20130730

Next Generation Science Standards In Kentucky Draw Hostility From Religious Groups

By Rebecca Klein

Supporters and opponents of the Next Generation Science Standards sparred during hearings in Kentucky last week, as critics took issue with the standards’ teaching of evolution and climate change.

The new standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states –- including Kentucky –- and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country. While supporters feel the standards will help beat back scientific ignorance, some religious groups take issue because the standards treat evolution as fact and talk about the human role in climate change.

The Kentucky Board of Education adopted the standards in June and held hearings to get public feedback on the standards last week before they were presented to the state legislature for official approval.

Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister, is one of the opponents who spoke to the board about why the standards should not be adopted, according to The Courier-Journal. “Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”

Another opponent, Dena Stewart-Gore, suggested that the standards will make religious students feel ostracized. “The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, per the The Courier-Journal. “We are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”

Supporters of the standards contended that opponents’ fears are unfounded and that the standards’ curriculum is based on evidence.

A handful of states including Kansas, Maryland and Vermont have already adopted the Next Generation Science Standards. The Kentucky Board of Education will be accepting written testimonies regarding the standards until July 31.

After the whistle: Revealers of government secrets share how their lives have changed

By Emily Wax,

The former high-ranking National Security Agency analyst now sells iPhones. The top intelligence officer at the CIA lives in a motor home outside Yellowstone National Park and spends his days fly-fishing for trout. The FBI translator fled Washington for the West Coast.

This is what life looks like for some after revealing government secrets. Blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, according to those who did it. Jeopardizing national security, according to the government.

Heroes. Scofflaws. They’re all people who had to get on with their lives.

As Edward Snowden eventually will. The former NSA contractor who leaked classified documents on U.S. surveillance programs is now in Russia, with his fate in limbo. The Justice Department announced last week that it won’t seek the death penalty in prosecuting him, but he is still charged with theft and espionage.

Say he makes it out of there. What next, beyond the pending charges? What happens to people who make public things that the government wanted to keep secret?

A look at the lives of a handful of those who did just that shows that they often wind up far from the stable government jobs they held. They can even wind up in the aisles of a craft store.

Peter Van Buren, a veteran Foreign Service officer who blew the whistle on waste and mismanagement of the Iraq reconstruction program, most recently found himself working at a local arts and crafts store and learned a lot about “glitter and the American art of scrapbooking.”

“What happens when you are thrown out of the government and blacklisted is that you lose your security clearance and it’s very difficult to find a grown-up job in Washington,” said Van Buren, who lives in Falls Church and wrote the book “We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.” “Then, you have to step down a few levels to find a place where they don’t care enough about your background to even look into why you washed up there.”

The Apple Store employee

“Let’s sit in the back,” Thomas Drake says when choosing a booth at Parker’s Classic American Restaurant in downtown Bethesda during his lunch break from Apple. “I have a lot to say. I was a public servant. That’s a very high honor. It’s supposed to mean something.”

Drake was prosecuted under the World War I-era Espionage Act for mishandling national defense information.

His alleged crime: voicing concernsto superiors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks about violations of Americans’ privacy by the nation’s largest intelligence organization (the NSA) and later, in frustration, speaking to a reporter about waste and fraud in the NSA intelligence program. (He says he revealed no classified information.)

He lost his $155,000-a-year job and pension, even though in 2011 the criminal case against him fell apart. The former top spokesman for the Justice Department, Matthew Miller, later said the case against Drake may have been an “ill-considered choice for prosecution.”

Drake, now 56, is tall and lanky and dresses as though he’s ready, at any moment, to go on a gentle hike. He is the type of person who likes consistency. He went to work at Apple the day after the charges against him were dropped, surprising his co-workers who thought he would at least take a day off. In 2010, he got an adjunct professor job at Strayer University but was fired soon after, he says, while he was under government investigation.

“I was just blacklisted,” he said, adding that he started his own company but has only had minor work. “People were afraid to deal with a federal government whistleblower.”

Drake long planned to be a career public servant. He enlisted in the Air Force in 1979 and flew on spy planes and once was a CIA analyst and an expert in electronic intelligence missions. On Sept. 11, 2001, he reported for his first day of work as a senior executive at the NSA’s Fort Meade campus, and shortly thereafter, he voiced “the gravest of concerns” regarding a secret domestic surveillance program that, he says, was launched shortly after the attacks.

In 2006, he was reassigned from the NSA to be a professor at the National Defense University, but he was forced to leave in 2007 when his security clearance was suspended.

Ironically, he was teaching a class called “The Secret Side of U.S. History.”

Now working at the Apple Store and living in Howard County, he is extremely grateful for his hourly wage retail job. He has no choice. He has massive legal debts and a son ready to go to college.

Last year, he was working when he spotted an unlikely customer: Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who came in to check out iPhones.

Drake introduced himself and asked: “Do you know why they have come after me?”

“Yes, I do,” Holder said.

“But do you know the rest of the story?,” he asked.

Holder quickly left with his security detail, Drake said.

“It’s not every day you get to talk to the chief law enforcement officer of the land about your case,” Drake said, “or at least try.”

The author in Oregon

Sometimes Washington is just the last place you can stand to be.

Sibel Edmonds was once described by the American Civil Liberties Union as “the most gagged person in the history of the United States.” And she was a regular on Washington’s protest circuit.

She was fired from her work as a translator at the FBI for trying to expose security breaches and cover-ups that she thought presented a danger to U.S. security. Her allegations were supported and confirmed by the Justice Department’s inspector general office and bipartisan congressional investigations, but she was not offered her job back.

She also published a memoir, “Classified Woman — The Sibel Edmonds Story.”

Then last summer, Edmonds, 43, decamped with her 5-year-old daughter and husband to Bend, Ore., which is known as the sunny side of the state. The July weather is 77 degrees without humidity, and there are 33 independently owned coffee shops and nine microbreweries.

“I am touring every single one. Plus, we don’t even have air conditioning here,” she said. “We open the windows and feel the breeze.”

For years before she left, Edmonds found Washington’s atmosphere suffocating. Many of her neighbors in Alexandria were lobbyists and contractors, who she says stopped talking to her after her name appeared in the newspaper.

Luckily, her husband of 21 years is a retail consultant and can live anywhere. She says that most whistleblowers have spouses who work in the same agencies, which typically puts pressure on their marriages.

She is still dedicated, she says, to the cause of exposing injustice and making information free. She spends hours running “Boiling Frog Post: Home of the Irate Minority,” a podcast and Web site that covers whistleblowing and tries to create broader exposure for revelations. She is also founder and director of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

“I think in the current climate, Congress and Washington is a last resort,” she said. “We are going directly to the people and focused on releasing information. And I don’t have to do that from Washington.”

The alienated fly fisherman

“The connection is really bad, it must be the NSA surveillance program,” Richard Barlow says jokingly when speaking to a reporter on his cellphone from his motor home outside Yellowstone National Park.

“I’m out here with the grizzly bears,” he says. “But this is where I’m comfortable. I’m a 58-year-old seriously damaged, burned-out intelligence officer.”

Barlow says he suffers from chronic PTSD, which makes it hard for him to deal with stress and sometimes other people. He finds comfort in his three dogs: Sassy, Prairie and Spirit.

His supporters say that shouldn’t be surprising considering what he went through.

