moore.

At this time many fundamentalists considered Bush to be "the Messiah" who had come again on a special mission from God to save humanity, or perhaps, to start Armegeddon. Even if that were true, I prefer the Blues Brothers.

Like many another cult, the GOP is elitist -but to point this out is called culture war, a code word understood by the GOP's elitist base. ? There are two senses in which the term culture war or cultural war is used. It was Pat Buchanan who first used the term cultural war to assure the religiously inclined that the opposition -liberals and Democrats -are evil:

There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side.

-Pat Buchanan, 1992 Republican Convention

Hitler used the same, simple-minded tactic. Aryan good; Jew bad!

There is yet another sense in which the GOP uses the term culture war to assure the affluent base that "greed is good". In this sense of the term, culture war immunizes Gordon Gekko wannabes from evil liberals, indeed, anyone possessing a concscience.

It is a warning to those who might be inclined to blow the whistle on GOP economic policy. To criticize improvident tax cuts as benefiting only the super-wealthy, for example, is labeled culture war. Merely labeling is enough to make weak-kneed Democrats fear and tremble.

In the GOP, as in any cult, "der Führer" is thought to be above the law. Nixon said "...if the President does it, it is not illegal". Bush has claimed similar "executive privileges" that are equally cultist in tone and effect, equally absurd. Because Bush is thought to be above the law, exempt from the restrictions of the US Constitution, the GOP has internalized an "us-versus-them" mentality. In smaller cults, this often leads to conflicts with society as a whole. The situation is complicated, however, when the cult leader, der Führer, occupies the Oval Office.

A cult will teach or imply that its ends justify any means. Means, for Bush and the GOP that enables and assists him, means trashing treaties, breaking international law, committing war crimes, perpetrating torture, waging wars of naked aggression. Like other cult leaders, Bush has often claimed that his "higher mission" justifies the various tortures and atrocities that have their origins inside the Bush bunker...uh..White House. For example, Bush could only have been referring to tortures and/or summary executions in his 2003 State of the Union address:

All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)

-George W. Bush, State of the Union, 2003

As far as anyone knows, none of those referred to by Bush received a trial. If so, it was a secret trial and therefore, a violation of international law and treaty. Or, Bush was simply lying through his teeth as he most certainly lied in his first debate with John Kerry. It was at the end of one of John Kerry's stronger moments when he explained that George W. Bush would prefer the people believe that it was Saddam Hussein who attacked the US. Bush snapped petulently: "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." Then he stumbled:

"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden. He's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice."

Oh really? The fact is there is no credible data on al Qaeda at all. Then or now. The CIA had estimated at the time that al Qaeda consisted of about two dozen operatives. 75 percent of two-dozen doesn't sound very impressive. But it does raise new questions about the US capture, detention and torture of the 3,000 detainees referred to by Bush in his address. We have only Bush's word that any were connected in any way with al Qaeda.

Since Bush made his remarks, the tortures of Abu Ghraib have come to light. It is fair to ask if Bush had merely communicated to his understanding base, his cult of torture and atrocity. In any case, true to the cultist nature of this illegitimate regime, Bush would justify both lie and atrocity on these grounds: he was on a mission from God. Again, I prefer the Blues Brothers. They didn't murder or torture anyone.

If Bush is on a mission from God so, too, the GOP which makes it all possible with its money and support. Those cult members in danger of getting caught are often thought to be justified in lying in order to protect "der Führer". This occurred during the Watergate scandal to protect Richard Nixon and it has happened during Bush's illegitimate occupation of the Oval Office.

There are many other characteristics of cults. I am confident that all apply to the GOP, a society apart where members are encouraged to obey "der Führer" without question even as his policies have proven disastrous for the people of America, indeed, the world. - The Existentialist Cowboy

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

By Mary Ratcliff

The role of religion in our politics has been growing steadily and the strongest religious voices have been on the religious right who after decades of shunning politics decided to enter into the fray wholeheartedly in the 1980s. According to fundamentalist Christian leaders like Pat Robertson the problems in the United States are the fault of the mainstream culture. In the minds of many fundamentalists, 9/11 happened because Americans have been too tolerant and too accepting of abortion and homosexuality. They want to stamp out the culture that they see is so dangerous and compel Americans to follow their scripture or to be condemned.

Ironically, one of their biggest fights with the American mainstream society is how difficult it has been to keep their children in the fundamentalist camp when they grow up. Fundamentalists have invested a great deal into trying to make sure their children are not polluted by the sinful world. They’ve created a parallel mass media where they can see and hear only godly programs. They’ve put on huge rallies and concerts providing Christian entertainment and music. And they’ve created a separate press that publishes Christian novels and magazines. Indeed, home-schooling was started largely in response to the “godless” culture which was so seductive to the children of the Christian fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, no matter how hard they have tried to build a haven where alien ideas are not allowed and unquestioning faith rules, many of their children have abandoned their faith. Why is that?