Barlow started his career as a rising star tasked with organizing efforts to target Pakistan’s clandestine networks for acquiring nuclear materiel. He won the CIA’s Exceptional Accomplishment Award in 1988 for work that led to arrests, including that of Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.

He testified before Congress under direct orders from his CIA superiors, but he says he later became the target of criticism from some people in the CIA who were supporting the mujahideen (including Osama bin Laden at the time) in efforts to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

He says he chose to leave the CIA, and in early 1989, he went to work as the first weapons-of-mass-destruction intelligence officer in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Barlow continued to write assessments of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. He concluded that Pakistan already possessed nuclear weapons, had modified its F-16s to deliver these weapons and had continued to violate U.S. laws.

The intelligence would have legally precluded a sale of $1.4 billion worth of additional F-16s to Pakistan.

But in August 1989, Barlow learned that the Defense Department had asserted that the F-16s were not capable of delivering Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Barlow said that Congress was being lied to, and he objected internally.

Days later, he was fired.

“Back then I was disgustingly patriotic and I thought the government is allowing Pakistan to develop and spread nuclear weapons and I got destroyed for trying to stop it,” he said.

He was 35 at the time. His marriage to his 29-year-old wife, who also worked at the CIA, was shattered.

After a 1993 probe, the inspector general at the State Department and the CIA concluded that Barlow had been fired as a reprisal. The Defense Department maintained that the Pentagon was within its rights to fire Barlow. A 1997 GAO report largely vindicated Barlow, and his security clearances were restored. But, he says, he was unable to get rehired permanently by the government because his record was smeared.

He eventually found some work as a consultant, helping to start and run the FBI’s counterproliferation program out of Sandia National Laboratories.

Meanwhile, he has been trying for years to collect the $89,500 annual pension and health insurance that he thinks he is owed.

Much of what he tried to report about Pakistan’s nuclear program is common knowledge today, and several national security bestsellers have included his story, including George Crile III’s 2003 book “Charlie Wilson’s War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History,” which describes Barlow as a “brilliant young analyst who gave devastating testimony.”

Today, the consulting work has dried up. He has run out of money and thinks he is about a month from being homeless.

“I served my country for 23 years. I could go get a job for $10 at Wal-Mart,” he said. “But that’s not the issue, the issue is where’s my money?”

Despite efforts by senators and various legislative committees to get him compensated for his loss, the issue has never been resolved, for political and bureaucratic reasons.

He thinks part of the problem is that there’s no structure to compensate whistleblowers in the intelligence field. He also says that the Obama administration has criminalized whistleblowing on levels he’s never seen before.

Today, he spends his days in the wilderness, fly-fishing and bird hunting with his dogs.

The advocate

It’s 8 a.m. on the 11th floor of a K Street office building, and Jesselyn Radack, 42, is trying to tame her curly blond hair with a straightening iron.

“Our PR people said, ‘Straight hair is serious hair,’ ” she said, laughing. “But it is like 100 degrees outside.”

Radack is an attorney and former ethics adviser for the Justice Department. Her supervisor told her to find another job after she disclosed after Sept. 11 that the FBI interrogated John Walker Lindh, known as the “American Taliban,” without an attorney present. Her case was closed in 2003, and prosecutors never identified a potential charge against her.

Today, Radack is a mother of three and director of national security and human rights at the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblowing advocacy organization.

That means she’s an advocate, attorney and, it turns out, therapist of sorts for whistleblowers who come to her “bankrupt, blacklisted and broken,” she says.

“Once you are labeled that way, you are just radioactive,” she said.

And she can certainly empathize.

Before she decided to make her disclosure, she says she suffered from horrible insomnia. She also has long suffered from multiple sclerosis, and the stress caused flare-ups of her disease.

“I had this knowledge and had to do something,” she said on a recent afternoon at her brick home in Tenleytown. “After law school, I thought the government wears the white hat and is on the right side of the law. I never expected to be a whistleblower.”

But the Yale Law School graduate saw something she thought was wrong and felt compelled to report it.

After her case went public, she noticed a chill in how she and her family were treated. She took her children to the “tot shabbat,” or sabbath celebration for young children, at Temple Sinai in Northwest Washington and noticed that no one would sit near her and her family. It turns out that some of the people she blew the whistle on also attended her temple. The situation got so bad, she said, she had to talk to the rabbi about it.

“We’re inside the Beltway, and it’s a small city,” Radack says. “It’s like high school. They just freeze you out.”

20130728

Nothing Fails Like Government Prayer

Ask and ye shall not receive

Some conservative Christians like to point out that although there was no prayer during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which resulted in the successful longest-lived constitutional democracy in history, there was indeed formal Christian prayer spoken 13 years earlier during the Continental Congress in 1774. Many believers point to that earlier prayer as evidence that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.

But remember that this was before the First Amendment, before the Revolutionary War, and before our country, as we know it, even existed. There was no prohibition of laws “respecting the establishment of religion.” There were no U.S. laws at all. The Continental Congress was not the formation of the United States of America: it was a botched first attempt to form a confederation which turned out to be too loose and too weak to be called a nation.

The results of that 1774 Congress, blessed by “our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings,” were not only wholly inadequate, they were a dismal failure. The prayer, delivered by the Episcopal Reverend Jacob Duché, asked the “Lord of Lords” to “defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries . . . [and] constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!”

In other words, “God, don’t let there be a war.” The King of Kings was supposed to supernaturally stop the King’s Army from even firing a shot.

It didn’t work out that way.

As many as 50,000 fighters, from both sides, were killed in battle, wounded, or died in prison. About 1 in 20 military-age males lost their lives. (Today, that would represent millions of lives.) Why didn’t the “high and mighty Lord” cause them to drop their weapons?

The history of governmental prayer offers us an often too bloody object lesson of the truth: “Ask and ye shall not receive.”

Student's Free Speech Victory Is A Victory For Everyone Even If You Disagree With His Speech

As strong proponents of free speech, we've made the point in the past that protecting the freedom of speech is going to necessitate protecting it for the kind of speech you wouldn't typically like to exist. Put another way, it's quite easy to be in favor of free speech when you aren't the one offended. It takes much more mental courage to stick up for the protected speech of a Nazi, a bigot, a sexist, or an idiot.

Or, as in this case, someone who ascribes to religious thoughts with which you may not agree. The story of then high school student Daniel Glowacki, who was kicked out of class simply for saying that his Catholicism didn't allow him to accept homosexuals, acts as a lesson in protecting the speech of others. It began, as you'd never expect, in a Michigan classroom, with a child wearing confederate flag belt. When the teacher, Johnson McDowell asked her to remove the belt, Glowacki pointed out that the teachers were all wearing purple for "Anti-Bullying Day." That's when things took a turn:
The teacher testified that he gave Glowacki an explanation on the difference in symbolism between the confederate and rainbow flag, to which Glowacki responded, "I don't accept gays because I am Catholic." Glowacki was instructed to leave and another student who shared the same belief asked to leave with him. According to affidavits from other students in the classroom, McDowell told them that "students cannot voice an opinion that creates an uncomfortable learning environment for another."

Which, for those of you who may not remember what school was like, is complete and utter nonsense. More to the point, speech is absolutely protected. That's why the fact that McDowell then kicked the students out of the class was a massive misstep. Despite the myth, students do not leave their constitutional rights at the doorway of their public school.