The Christian right believes it is because Satan is too strong, particularly in our godless American culture. And this causes them to be even more adamant that they must control all aspects of life and the government including the school boards, the city councils, the state houses and the federal government.

But is that true? Dr. Bob Altemeyer says no. Bob Altemeyer, a social psychologist and researcher at University of Manitoba, has conducted a large body of research that has studied Christian fundamentalists as a part of his larger research into authoritarian personalities. (Altemeyer’s research was featured in John Dean’s Conservatives Without Conscience, where John Dean, a life-long conservative and counsel to Richard Nixon during the Watergate years, sought to discover the roots to the problems afflicting the conservative movement and its dangerous effects on the Republican Party.)

Through his research using surveys of parents and children of fundamentalist households, Bob Altemeyer found that fundamentalist families have a particularly poor track record in passing their beliefs down to their descendents. He found that the children are vulnerable in three areas (pdf, pages 130-131).

“Christian fundamentalism has three great enemies in the struggle to retain its children, judging by the stories its apostates tell: weaknesses in its own teachings, science, and hypocrisy.”

For the first problem: when the Bible is actually read, the actual text causes problems for the discerning reader. “The Bible was, they said, too often inconsistent, petty, boring, appalling, self-serving, or unbelievable.” Altemeyer found that although many fundamentalist Christians profess allegiance to an inerrant Bible, very few have actually read it completely for themselves and some who do find the inconsistencies too great.

For the second problem: for some, science makes too much sense and where the Bible was out of step with science, for people who find the logic of science compelling, the decree from the pulpit to ignore and disbelieve science is too much.

“Science made too much sense and had pushed traditional beliefs into a tight corner. When their church insisted that its version of creation, the story of Adam and Eve, the sundry miracles and so on had to be taken on faith, the fledgling apostates eventually found that preposterous. Faith for them was not a virtue, although they could see why their religion taught people it was. It meant surrendering rationality. From its earliest days fundamentalism has drawn a line in the sand over scripture versus science, and some of its young people eventually felt they had to step over the line, and then they kept right on going.”

And finally in regards to the third problem, for some, what they learned from their families and from the pulpit was how valuable integrity and truthfulness was in defining one’s character. And the implacable demand that one submit their belief and their reason to something they found irrational became too much. Here’s how Altemeyer described the problem:

“Their families will say it was Satan. But we thought, after interviewing dozens of “amazing apostates,” that (most ironically) their religious training had made them leave. Their church had told them it was God’s true religion. That’s what made it so right, so much better than all the others. It had the truth, it spoke the truth, it was The Truth. But that emphasis can create in some people a tremendous valuing of truth per se, especially among highly intelligent youth who have been rewarded all their lives for getting “the right answer.” So if the religion itself begins making less and less sense, it fails by the very criterion that it set up to show its superiority.

Similarly, pretending to believe the unbelievable violated the integrity that had brought praise to the amazing apostates as children. Their consciences, thoroughly developed by their upbringing, made it hard for them to bear false witness. So again they were essentially trapped by their religious training. It had worked too well for them to stay in the home religion, given the problems they saw with it.”

Is Altemeyer correct? Anecdotal evidence says yes. One of the more thoughtful bloggers writing about ethics and morality on the web is Fred Clark, the proprietor of Slacktivist. Fred is a gifted writer who is deeply engaged as an evangelical Christian in discussing what it means to live as a true Christian. Recently he wrote about what caused him to reject the teachings of his family’s faith where homosexuality and evolution were condemned.

“In the footnote to the previous post, I mentioned an epiphany of sorts that occurred when I was confronted with the disparity between the "trap street" [Ed: an imaginary street shown on the map to detect copyright violation] shown on my county road atlas and the actual terrain of the actual county. The analogy is not precisely perfect, but that disparity between the map and the terrain somewhat paralleled the disparities I was also encountering between the text of scripture and the actual world around me.

So there I was, at the end of what was, undeniably, a dead end street, consulting a map that claimed otherwise. It was something of a Groucho moment: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" I sided with my own two eyes, thus accepting the principle that reason and experience were essential considerations for evaluating the meaning and application of the text. In a sense, I was fumbling my way toward something like Wesley's "four-legged stool."

No one was claiming, of course, that my county road atlas ought to be read as the inerrant, infallible and authoritative Word of God, so my fundamentalist teachers would not have disagreed with my choosing, in this case, to regard my own experience of the terrain as worthy of consideration.

Nor did they deny that I would encounter similar disparities when consulting the "map" of scripture. In that case, however, they taught that I must always side with the map. That is what it means to be a fundamentalist.