Now, it would be quite easy for me, and many like me, to say that Glowacki's beliefs are bigoted, homophobic, wrong, and outdated. And I do say every single one of those things. But I'd be damned before I allow his right to say exactly what he said to be infringed upon. The thing about insisting that free speech is afforded the right to offend, regardless of any discomfort for those around us, is it cuts both ways. If we're going to insist that we keep any sort of mandatory religion out of public schools (and we should), and if we're going to insist the curriculum be secular (and we should), then we also have to afford those that don't agree their right to voice their opposition.

Here's the good news: it seems like nearly everyone involved in this case agrees, and they even did so without resorting to over-the-top punitive nonsense.
However, the school district disagreed with his reason of reprimand, stating that it was based on McDowell's own personal offense [and] Judge Duggan held that the teacher violated the student's First Amendment rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
 "As a reasonable teacher, McDowell should have known that Daniel's protected speech could not serve as the basis for discipline or as the basis for believing a school district policy was violated," the judge said.
McDowell's punishment? $1 in damages to Glowacki. It might seem like a small amount for having violated a child's constitutional right to speech, but come on, this ended perfectly. The lesson isn't in the punishment. The lesson is that the enlightened position on speech is the protection of unenlightened speech.

20130727

Mobile Police Scheduled to Conduct Safety Checkpoints

"On Tuesday, July 23 and Tuesday, July 30, 2013, Mobile Police will be conducting Safety Checkpoints in various parts of Mobile. The checkpoints will be conducted to ensure citizen safety and that motorists are complying with state and local traffic laws.

Police will be checking seatbelts, child restraints and other safety features. Officers will also be checking to ensure drivers are carrying registration, proof of insurance and driver’s licenses, as required by law." 
As required by law? The law says the we have the right not to be searched unless upon probable cause and by warrant. There have been exceptions made but this isn't one of them and is directly contradictory to what the constitution requires. They're saying they're going to uphold the law by breaking it.

Man had succesful 20-year military career, so why can't he buy a gun?

DANE SCHILLER




HOUSTON (AP) — A retired Army veteran who fired tanks, cannons and machine guns while protecting this nation recently asked the U.S. government for the green light to buy a .22-caliber rifle from a Wal-Mart in Tomball.

Permission denied.

The FBI turned down Ron Kelly’s application for gun ownership because of a 1971 conviction for minor drug possession. He was busted with a small bag of marijuana while in high school in North Carolina. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to a year of probation. Two years later, right about the time the U.S. was withdrawing from the Vietnam War and there was a hippie on every corner, he enlisted in the Army.


“I went on to serve 20 years,” said Kelly, who often wears a camouflaged Army cap over his head of gray hair. “I had a top-secret clearance. It is amazing that they won’t let me buy a gun for a misdemeanor 42 years ago.”

He vowed to the Houston Chronicle to continue to fight for what he says is his right to a gun in his home.

“I am ashamed of the way my government has treated me,” said Kelly, who served as an infantryman as well as a scout and drill sergeant. “The government may have the greatest of intentions with the (law), but they messed it up.”

Kelly, 59, is one of more than 881,000 people in Texas so far this year to have had their backgrounds checked as part of requests to buy firearms or explosives, and one of the few to be rejected.

The Lone Star State continues to lead the United States in the number of such checks, according to the FBI.

About 1 percent of them nationwide are denied, landing Kelly in the same situation as people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, been dishonorably discharged from the military or convicted of domestic violence.

Nearly 600,000 denials since 1998 have come for the same reason Kelly was rejected — a criminal conviction. In Kelly’s case, this amounted to a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in jail.

Despite what potentially could have happened to him as a 17-year-old when he stood before a judge, Kelly got a slap on the wrist, and he says he has had no more run-ins with the law.

Alice Tripp, of the Texas Rifle Association, said it is “ridiculous” that an ex-soldier once entrusted with the weaponry of war is denied permission to own a gun because of a misdemeanor from so long ago.

“It is crazy. Something is not right,” Tripp said. “This is the strangest thing I’ve heard of in my life.”

In Durham, N.C., where Kelly was convicted, officials at the courthouse, the police department and the district attorney’s office said he was arrested so long ago that records were not computerized or readily available, if indeed they could even be found.

No one seemed to know how the FBI could have even known about such an old conviction.

An FBI spokesman said he could not comment on questions specifically about Kelly’s case but said if he feels he has been wronged by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the burden is on the rejected applicant, not the government, to come up with the paperwork to make the case for a change in his status.

The background investigations, which are required by federal law for anyone wanting to purchase a gun, are done electronically and usually take just a few minutes.

Requests are made over the phone or online by firearms dealers, and the FBI churns them through a national database.

Kelly was told at the Wal-Mart that his background review was delayed as there was something in his past that appeared to disqualify him from ownership.

He said he felt like someone wrongfully accused of passing a hot check when there was plenty of money in his account.

He launched an appeal by getting his fingerprints taken at the local police department and sending them, along with the appropriate paperwork, to the FBI for review.

On the appeal application, he typed what has become his battle cry: He served honorably for 20 years in the Army and now is being denied the right to bear arms.

Late last month, a letter from the Department of Justice arrived in the mail with his answer: Once again, no.

He was told that based on his prior conviction in North Carolina he could not own a gun. He also was told that he could challenge the decision by seeking out the records from his arrest.

Kelly said he was floored — but not defeated — by the letter and plans to keep trying.

He wrote this week to U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn asking for their help.

“I am not going to give up,” Kelly vowed. “I want to have a gun.”

What Edward Snowden Has Given Us

When Edward Snowden first revealed himself as the source of the NSA leaks, the Guardian released a short video interview with him in which he made the following confession:

"The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."
Less than a week later, Glenn Greenwald was asserting that Snowden's worst fear had not been realized. That same claim was made somewhat more plausibly a few days ago by Philip Bump, writing in The Atlantic under the headline "Edward Snowden is Winning." Even if you don't agree with that optimistic assessment, the narrowness of the defeat of the Amash Amendment shows how far things have come in a few weeks.

But just as interesting as the fact that the debate is taking place, exactly as Snowden hoped, are the collateral benefits that are flowing from his leaks. Jay Rosen has gathered together a number of examples, part of what he calls The Snowden Effect:
Direct and indirect gains in public knowledge from the cascade of events and further reporting that followed Edward Snowden's leaks of classified information about the surveillance state in the U.S.
An interesting post by danah boyd suggests that there may be another important knock-on effect from Snowden's actions:
He's creating a template for how to share information. He's clearly learned from previous whistleblowers and is using many of their tactics. But he's also forged his own path which has had its own follies. Regardless of whether he succeeds or fails in getting asylum somewhere, he's inspired others to think about how they can serve as a check to power. And this is terrifying for any government.

Ironically, the government's efforts to deter future whistleblowers by being tough on Snowden is most likely to backfire. This kind of zero-tolerance approach assumes that those who are engaging in whistleblowing are operating under the same logic, priorities, and values as government actors. Sure, plenty of people don't come forward because they're too scared; that's not new. But because of how the government responded to Snowden, those who are willing to take on the big fight now have a model for how to do it, how to iterate based on what they learned watching Snowden. The US government, far from deterring future whistleblowers, has just incentivized a new generation of them by acting like a megalomaniac.
If, as boyd suggests, a new generation of government whistleblowers come forward to carry on the work Snowden began, that would be an even better result for him than simply leading to a few immediate changes, since it would offer the hope that those might be both durable and continuing.