Thus, to cite one of the more infamous examples, we were taught that evolution was a lie. The map, the Bible, said that the world was only 6,000 years old, and if that's what the map says, then this must trump any claims of "science" or any other observation about so-called reality. If reality and the map conflict, then we must reinterpret reality to conform to the map.”

Fundamentalism has gained enormous power in our country today. Yet, fundamentalism continues to have a hard row to hoe in gaining a majority in the United States without a severe disruption occurring. Altemeyer’s observation that fundamentalism has some inherent flaws that will keep it from becoming the overwhelming worldview is reassuring. Because we are now seeing how far the Christian Right will go to create a world walled off from alien (liberal and scientific) thoughts. What Altemeyer’s research tells us is that despite the attempt to create a fundamentalist haven where no dissenting thoughts are allowed, there is still a reservoir of common sense that will resist the pressure to reject reality. Nevertheless, we need to find ways to make it easier for people to resist the lure of fundamentalism which paints a picture of black and white, the rejection of rationality and promises an end that satisfies the apocalyptic dreams of those who are targets for enrollment into the fundamentalist fantasy.

'Ecoterrorism' case stirs debate in US

Environmental radicals, who pleaded guilty to arson, may face harsher sentences under antiterror laws.

Ashland, Ore.

When law-enforcement agencies arrested 10 animal rights activists and environmental radicals 18 months ago, it was a major breakthrough in the fight against what officials call "ecoterrorism."

Among the crimes solved were a string of arsons and other attacks across five Western states totaling more than $40 million in damage. Targets of the group calling itself The Family had been timber companies, meatpacking plants, an SUV dealership, a Colorado ski resort, and the University of Washington Horticultural Center.

Now, with all defendants having pleaded guilty because of the weight of the evidence against them, including an informant who wore a recording device, prosecutors are seeking "terrorism enhancements" to their sentences.

"This is the first time in the history of the US that the federal government is seeking this enhancement for property crimes that did not result in injury or death to humans," said Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene, Ore.

In their 148-page sentencing memorandum filed last week in federal court in Eugene, prosecutors argued that "although the government was not a direct victim, it was nonetheless a federal crime of terrorism because of the offenders' motivation." Intimidation, coercion, and retaliation aimed at the conduct of government, prosecutors said, deserves "enhanced" punishment under federal antiterrorism laws.

The ecosaboteurs' goal, according to prosecutors, was to retaliate for certain federal policies related to natural resources and animals, and they were attempting to coerce government agencies into changing those policies. Federal sentencing guidelines in such cases can add up to 20 years to a sentence, and this can also mean being sent to a maximum security prison.

The defendants and their attorneys point out that those charged made special efforts to avoid harming people.

Prosecutors say this makes no difference, especially when it comes to arson attacks.

"This was a classic case of terrorism, despite their protests of lofty humane goals," Assistant US Attorney Stephen Peifer told US District Judge Ann Aiken in court Tuesday. "It was pure luck no one was killed or injured by their actions."

In recent years, the USA Patriot Act and other legislation have broadened the application of antiterrorism laws and punishments to include radical environmental and animal-welfare activists. After years of unsolved crimes acknowledged to be the work of the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, the use of informants has broken up several cells, including The Family.

Still, "direct actions" claimed by these shadowy groups with no apparent central leadership continue, experts say.

"Vandalism occurs on a regular basis," says Oren Segal, who tracks extremist groups for the Anti-Defamation League in New York. "The harassment of employees of companies that either animal test or work with companies that animal test also occurs on a daily basis. New groups have formed, and new leaders have emerged."

"Moreover, the movement's violent rhetoric increasingly justifies targeting humans to save the lives of animals," says Mr. Segal. "It was not surprising when ALF took credit for leaving an incendiary device at the home of a UCLA primate researcher in the summer of 2006. Although the device failed to ignite, arson investigators said it would have made escape difficult or impossible had it functioned properly."

Mainstream environmentalists and animal-welfare advocates decry such violence. But they're concerned that branding it as "terrorism" threatens legitimate activism as well.

"When everyone is a terrorist, no one is," says Ms. Regan. "The further we broaden the language of what a true terrorist is, the less security we really have. If a monkeywrencher is the same as Osama bin Laden, where is the distinction drawn?"

A new Arizona law that denies bond to suspected illegal immigrants charged with crimes faces its first legal challenge

PHOENIX

An Arizona state judge recently denied bond to Melvin Omar Hernandez because he believes Mr. Hernandez is an illegal immigrant and, thus, a flight risk.