High-Tech, High-Risk Forensics

By OSAGIE K. OBASOGIE

SAN FRANCISCO — WHEN the police arrived last November at the ransacked mansion of the millionaire investor Raveesh Kumra, outside of San Jose, Calif., they found Mr. Kumra had been blindfolded, tied and gagged. The robbers took cash, rare coins and ultimately Mr. Kumra’s life; he died at the scene, suffocated by the packaging tape used to stifle his screams. A forensics team found DNA on his fingernails that belonged to an unknown person, presumably one of the assailants. The sample was put into a DNA database and turned up a “hit” — a local man by the name of Lukis Anderson.

Bingo. Mr. Anderson was arrested and charged with murder.

There was one small problem: the 26-year-old Mr. Anderson couldn’t have been the culprit. During the night in question, he was at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, suffering from severe intoxication.

Yet he spent more than five months in jail with a possible death sentence hanging over his head. Once presented with Mr. Anderson’s hospital records, prosecutors struggled to figure out how an innocent man’s DNA could have ended up on a murder victim.

Late last month, prosecutors announced what they believe to be the answer: the paramedics who transported Mr. Anderson to the hospital were the very same individuals who responded to the crime scene at the mansion a few hours later. Prosecutors now conclude that at some point, Mr. Anderson’s DNA must have been accidentally transferred to Mr. Kumra’s body — likely by way of the paramedics’ clothing or equipment.

This theory of transference is still under investigation. Nevertheless, the certainty with which prosecutors charged Mr. Anderson with murder highlights the very real injustices that can occur when we place too much faith in DNA forensic technologies.

In the end, Mr. Anderson was lucky. His alibi was rock solid; prosecutors were forced to concede that there must have been some other explanation. It’s hard to believe that, out of the growing number of convictions based largely or exclusively on DNA evidence, there haven’t been any similar mistakes.

In one famous case of crime scene contamination, German police searched for around 15 years for a serial killer they called the “Phantom of Heilbronn” — an unknown female linked by traces of DNA to six murders across Germany and Austria. In 2009, the police found their “suspect”: a worker at a factory that produced the cotton swabs police used in their investigations had been accidentally contaminating them with her own DNA.

Contamination is not the only way DNA forensics can lead to injustice. Consider the frequent claim that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for two DNA profiles to match by coincidence. A 2005 audit of Arizona’s DNA database showed that, out of some 65,000 profiles, nearly 150 pairs matched at a level typically considered high enough to identify and prosecute suspects. Yet these profiles were clearly from different people.

There are also problems with the way DNA evidence is interpreted and presented to juries. In 2008, John Puckett — a California man in his 70s with a sexual assault record — was accused of a 1972 killing, after a trawl of the state database partially linked his DNA to crime scene evidence. As in the Anderson case, Mr. Puckett was identified and implicated primarily by this evidence. Jurors — told that there was only a one-in-1.1 million chance that this DNA match was pure coincidence — convicted him. He is now serving a life sentence.

But that one-in-1.1 million figure is misleading, according to two different expert committees, one convened by the F.B.I., the other by the National Research Council. It reflects the chance of a coincidental match in relation to the size of the general population (assuming that the suspect is the only one examined and is not related to the real culprit). Instead of the general population, we should be looking at only the number of profiles in the DNA database. Taking the size of the database into account in Mr. Puckett’s case (and, again, assuming the real culprit’s profile is not in the database) would have led to a dramatic change in the estimate, to one in three.

One juror was asked whether this figure would have affected the jury’s deliberations. “Of course it would have changed things,” he told reporters. “It would have changed a lot of things.”

DNA forensics is an invaluable tool for law enforcement. But it is most useful when it corroborates other evidence pointing to a suspect, or when used to determine whether any two individual samples match, like in the exonerations pursued by the Innocence Project.

But when the government gets into the business of warehousing millions of DNA profiles to seek “cold hits” as the primary basis for prosecutions, much more oversight by and accountability to the public is warranted. For far too long, we have allowed the myth of DNA infallibility to chip away at our skepticism of government’s prosecutorial power, undoubtedly leading to untold injustices.

In the Anderson case, thankfully, prosecutors acknowledged the obvious: their suspect could not have been in two places at once. But he was dangerously close to being on his way to death row because of that speck of DNA. That one piece of evidence — obtained from a technology with known limitations, and susceptible to human error and prosecutorial misuse — might mistakenly lead to execution at the hands of the state should send chills down every one of our spines. The next Lukis Anderson could be you. Better hope your alibi is as well documented as his.

Folly Moon challenges Department of Homeland Security entertainment law

By Rick Yencer

MUNCIE, IN - A local band leader and downtown bar operator is challenging the Indiana Department of Homeland Security's authority to regulate and permit live entertainment.

Last April, IDHS through its fire and building safety division found Mike Martin of the Folly Moon violated state law by failing to obtain an entertainment permit for live music at the downtown establishment.

State law requires places of amusement and entertainment to have permits subject to the inspection of state fire and building inspectors. And the law defines entertainment places as night clubs, dance halls or cabarets.

Martin filed an appeal to the permit, saying he operated a bar and restaurant with occasional music played by his band, The Mike Martin Band, and others.

And in the challenge before an administrative law judge, Martin believed the state was not enforcing the law uniformly, only requiring permits for live music instead of electronic or even Karaoke that is also played at the Moon.

And the law really does not apply to restaurants or bars, he adds, along with concerns that the IDHS is trying to shut down small business with outdated laws.

John Erickson, IDHS spokesman, said it was up to the state to enforce the law.

But Don Marquardt, president of the Indiana Licensed Beverage Association, said the enforcement was just the latest in a series of government action against the food and beverage industry that has been hard hit by taxes, smoking bans and competition by other business.

The entertainment permit law is archaic and outdated, Marquardt said, used to regulate night clubs and dance halls which are not bars and restaurants. The ILBA tried to get the law rewritten a few years ago, asking former lawmaker and now Mayor Dennis Tyler to help. The Legislature never addressed the issue.

Marquardt mentioned another affront to bars and restaurants with excise police enforcing old local health code violations and issuing infractions against owners.

Martin plans to have his day before a judge in August, hoping to stop more expense to local bars and restaurants.

New Ordinance Puts Strict Restrictions On Noise In Coraopolis

Reporting Rick Dayton

CORAOPOLIS (KDKA) – How do you define noise? It could be a train or maybe even a motorcycle.

All of them could be considered noise under a new ordinance in one Allegheny County town.

Coraopolis only has about 5,500 people, which normally makes it a very quiet place. They say the only exception is when the trains roll by or the big trucks rumble right down Fifth Avenue.

“I’ve been this area all my life. You got one way in and one way out. So where are the trucks going to go?” Frank Corso said.


“The only noisy thing about it is the train. Other than that and the trucks and everything else, it’s really pretty quiet,” Asha Luster said.

Under the new ordinance, residents are “entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their premises.” Loud noises can be defined as horns, radio, musical instruments, that annoy or disturb the quiet and comfort.

It also states that “yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling and singing on public streets which would disturb the quiet and comfort of residents in the vicinity is now prohibited.”

The obvious question is – how will it be enforced?

It’s a great question considering the noise could even be your dog. But, after nearly two decades in town, Sue Heckman said she’s not leaving.

“I feel safe here. It’s always quiet. You just hear traffic or the birds,” Heckman said.

Violations of the ordinance can result in a fine of up to $500.

Tennessee Christians Say Majority Rule Gives Them The Power To Violate Rights of Non-Christians

Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Remember how the GOP whined about ‘tyrrany of the majority” back in 2009? Now, Tennessee’s Christian Republicans are in favor of it.

Remember when Republicans whined constantly in 2009 and 2010 that the Democratic majority was trampling their rights? Remember when they complained about majority rule and used their minority in Congress to obstruct any and all bills? Remember when they referred to majority rule as tyranny when Democrats controlled the House, and still do because Democrats control the Senate? Well, conservative Christian pastors in Tennessee are doing an about-face to force God down the throats of every non-Christian in the state, and they are perfectly willing to violate the Constitution to do so.

In February 2013, the county commission of Anderson County in Tennessee voted 12-4 in favor of inscribing the words ‘In God We Trust’ on the outside of the county courthouse. Just this week, the first of what will be four signs carrying the phrase was installed. According to Raw Story, “each granite plaque weighs 170 pounds and has the words “In God We Trust” in gold leaf lettering.”

The decision of the county commission and the unveiling on Tuesday has divided the county. Christian pastors, however, are telling non-Christians and the ACLU to go to hell. Raw Story reports that local pastors are invoking majority rule as an excuse to ignore and justify the violation of the constitutional rights of non-Christians.

“This is people standing up for what they believe in,” said Steve McDonald, pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church. “We have a right to the democratic process and majority rule.””
And Clinton Baptist Association Director of Missions Tom Byrge stated that “Whether you agree with this or disagree with this, the democratic process took place. The majority of the U.S. citizens will continue to believe, and will not be ashamed to say, ‘In God We Trust.’”

Except that in this case, the democratic process wasn’t properly adhered to when the commission voted to pass the measure. Committee Chair Robin Biloski said in February that the bill was passed swiftly by the full commission without a committee hearing to give full consideration of the measure and to allow citizens to add their voices to the debate. No committee hearing was ever convened to debate the measure. Therefore, there was no democratic process involved. The majority ran roughshod over the citizenry of Anderson County and the non-Christian minority and imposed their religious will on them in defiance of constitutional law.

In response to the measure, the Tennessee chapter of the ACLU has stated that,
“People of all faiths, as well as non-believers, should feel welcome in their government buildings. The County Commission should focus on doing real work that represents the interests of all residents, not sowing the seeds of religious divisiveness in the community by challenging the fundamental founding principle that government must remain neutral when it comes to matters of faith.”
Indeed, the separation of church and state mandates that government is prohibited from respecting an establishment of religion. It’s plain as day in the Constitution, and for good reason. The Founding Fathers wanted America to be a land where people of all faiths or none at all could practice their beliefs, or lack of, freely without fear of being oppressed. As such, the government was to remain neutral on religious matters and execute civil law and protect those whose rights were being infringed upon. In short, the government is supposed to make law that represents the interests of America as a whole, and certainly not for a group of religious bigots. For almost 200 years, this system, while not perfect, worked. Then the 1950s happened.

In 1954, right-wing Christian groups lobbied the Republican-controlled government to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later in 1956, these same groups successfully lobbied to place “In God We Trust” on our money as a replacement or alternative to the E pluribus unum motto the Founding Fathers chose in 1782 for the Great Seal of the United States. In contrast to “In God We Trust,” E pluribus unum is Latin for ‘Out of many, one.’ As such, the motto specifically chosen by the Founders is far more inclusive. “In God We Trust” on the other hand, specifically refers to the Christian deity. The Christian Right will deny this, of course, and will point to Court rulings that have disingenuously claimed that the alternative motto is not religious and that it does not specifically mean that government is respecting the establishment of the Christian religion. But they are wrong. If American currency were to suddenly say “In Allah We Trust,” you can bet that the Christian Right would throw a temper tantrum about it. And you can be damn sure that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court would freak out over it too. That’s because to conservatives, America is a Christian state that should be ruled by Biblical law. We don’t refer to the Christian deity as “Allah.” We refer to the deity as “God.” So by inscribing “In God We Trust” on government buildings, money, and so on, the government is clearly respecting an establishment of religion, which is barred by the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers wanted to establish Christianity as the state religion, they would have done so and would have stated as much in the Constitution, but they didn’t.

When Christians invoke majority rule, they commit hypocrisy since they were the ones who whined the loudest when Democrats used majority rule to pass laws for the benefit of everyone in our society. Infrastructure, jobs, health, food safety, labor laws- all of these are in the interest of the people as a whole. But passing a clear respecting of the Christian religion in violation of the rights of non-Christians is only in the interest of a few religious extremists. Therefore, Anderson County was not exercising majority rule. They were exercising the tyranny of the majority.

20130726

Affidavit: Police went to wrong house because of poor lighting

By Lee Williams

FORT WORTH — Police officers responding to a burglary alarm call went to the wrong house because of poor lighting and fatally shot an armed homeowner, according to a search warrant affidavit released Wednesday.

Officers B.B. Hanlon and R.P. Hoeppner were dispatched to 409 Havenwood Lane at 12:51 a.m. May 28. But after arriving at 12:58 a.m., they “inadvertently began searching” across the street at 404 Havenwood, where 72-year-old Jerry Waller lived.

Officers “approached the west side of the house near the garage that is located on the southwest corner of the home with the knowledge that there was a possible burglary in progress. There is no lighting around the home and the officers had only the use of their flashlights,” according to the affidavit.

As the officers approached, they encountered Waller, who “was armed with a handgun standing near the corner of the home,” according to the affidavit.

The officers identified themselves and ordered Waller to drop the gun, but he pointed it at the officers, prompting Hoeppner to shoot Waller, according to the affidavit.

Waller was pronounced dead at 1:26 a.m. inside the garage.

Waller’s relatives have previously disputed the officers’ account, accusing police of “misrepresenting details of the incident.”

“My father never stepped outside of his garage,” son Chris Waller told the Star-Telegram the day after the shooting. “He was shot multiple times in the chest only a few steps away from the doorway to his kitchen.”

Chris Waller declined to comment Wednesday, saying he had not seen the affidavit.

Former Councilwoman Becky Haskin, who lives two doors down, said the entire neighborhood has been waiting for an answer from the city about what happened that night.

She said the question of why officers fired six times on a homeowner in his own garage remains unanswered.

“His wife said she heard yelling and then gunshots immediately following,” Haskin said. “I think they [the officers] got startled.”

Haskin said the Police Department’s silence likely involves fear of a lawsuit.

“I think the Police Department is just waiting to see how much they’re going to get hit by the Wallers’ attorneys,” Haskin said.

Police are investigating the shooting.

Police Chief Jeff Halstead said Wednesday that the two officers have returned to full-time duty, but he declined to comment further.

An autopsy on Waller has also been completed.

On Wednesday, however, the Tarrant County district attorney’s office sent a letter to the attorney general’s office, contending that the autopsy report should not be released to the Star-Telegram because of the pending investigation.