It's a step unique to Arizona, which has a new law – approved by 78 percent of voters here in November – that essentially denies bail to suspected illegal immigrants who've probably committed serious crimes. Known locally as Proposition 100, it is intended to make sure those suspects stay in jail and face criminal charges rather than slipping across the southern border to avoid prosecution or getting deported by federal immigration officials.

But Hernandez is not a flight risk, his lawyers argue, and so the judge's ruling violates the spirit of Proposition 100. After all, Hernandez was arrested merely for possessing fake documents, and he willingly – without incarceration or police transport – turned up for two court hearings after his arrest, they note. The defense team is petitioning the state appeals court to reverse the judge's ruling, but it is also challenging the very constitutionality of Proposition 100 itself.

The appeals court is slated to hear arguments in the case Tuesday. It's not clear how soon a ruling will come or how many of the thorny issues surrounding Proposition 100 it will ultimately resolve. But no one expects that the matter will fade anytime soon, given the explosion of controversy over the new law this spring.

For one thing, there are at least 95 other people in Arizona in the same boat as Hernandez, with more on the way – and some of them may also emerge as test cases of the new law. For another, all sides in the battle over immigration perceive too much at stake to let it rest.

Advocates of Proposition 100 say it is in Arizona's interest to prosecute hardened criminals to the full extent of the law, and to do that the state needs to prevent them from retreating to Mexico or other countries of origin. Moreover, it is a potential way to collect data that have long been in short supply: the number of serious or violent crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

Opponents say Arizona is depriving individuals – mainly Latinos – of basic constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection under the law. They also charge that the state law conflicts with US immigration law.

Though the short life of Proposition 100 has been marked by acrimony, all sides agree on a few things. All say Proposition 100 is proving costly to implement. They also agree that it enters uncharted territory by placing the burden of proving a person is in the US illegally on the state, rather than on the federal government.

"We do know that it is creating a financial burden by various entities involved – the county attorney's office, indigent defense agencies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, and law-enforcement agencies," says Tim Ryan, associate presiding criminal judge for Superior Court in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix. Because the law is so new, courts haven't calculated its costs. One reason for the extra resources is to staff the courts for an additional hearing for most of the Proposition 100 cases – 600 so far.

How the new law works

Because of controversy over how to interpret the letter of the law, the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court in early April laid out directions for the courts and law-enforcement officers on how to comply with Proposition 100. Here's how Chief Justice Ruth McGregor ordered the process to work.

If a judge or court commissioner finds probable cause that a defendant committed the serious crime for which he or she is accused and that the defendant is probably in the US illegally, another evidentiary hearing must be held. At that time, the court must determine whether "proof is evident or the presumption great" that the defendant is guilty of an offense listed in the law and use the same standard for assessing his immigration status. If the court finds that those standards are met, the defendant cannot be released on bail pending trial.

Moreover, Chief Justice McGregor ordered changes to the form police officers fill out for every arrest. "The modified form will direct law enforcement to set forth facts that indicate whether a defendant entered or remained in this country illegally," according to her administrative order. That change, in particular, has caused much consternation because it directs local police to assess someone's immigration status – a role they've not played in the past.

"The question is much broader than immigration issues," says Robert Hooker, Pima County public defender in Tucson. "It's what is the proper role ... of the court here?" Specifically, he asks, did the high court's order violate the Constitution's separation of powers requirement by laying out guidelines for law-enforcement officers?

Early results show that about half of the 350 defendants initially suspected of falling under Proposition 100's no-bond rule were subsequently released on bond or their own recognizance. If those numbers make defense lawyers unhappy, they make some prosecutors livid.

Charges of stymieing the law

Andrew Thomas, attorney for Maricopa County who helped get Proposition 100 on the ballot, says more people should behaving bond denied. "The standards seem to have changed [since the chief justice's order]," Mr. Thomas says. Court officers previously had been "more willing" to find that the state had met the test of "proof evident/presumption great," he says.

From the beginning, he charges, some in the criminal-justice system have undermined Proposition 100. He says it is needed because offenders had slipped across the border pending trial only to return to the US and commit other serious crimes.

To Kara Hartzler, an attorney who specializes in immigration law at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in Florence, Ariz., the problem lies with the law. "The way that it is drafted is so contrary to the way [US] immigration law is set up that this is going to be absurdly impossible to enforce," she says.

Suit Over Princess Pix Illuminates EU's Strict Privacy Laws

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- While on vacation this week, I was relaxing over the English-language bulletin The Hague Amsterdam Times when a curious item caught my eye. It seems that last week Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Maxima of the Netherlands filed a lawsuit against a gossip magazine for publishing photographs of the princess relaxing on the beach with her two elder daughters and their nanny.