Religion to Disappear By 2041 Claims New Study

Added by Rebecca Savastio

Author and noted biopsychologist Nigel Barber has completed a new study that shows Atheism is most prevalent in developed countries, and, according to his projections, religion will completely disappear by 2041. His findings are discussed in his new book “Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.” A new study that clarifies his earlier research will be published in August. His findings focus on studying trends within countries around the world and the fact that “Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries”-

In my new study of 137 countries (1), I also found that atheism increases for countries with a well-developed welfare state (as indexed by high taxation rates). Moreover, countries with a more equal distribution of income had more atheists. My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Moslem (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed) and accounted for three-quarters of country differences in atheism.
His main thesis stems from the phenomenon of religion declining as personal wealth increases. He cites the reason as people having less of a need for supernatural beliefs when the tangible, natural world is providing for their needs. He says the majority of the world will come to view religion as completely irrelevant by 2041.

Political Scientist Eric Kaufmann holds the opposite view, citing the fact that Atheists have fewer children than religious people. He thinks this could indicate the religious mindset will proliferate due to religious folks simply breeding more than Atheists. But what is the significance of the prolific breeding of religious people?

Biotechnologist Thomas Rees poses this question in his essay “Will the Religious Inherit the Earth?” In this piece, he discusses Kaufmann’s research and comes to the conclusion that the breeding aspect could tip the odds in favor of the religious purely due to fertility and childbearing rates among them.

Barber, however, dismisses the breeding-related evidence, saying “…Yet, noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve.”

He also says that as women become more integrated into the workforce, they will have fewer children, even if they are members of a religious fundamentalist group: “Moreover, as religious fundamentalists become economically integrated, young women go to work and produce smaller families, as is currently happening for Utah’s Mormons,” he says.

If a recent PEW study is any indication of a solid answer to the question, Kaufman may be correct. The study, performed by PEW in 2012, indicates a huge upswing in Atheism, with 20% of Americans now identifying as Agnostic, Atheist or “Unaffiliated” with a religion. This number represents the largest percentage of people in PEW’s history of polling who identify as non-religious.

It is clear that the growth of Atheism or “unaffiliated” people is growing at an incredibly rapid rate in the United States, but it seems that being non-religious is also exploding globally. The UK’s Daily Mail reported an extensive 2010 study that showed unaffiliated individuals as the “third largest global group” behind Christians and Muslims, placing the unaffiliated ahead of Hindus, Buddists, Jews and all other religious affliations.

Is "Human Trafficking" A Made Up Crisis for State and Local Officials to Extract Federal Dollars?

Someone needs to ask the question: Is this crisis regarding "human trafficking" real or grossly exaggerated so state and local officials can claim the millions of dollars that Congress has allocated to fighting the crime?

Of course, human trafficking was a big story here in the Winter of 2011-2012 as Indiana officials pleaded for more legal authority to combat the crime in anticipation of hosting the Super Bowl. It was back in the news again just days ago when Attorney General Zoeller joined with 48 other state attorneys general in asking Congress to amend the Communications Decency Act to provide criminal jurisdiction to state and local prosecutors.

Virtually every time an Asian massage parlor is busted locally there is a press conferences with law enforcement officials claiming to have struck a blow against "human trafficking." But when the cameras are turned off and the press leaves, the reality sets in that the people involved in the cases are not charged with human trafficking but rather good old fashioned prostitution. Also it bears mentioning that the prostitution busts also come with a large seizure of cash, cars and equipment, which is then divvied up between the law enforcement agencies involved.

At the end of last year, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution went to check on the human trafficking numbers claimed by law enforcement officials and found those numbers to be incredulous:

The situation was dire, police warned. The City of Atlanta was under siege by human traffickers.

Some 1,000 Asian women and girls ages 13 to 25 were being “forced to prostitute themselves” in the city, a 2005 internal police email said. Many of the victims, police said, were Korean.

To free them, police forged ahead with a $600,000 task force.

Had agency leaders questioned the estimate, they would have found it defied common sense. If it were true, one in eight of the city’s Asians would have been sex slaves.

Perhaps, then, it’s little wonder that the program had such poor results that it drew scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice. An initial report said Atlanta police had found more than 200 victims, but auditors could only confirm four.

...

Atlanta launched its search for Korean prostitutes as hundreds of millions of dollars began to pour into anti-trafficking efforts nationwide. The federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 gave special assistance to foreign victims in the U.S. and paved the way for a 2004 Department of Justice initiative to fund local human trafficking task forces.
...

City officials argued they desperately needed the money. “Human trafficking is now beginning to get a foothold in Atlanta and must be stopped before it becomes entrenched,” police told Justice Department officials.

The Atlanta Police Department won a $450,000 three-year grant, and the city chipped in an additional $150,000. Two investigators and a sergeant joined forces with a Korean translator.
...

The Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance reported that Atlanta police identified 216 potential victims from January 2005 through December 2006.

But this count was later revealed to be grossly inaccurate. Auditors for the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General could find documentation for only four victims, a July 2008 report said.

...

Such problems weren’t unique to Atlanta. Auditors found victim over-counts by task forces across the nation, although none was as bad as Atlanta’s.

The City of Los Angeles, for instance, identified 49 victims and the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., found 51. Auditors confirmed none of them.

Auditors also found that nearly $32 million in federal funds for victim assistance groups aided far fewer people than expected.
...

We are told by the State Department that every year 15,000 people are trafficked into the U.S. But then, where are they?” said Elzbieta Gozdziak, research director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University.
...

If the problem were pervasive, more victims might have applied for special visas created by the 2000 anti-trafficking law. But between fiscal year 2002 and June 2010, the U.S. issued fewer than 1,900 of the visas, which allow victims to stay in the U.S., the Congressional Research Service found in a December 2010 report.

“Why are the numbers so small? Is it because the scope of the problem is not as big as they say? Or is it small because we don’t know how to find them?” Gozdziak asked.

Those numbers are proof that the fight against human trafficking has gone wrong, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a November 2011 report on a bid to reauthorize the trafficking law. While he supported it, he sought more accountability.

“Either the government is doing an unconscionably poor job of finding victims or there are not that many total victims in the first place,” Grassley wrote.
Here's another idea. State and local law enforcement officials are grossly exaggerating the scope of the human trafficking problem to get their hand on federal tax dollars?

Edward Snowden's father writes open letter to NSA whistleblower in Moscow

Lon Snowden pens open letter with his attorney in response to a statement issued by his son Edward Snowden from Moscow

Here is the text of the open letter Lon Snowden, along with his attorney, Bruce Fein, wrote to US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden. The letter was provided to the Associated Press.

July 2, 2013

Edward Joseph Snowden

Moscow

Dear Edward:

I, Bruce Fein, am writing this letter in collaboration with your father in response to the statement you issued yesterday in Moscow.

Thomas Paine, the voice of the American Revolution, trumpeted that a patriot saves his country from his government.

What you have done and are doing has awakened congressional oversight of the intelligence community from deep slumber; and, has already provoked the introduction of remedial legislation in Congress to curtail spying abuses under section 215 of the Patriot Act and section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. You have forced onto the national agenda the question of whether the American people prefer the right to be left alone from government snooping absent probable cause to believe crime is afoot to vassalage in hopes of a risk-free existence. You are a modern day Paul Revere summoning the American people to confront the growing danger of tyranny and one branch government.

In contrast to your actions, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper responded last March as follows to an unambiguous question raised by Senator Ron Wyden:

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper testified, "No sir, it does not." Wyden asked for clarification, and Clapper hedged: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

Director Clapper later defended his stupendous mendacity to the Senator as the least untruthful answer possible. President Obama has not publicly rebuked the Director for frustrating the right of the people to know what their government is doing and to force changes if necessary through peaceful democratic processes. That is the meaning of government by the consent of the governed. "We the people" are sovereign under the U.S. Constitution, and government officials are entrusted with stewardship (not destruction) of our liberties.

We leave it to the American people to decide whether you or Director Clapper is the superior patriot.

The history of civilization is a history of brave men and women refusing to bow to government wrongdoing or injustice, and exalting knowledge, virtue, wisdom, and selflessness over creature comforts as the North Star of life. We believe your actions fall within that honorable tradition, a conviction we believe is shared by many.

As regards your reduction to de facto statelessness occasioned by the Executive Branch to penalize your alleged violations of the Espionage Act, the United States Supreme Court lectured in Trop v. Dulles (1958): "The civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crime."

We think you would agree that the final end of the state is to make men and women free to develop their faculties, not to seek planetary domination through force, violence or spying. All Americans should have a fair opportunity to pursue their ambitions. Politics should not be a football game with winners and losers featuring juvenile taunts over fumbles or missteps.

Irrespective of life's vicissitudes, we will be unflagging in efforts to educate the American people about the impending ruination of the Constitution and the rule of law unless they abandon their complacency or indifference. Your actions are making our challenge easier.

We encourage you to engage us in regular exchanges of ideas or thoughts about approaches to curing or mitigating the hugely suboptimal political culture of the United States. Nothing less is required to pay homage to Valley Forge, Cemetery Ridge, Omaha Beach, and other places of great sacrifice.

Very truly yours,

Bruce Fein

Counsel for Lon Snowden

Lon Snowden

Senate Appropriations Committee Approves Trade Sanctions Against Any Country That Offers Asylum To Snowden

Even as many in Congress seem to recognize just how useful it was for Ed Snowden to reveal how the NSA was misinterpreting the law to collect data on nearly everyone, some still seem to want to go overboard in trying to blame him for telling the truth. The latest is that the Senate Appropriations Committee has supported a plan to instruct Secretary of State John Kerry to work with Congress in issuing sanctions against any country that grants Snowden asylum. Remember now, that this is the very same US Congress that flat out passed a law to give a Swiss bank security guard (and his entire family) asylum after he did almost the exact same thing as Snowden. In that case, some of the very same Senators who are now lining up against Snowden went on and on about how brave and heroic Michel Meili was. And, yet, now they're willing to start an entire trade war because some other country is willing to grant him asylum and protect Snowden against crazy attacks by grandstanding officials? How is that possibly a sane reaction?

Obama Promise To 'Protect Whistleblowers' Just Disappeared From Change.gov

The folks from the Sunlight Foundation have noticed that the Change.gov website, which was set up by the Obama transition team after the election in 2008 has suddenly been scrubbed of all of its original content. They noted that the front page had pointed to the White House website for a while, but you could still access a variety of old material and agendas. They were wondering why the administration would suddenly pull all that interesting archival information... and suddenly hit upon a clue. A little bit from the "ethics agenda":
Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.
Yeah. That statement seems a bit embarrassing at the very same time Obama's administration is threatening trade sanctions against anyone who grants asylum to Ed Snowden. Also... at the same time that we get to see how whistleblower Bradley Manning's "full access to courts and due process" will turn out. So far, it's been anything but reasonable, considering that the UN has already condemned Manning's treatment as "cruel and inhuman." And people wonder why Snowden left the country...

No Human Being is Illegal

By Omar Jadwat

Three federal appeals courts decisions this week have added to what was already a lopsided score in favor of fairness and common sense, and against the snake-oil salesmen who managed to convince a few states and localities to enact laws discriminating against individuals based on their perceived immigration status.

Today, the Third Circuit Court rejected Hazleton, Pa.'s housing and employment ordinances targeting Latinos, upholding earlier rulings that blocked the discriminatory laws from going into effect. On Monday, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that an ordinance enacted by the City of Farmers Branch, Texas restricting access to housing based on immigration status should remain permanently blocked. Similar laws in Valley Park, Mo.; Escondido, Ca.; Cherokee County, Ga.; and Riverside, NJ have also been blocked by the courts or withdrawn after being challenged in court. Only one law of this sort, in Fremont, Neb., has ever been allowed to go into effect; proceedings in that case continue.

On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that key provisions of South Carolina's immigration law, Act 69, should remain blocked, adding to a string of defeats for Arizona's SB 1070 and its copycats, including laws in Alabama, Georgia, Utah, and Indiana. Courts have rejected numerous contentious provisions of these acts, put narrow limits on the one type of state activity that they have allowed to proceed, and underlined that even that remaining activity remains subject to further legal challenge.

Although the anti-immigrant activists who designed and pushed these laws will never admit it, the reason their creations have faced such overwhelming failure in court is that the activists didn't understand (or simply ignored) the controlling law, and have been unable to come up with a workable legal theory to justify what they wanted to do. Indeed, the Supreme Court said in its landmark decision on SB 1070 in 2012 that a central concept on which these laws are based "is unpersuasive on its own terms."

Meanwhile, the cities and states that passed these laws are worse off for having gone down this path – not just because they have wasted time and resources defending indefensible laws in court, but also because the laws divide communities and increase discrimination.

It's not surprising that other places, looking at this record, have declined to follow suit. No SB 1070 copycat laws have been enacted since 2011, and no municipal ordinances like the Farmers Branch law have been enacted since 2010. And there are signs that even the places that passed these laws are moving on. Arizona voters recalled Senator Russell Pearce, who developed SB 1070 in collaboration with activists in Washington, DC and elsewhere. Riverside repealed its ordinance. Farmers Branch recently elected a prominent opponent of the ordinance (and its first Latina councilmember), Ana Reyes. And Hazleton is now the location of a new initiative promoting immigrant integration.

Coming together and moving forward as a community makes a lot more sense than pursuing destructive, expensive, and fundamentally unconstitutional legislation.

They undid my clothes, peered into my underwear: College kid sues NYPD over stop-and-frisk in Williamsburg

By SELIM ALGAR

Here’s someone who might agree with Mayor Bloomberg’s controversial comment about whites being subjected to stop-and-frisk “too much.”

A white, vegan, 22-year-old Bard College graduate is suing the NYPD after cops allegedly violently stopped her on a Williamsburg street last year — and then frisked her to the point of a semi-strip search.

“My face and stomach were on the hood,” environmentalist and animal lover Samantha Rosenbaum told The Post, who claims in a Brooklyn federal court lawsuit filed this week that she was thrown against an unmarked police car in broad daylight, for no apparent reason, on July 17, 2012.


SLAMMED: Samantha Rosenbaum says she was roughed up by police while walking in Williamsburg.

“I don’t think anyone, no matter what color you are, deserves to be treated like that.”

The case comes less than a week after the mayor drew heat by claiming whites are stopped and frisked at a higher rate than minorities relative to the number of offenders of each race.

“She thought she was getting kidnapped,” her lawyer, Michael Goldstein, said of the confrontation, which the suit alleges also involved a female cop opening Rosenbaum’s clothing and peering inside her bra and her under pants.

At the time, Rosenbaum, of Essex County, NJ, was interning at Vaute Couture on Grand Street, a vegan clothing store .

On her way back from a work errand at the post office, she noticed a kitten behind a gate in a nearby alley.

The 5-foot-1, 110-pound woman was squatting to coo at the kitty when all hell broke loose, according to the suit.