The prince and princess argue that publishing photographs of famous people in public places, but doing private things, violates European Union privacy law. The royal family just might win, and the case provides a fascinating contrast to the way courts balance privacy and free press in the United States, where the outcome of such a lawsuit would likely favor the tabloid.

The lawsuit rests on a decision by the European Union Court of Human Rights, in a case brought by Princess Carolyn von Hannover of Monaco against Germany and decided in 2004. In that case, Princess Carolyn sued to enjoin the publication of photos of her going about her daily business. Germany had ruled against her, holding that under that country's law, the rights of a free press, including publications intended to entertain, outweighed the rights of celebrities like the princess to control photos of themselves in public, non-secluded places.

The EU court reversed the ruling, essentially telling Germany that as part of the federation, its law had to change. Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, privacy was defined as "the right to live one's own life with a minimum of interference." That meant that even a celebrity par excellence had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his or her private life, including conduct in a public place.

Princess Carolyn therefore could suppress the publication of photos of her tripping over an obstacle at a beach club, shopping or kissing her male companion, as the publication was not part of a public debate, but only to satisfy public curiosity about private matters.

The court also opined that modern communications technologies justified a broader protection for private life, since publishers had an increased capacity to store and reproduce personal data and to disseminate photos to a broad section of the public.

Since the pictures of Princess Maxima and her daughters show the family playing on the beach, there's a strong parallel to the von Hannover decision. Under European law, the royal family's privacy rights could well outweigh the press' right to cater to (though never satiate) public curiosity.

In the United States, however, there is no federal right that protects regular people from being photographed by either the government or private entities. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, but this rule does not prohibit law enforcement taking photos of you in public places, or the publication of any photos by a private entity.

In the few states where individuals do have a statutory right to control publication of photographs, it is essentially a property interest in the economic value of your likeness rather than a right to keep personal information private. This means that the right can be sold, and the buyer can enforce the interest as its own economic right.

In a dispute involving two competing baseball card companies, both of which purchased the "exclusive right" to certain players' likenesses, the first buyer was able to stop the second company from using the photos, despite the players' consent.

The right can also be passed on to and enforced by heirs, and is heavily dependent on a finding of commercial exploitation. As a result, regular people who don't have a commercial interest in their image are less protected than celebrities who do, even though the public arguably has more of a legitimate interest in what famous people are up to.

In any event, these state rights are limited by the First Amendment. Political messages, scholarship and works of art are protected. Thus, unauthorized biographies can use a celebrity's likeness to sell books. But confusion sets in when courts try to distinguish between art, commentary and exploitation.

Consider the movie Forrest Gump, which uses the likenesses of famous people; or a T-shirt depicting the Three Stooges; or a bobble-head doll of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Is any, all or only some of this art and social commentary protected by the First Amendment? Legal scholars agree that Gump is protected. But in past cases, the T-shirt manufacturer lost and Schwarzenegger settled his lawsuit against the toy manufacturer.

Despite the legal confusion, the tabloid would have a better defense against the prince and princess' lawsuit here in the United States than it does in the European Union. Courts generally protect free speech rights in films, their associated advertising, parody, critique and even entertainment-news reporting.

I support a ruling in favor of the paper. History shows that when it comes to deciding what qualifies as a matter of public interest and what's merely improper economic exploitation it's hard for the courts to draw a clear line. And it becomes dangerous for publishers to guess at the boundaries of a fuzzy one.

Still, there's something valuable for U.S. privacy law in the EU approach. Here in Europe, privacy is not an all-or-nothing right that stops at the front door, or that protects only commercial value. Rather, privacy implicates individual autonomy, private social interactions and personal freedom.

Weighing these human interests against the rights of the press to publish and the public to know will be increasingly difficult. The court considering Princess Maxima's suit has its work cut out for it. But at least the EU has a better formulation of what is at stake for individuals.

What's in a Laptop? Court Ponders Legality of Border Searches

Is your laptop a fancy piece of luggage or an extension of your mind? That's the central question facing a federal appeals court in a case that could sharply limit the government's ability to snoop into laptop computers carried across the border by American citizens.

The question, before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arose from the prosecution of Michael Timothy Arnold, an American citizen whose laptop was randomly searched in July 2005 at Los Angeles International Airport as he returned from a three-week trip to the Philippines. Agents booted the computer and began opening folders on the desktop, where they found a picture of two naked women, continued searching, then turned up what the government says is child pornography.

In June 2006, a judge from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California threw out the evidence, finding that customs officials must have at least "reasonable suspicion" to begin prying into the contents of an electronic storage device, a decision the government is now appealing.

"Electronic storage devices function as an extension of our own memory," Judge Dean Pregerson wrote. "They are capable of storing our thoughts, ranging from the most whimsical to the most profound. Therefore, government intrusions into the mind -- specifically those that would cause fear or apprehension in a reasonable person -- are no less deserving of Fourth Amendment scrutiny than intrusions that are physical in nature."

While it's not clear how many laptops are searched at the border each year, both business and recreational travelers are increasingly toting computers with them, complete with hard drives full of personal pictures, confidential corporate documents and revealing internet logs. An October 2006 survey of business travel executives revealed that some companies were rethinking rules on proprietary information being stored on traveling laptops, and 1 percent of the respondents reported they had, or knew someone who had, a laptop confiscated at the border.

The reach of such searches will likely widen as more and more people opt for smartphones, such as Apple's upcoming iPhone, which combine elements of traditional computers with the voice capabilities of a cell phone.

The California decision is the first to challenge that trend, and it makes laptops, and even USB memory sticks, very different from every other item brought across the border, including luggage, diaries, prescription drug bottles and sexual toys -- all of which customs and border agents have been allowed to search without cause for years under the "border exception" to the Fourth Amendment.

The government says the rationale behind that exception -- that border agents are responsible for protecting the safety of the nation and enforcing copyright and obscenity rules -- logically extends to laptops. "For constitutional purposes nothing distinguishes a computer from other closed containers used to store highly personal items," the Department of Justice argues in its appeal brief.

Moreover, requiring government agents to have a reasonable suspicion before searching a laptop will invite smugglers and terrorists to hide contraband and evidence there, the government argues. "If allowed to stand, the district court's decision will seriously undermine the nation's vital interest in protecting its borders by removing the significant deterrent effect of suspicionless searches," reads the filing.

Arnold's lawyers, Kevin Lahue and Marilyn Bednarski, disagree, arguing that it's not very difficult for law enforcement agents to come up with "reasonable suspicion."

"No ordinary traveler would expect their private files to be searched at the border without any reasonable justification," they told the appeals court. "The government's argument that a traveler can simply avoid exposure by leaving the laptop at home is an oversimplification of its function and role in daily life."

Lahue has support from the Association of Corporate Travel Executives and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The two groups submitted a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday arguing that suspicionless searches of laptops are overly invasive, and that prior to the California ruling, the government had no limits on what it could do when it seizes a laptop and makes a copy of the hard drive.

Already travelers have reported customs agents seizing laptops, making copies of the hard drive and returning the computers weeks later. That practice scares the travel execs' association and the EFF, which argue that under the government's reasoning, border authorities could systematically copy all of the information contained on every laptop computer and cell phone that crosses the border, without any court oversight.

"A suspicionless unrestricted search of a laptop computer is simply electronic eavesdropping after the fact," the groups told the court. "(It) is distinguishable from the forbidden general searches of Colonial times only by the technologies involved."

The case's outcome is far from clear-cut, according to Lahue.

"A lot will depend on whether the court decides it's like searching a piece of luggage or like a body-cavity search," Lahue told Wired News. "A diary, even one that is labeled 'my secret sexual fantasies,' has always been fair game."

Hack My Son's Computer, Please

Can an elderly father give police permission to search a password-protected computer kept in his adult son's bedroom, without probable cause or a warrant? In April, a three judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said yes.

This week, the son's attorney, Melissa Harrison, an assistant federal public defender in Kansas City, will ask the court to reconsider the panel's ruling. At stake is whether law enforcement will have any responsibility to respect passwords and other expressions of user privacy when searching devices which contain the most sensitive kinds of private information.

In United States v. Andrus (.pdf), agents suspected that the defendant was accessing websites containing child pornography, but after eight months of investigation still did not have sufficient probable cause to get a search warrant. Instead, they decided to drop by the defendant's house for an impromptu conversation.

The suspect was not at home. However, his 91-year-old father answered the door in his pajamas, invited the agents in, and eventually gave them permission to enter his son's bedroom and search the hard drive on his son's password-protected computer. The agents used EnCase to perform the search, a common forensic tool programmed to ignore Windows logon passwords. Agents found child pornography on the computer.

Without a judge's permission, the search depended on the father's authority to allow police access to his son's computer. On this point, the fact that the son locked his parents out of the computer with a password is critical.

The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches of an individual's home or possessions. There is an exception to the warrant requirement when someone consents to the search. Consent can be given by the person under investigation, or by a third party with control over or mutual access to the property being searched. Because the Fourth Amendment only prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," permission given by a third party who lacks the authority to consent will nevertheless legitimize a warrantless search if the consenter has "apparent authority," meaning that the police reasonably believed that the person had actual authority to control or use the property.

Under existing case law, only people with a key to a locked closet have apparent authority to consent to a search of that closet. Similarly, only people with the password to a locked computer have apparent authority to consent to a search of that device. In Andrus, the father did not have the password (or know how to use the computer) but the police say they did not have any reason to suspect this because they did not ask and did not turn the computer on. Then, they used forensic software that automatically bypassed any installed password.

The majority held that the police officers not only weren't obliged to ask whether the father used the computer, they had no obligation to check for a password before performing their forensic search. In dissent, Judge Monroe G. McKay criticized the agents' intentional blindness to the existence of password protection, when physical or digital locks are such a fundamental part of ascertaining whether a consenting person has actual or apparent authority to permit a police search. "(T)he unconstrained ability of law enforcement to use forensic software such at the EnCase program to bypass password protection without first determining whether such passwords have been enabled ... dangerously sidestep(s) the Fourth Amendment."

If the 10th Circuit rehears the case, it will have the opportunity to recalculate the balance between individuals' efforts to protect computer privacy and security, and law enforcement efforts to make searches based on mere hunches without judicial supervision.

In this case, the defendant could not have done much more to keep his computer private, other than tape a piece of paper to the monitor like a teenager might post on the door to his room (Do Not Enter Or Else!!). On the other hand, the officers could have simply asked the father whether he had permission to access his son's computer, switched the computer on to see if there was a password prompt, or used a forensic program that notifies investigators when a machine is password protected. It's as if the police entered the defendant's room with x-ray specs on and searched his bureau, closet and footlocker without needing to even ask his father whether these things were private or shared.

The Supreme Court expressly disavowed this technique in Kyllo v. United States, where it held that "obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,' constitutes a search -- at least where ... the technology in question is not in general public use."

If courts are going to treat computers as containers, and if owners must lock containers in order to keep them private from warrantless searches, then police should be required to look for those locks. Password protected computers and locked containers are an inexact analogy, but if that is how courts are going to do it, then its inappropriate to diminish protections for computers simply because law enforcement chooses to use software that turns a blind eye to owners' passwords.

Va. School's No-Contact Rule Is a Touchy Subject

Fairfax County middle school student Hal Beaulieu hopped up from his lunch table one day a few months ago, sat next to his girlfriend and slipped his arm around her shoulder. That landed him a trip to the school office.

Among his crimes: hugging.

All touching -- not only fighting or inappropriate touching -- is against the rules at Kilmer Middle School in Vienna. Hand-holding, handshakes and high-fives? Banned. The rule has been conveyed to students this way: "NO PHYSICAL CONTACT!!!!!"

School officials say the rule helps keep crowded hallways and lunchrooms safe and orderly, and ensures that all students are comfortable. But Hal, 13, and his parents think the school's hands-off approach goes too far, and they are lobbying for a change.

"I think hugging is a good thing," said Hal, a seventh-grader, a few days before the end of the school year. "I put my arm around her. It was like for 15 seconds. I didn't think it would be a big deal."

A Fairfax schools spokesman said there is no countywide ban like the one at Kilmer, but many middle schools and some elementary schools have similar "keep your hands to yourself" rules. Officials in Arlington, Loudoun and Prince George's counties said schools in those systems prohibit inappropriate touching and disruptive behavior but don't forbid all contact.

Deborah Hernandez, Kilmer's principal, said the rule makes sense in a school that was built for 850 students but houses 1,100. She said that students should have their personal space protected and that many lack the maturity to understand what is acceptable or welcome.

"You get into shades of gray," Hernandez said. "The kids say, 'If he can high-five, then I can do this.' "

She has seen a poke escalate into a fight and a handshake that is a gang sign. Some students -- and these are friends -- play "bloody knuckles," which involves slamming their knuckles together as hard as they can. Counselors have heard from girls who are uncomfortable hugging boys but embarrassed to tell anyone. And in a culturally diverse school, officials say, families might have different views of what is appropriate.

It isn't as if hug police patrol the Kilmer hallways, Hernandez said. Usually an askance look from a teacher or a reminder to move along is enough to stop girls who are holding hands and giggling in a huddle or a boy who pats a buddy on the back. Students won't get busted if they high-five in class after answering a difficult math problem.

Typically, she said, only repeat offenders or those breaking other rules are reprimanded. "You have to have an absolute rule with students, and wiggle room and good judgment on behalf of the staff," Hernandez said.

Hal's parents, Donna and Henri, say that they think Kilmer is a good school and that their son is thriving there. He earns A's and B's and, before this incident, hadn't gotten in any trouble. Still, they say they encourage hugging at home and have taught him to shake hands when he meets someone. They agree that teenagers need to have clear limits but don't want their son to get the message that physical contact is bad.

"How do kids learn what's right and what's wrong?" Henri Beaulieu asked. "They are all smart kids, and they can draw lines. If they cross them, they can get in trouble. But I don't think it would happen too often." Beaulieu has written a letter to the county School Board asking it to review the rule.

Hal's troubles began one day in March when he got up from his assigned cafeteria table and went to a nearby table where his then-girlfriend was sitting. He admits he broke one rule -- getting up from his assigned table without permission -- and he accepts a reprimand for that. "The table thing, I'm guilty," he said.

A school security officer spotted the hug and sent Hal to the office, where he was cited for two infractions. He was warned that a third misstep could lead to in-school suspension or detention.

School officials said that the girl didn't complain and that they have no reason to believe the hug was unwelcome.

Hal said that he and his classmates understand when and how it is appropriate to hug or pat someone on the back in school and that most teenagers respect boundaries set by their peers. Today, his seventh-grade year ends as school lets out for the summer. Next fall, he hopes Kilmer officials reconsider the rule.

"I think you should be able to shake hands, high-five and maybe a quick hug," he said. "Making out goes too far."

Appeals Court Rules Cops Can Steal Cars and Lie to Victims To Conduct a Warrantless Search

On December 18, 2004, Ascension Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend were stopped at a traffic light near La Pine Oregon, and when the light turned green, the car in front of them stalled. Alverez-Tejeda stopped in time but a pickup truck behind him rear-ended him. When he got out to look at his bumper, the police showed up and arrested the truck driver for drinking and driving. The cops then convinced Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend to go to a nearby parking lot, ordered them out of their car and into in the back of the cop car for 'processing.' While they were in the cruiser, a person jumped in their car and took off. The cops ordered the pair out and set off in full pursuit up the road. A few minutes later, the stolen car comes flying back down the road with the police cruiser in pursuit. The pursuing officer returns alone with the woman's purse, telling the duo that the carjacker thrown it out the car window and escaped. The woman is so upset she hurls and the police put the distraught couple up in a motel.

But it was all a set up worthy of David Mamet. DEA agents were tracking a drug gang and had bought drugs out of the car months earlier, though not when Alverez-Tejeda was there. Using wiretaps and surveillance, the DEA learned that Alverez-Tejeda was using the leader's car to transport illicit drugs. The agents then decided to stage something, perhaps even a carjacking, in order to seize the drugs without tipping off the conspirators. They never consulted a judge, but every person in the story, other than Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend, was a cop of some sort.

Once they got the car, the agents got a search warrant without telling the judge about the caper and seized cocaine and methamphetamines, as well as property belonging to Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend. The government indicted Alverez-Tejeda but the district court in Washington found that the caper violated the Fourth Amendment, thus making the drugs inadmissable in court. The government appealed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision Friday, finding that this police escapade was legal since the cops had probable cause already to seize and search the car, thanks to the vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment created by the courts during the War on Drugs. Therefore, the court found, the police are allowed much latitude in how they seize the car and arrest the driver. The tap was considered only a minimal use of force, and the fake chase wasn't considered to have put any civilians lives in danger.

The government here certainly had important reasons for employing this unusual procedure in seizing the car. First, the agents wanted to stop the drugs before they reached their ultimate destination -- a patently important goal. Second, they wanted to protect the anonymity of the ongoing investigation -- another vital objective.

By contrast the lower court forcefully found that the government agents lied to, stole from and terrified these citizens during a warrantless search and seizure no court had approved:

[L]aw enforcement intentionally caused an accident and stole a car, along with Defendant’s and Ms. Volerio-Perez’s personal effects – all to effectuate an administrative seizure that could have been done with flashing lights and sirens. In reading the facts of this case, one cannot help but be shocked and outraged by the manner in which the DEA agents chose to effectuate an administrative seizure. [...]

No inventory was filed. No judicial determination was made of the need for a covert search. No judicial determination was made of the period of time needed to delay notification. No judicial review of the inventory was made. All of the decisions normally made by the judiciary were made by the officers involved. It is difficult to conclude that the authors of the Fourth Amendment contemplated such discretion be afforded to the Executive branch.

The intentional stopping, searching, and detention of people is a crime if committed by private citizens. It is permissible conduct by law enforcement if done in connection with legitimate activities, such as an arrest. In this case, as part of the administrative seizure, people were stopped, searched, and detained. This is not usual in an administrative search. [...]

Judge Raymond Fischer, one of the three appeals court judges that heard the case, agreed with his colleagues that the search was constitutional, but felt compelled to add this in his concurring opinion:

The staged collision, "theft" of the car (and all of its contents), car chase and search of Alverez-Tejeda's apparently innocent companion had the potential to spin out of control and exceed reasonable bounds. Nonetheless, on the record before us I agree with my colleagues that the agents' ruse stayed within bounds (even if they pushed the envelope in some respects). Although we do not sustain the district court's thoughtful analysis, I do not thereby mean to endorse this police action as a model for future creative seizures.