“Hey, stop!” a strange man yelled from inside a gold sedan.

“He was really aggressive,” Rosenbaum recalled. “I had no idea who he was, [so] I just kept walking.”

A man and woman ran from the car, threw her against it, and demanded to know why she hadn’t stopped and whether she had drugs, the suit alleges.

“This whole time, I didn’t know who these people are,” she told The Post. “Finally, after a few minutes, they tell me they are police.”

They weren’t having any of her “just stopping to look at a kitty” story, she said.

“I offered to show them the cat,” she said. “They had two people on top of me, and my arm was really hurting.”

It got worse from there, the suit claims.

As passers-by gawked, the female cop lifted up Rosenbaum’s tank top, pulled back her bra and peered inside, the suit claims.

The officer then pulled open Rosenbaum’s jean shorts and took another intrusive peek — inside her underwear, the suit claims.

“Multiple times, the defendant officers threatened to take plaintiff down to the police station and write her up for [a] felony,” the suit says.

“At this point, I’m just sobbing,” she said.

Finally, she said, “they told me they didn’t want me to have a bad impression of cops so they were going to let me go.”

“This is a very nice young lady,” said her lawyer. “This was a false arrest and imprisonment. It’s assault.”

City Law Department spokeswoman Kate O’Brien Ahlers said, ”The city will evaluate the claim,”

20130723

DHS Inland Checkpoint - Gavin Detained "BECAUSE" of the Constitution?


License Plate Data Isn't 'Personally Identifiable' Until The Public Asks Police For Access To It

Law enforcement agencies display a deliberate cognitive dissonance when it comes to data they claim has no "expectation of privacy." As was recently detailed here, license plate scanners are in operation across the United States, most with little to no oversight over the use of the location information obtained. Even worse, disposal of "non-hit" data seems to be an afterthought -- in some cases, the information is held onto indefinitely. One law enforcement agency was even quoted as saying the use of the data was "limited only by the officers' imagination."

These agencies excuse these efforts by claiming the information they obtain is public. After all, the vehicles are driving on public roads where anybody, even a license plate scanner, can see and record the license plate. They also argue this is no different than an officer writing down a plate number and calling it in. (Although I'd like to see an officer write down 786 plates in one hour, as one plate scanner did in the Motherboard article.)

As Shawn Musgrave points out, this information travels almost exclusively one way.

A report released this week by the ACLU explores the widespread deployment of automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) scanners by law enforcement across the country. As police tout the advantages of ALPR and seek millions in federal funds to the equipment, many departments insist that license plate and vehicle location information don't require special protection or oversight.

When pressed to put special protections on their massive license plate databases, the law enforcement community writ large argues that license plate numbers are not personally identifiable information (PII), and thus not subject to restricted access or probable cause requirements for detectives to paw through it.
One would think that, for the most part, license plate data is personally identifiable. After all, most of us use the same vehicles for day-to-day travel. If it's not you, then it's a close family member. A plate can easily be tied to a small group of individuals, generally located at the same address. But law enforcement members argue that it isn't -- that a license plate is a license plate and nothing more.
In its 2012 guidelines on ALPR, the International Association of Chiefs of Police remind us that a license plate “identifies a particular vehicle, not a particular person.” When the Drug Enforcement Agency wanted to install ALPR along Utah highways in 2012, an official told local legislators, “We're not trying to capture any personal information--all that this captures is the tag, regardless of who the driver is.”
It's a terrible argument, especially considering phone numbers and addresses are considered personal information (according to federal guidelines), even if neither specifically identifies a person. Not only that, but plate numbers seem to be "personally identifiable" enough to allow traffic cam tickets to be sent to the person (and address) linked to the plate number. (It should be noted that a few drivers have turned this weak argument against law enforcement -- most notably, the driver who wore a monkey mask while racking up traffic cam tickets and then argued the city couldn't prove who was driving the vehicle.)

So, if license plates aren't "personally identifiable information," anyone should be able to access these public records, right?
When one citizen requested anonymized ALPR data from the LA County Sheriff earlier this month via a public records request, his request was denied primarily on confidentiality grounds. Again, he wanted anonymous data, but was denied based on confidentiality.

When I asked for data from the Boston police, the department indicated it was only willing to produce redacted records “without images of license plates and license plate numbers.” (I’m still waiting for this data after three months.)
There's the one-way street. It's not "personal" but only authorized law enforcement members are allowed to view the data. It's not "personal" enough to be subject to the same restrictions addresses and phone numbers are but agencies aren't interesting in sharing their databases of "vehicles" with the public. (Of course, they will sell it to private corporations...) It's a shifting definition that serves law enforcement's desire for massive data and little oversight.

And what happens if a member of the public manages to get ahold of the "private" database full of "public" information?
After a Minneapolis open data advocate paid $5.91 last December for a USB drive packed with 2.1 million ALPR scans complete with license plate numbers and photos, including the mayor’s, the city’s police chief successfully petitioned for a change in the public records law. In the same breath, Chief Harteau asserted that an ALPR scanner “does not record personally identifiable information,” but that its scans “should be private data, available to only the subject and not the general public.” The mayor quickly obliged.
There's your doublethink. Non-private information given privacy protection by a change in law that only benefits certain (supposedly) public servants. Seems rather possessive for data that anybody with pen and paper could acquire.

Maybe the time has come for the technology to be opened to the public, which can then drive around capturing plate and location data on law enforcement vehicles. Technology has been turned against those deploying it before. After all, if it's perfectly acceptable to grab location data on the public, law enforcement should be willing to submit to the same sort of data collection.

You can have your life threatened by the police for an anonymous tip.


20130716

Snowden warns Tempora surveillance 'snarfs' everything, even worse than NSA's PRISM

By Darlene Storm

If you are wondering about a way to avoid your communications from being hoovered up by NSA domestic surveillance, you must also take the international “Five Eye Partners” into consideration: The United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada intelligence services collaborate to such an extent that even if you have nothing to hide—simply objecting to the privacy invasion as a matter of principle—there sadly seems to be nowhere to hide.

When the German magazine Spiegel Online interviewed Edward Snowden about global spying and big surveillance programs that are currently active, Snowden warned:

In some cases, the so-called Five Eye Partners go beyond what NSA itself does. For instance, the UK's General Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has a system called TEMPORA. TEMPORA is the signals intelligence community's first "full-take" Internet buffer that doesn't care about content type and pays only marginal attention to the Human Rights Act. It snarfs everything, in a rolling buffer to allow retroactive investigation without missing a single bit. Right now the buffer can hold three days of traffic, but that's being improved. Three days may not sound like much, but remember that that's not metadata. "Full-take" means it doesn't miss anything, and ingests the entirety of each circuit's capacity. If you send a single ICMP packet and it routes through the UK, we get it. If you download something and the CDN (Content Delivery Network) happens to serve from the UK, we get it. If your sick daughter's medical records get processed at a London call center … well, you get the idea.
Snowden didn’t have a failsafe answer about how to circumvent that, but he advised, “You should never route through or peer with the UK under any circumstances.” Of course, the US intelligence apparatus is also in “bed” with “Germany the same as with most other Western countries.” (The German BND is like the American NSA.) Right now, the data collected about you may not be stored for the long term -- unless you are a target of the NSA and then your “communications get stored ‘forever and ever,’ regardless of policy.” Oh, and of course if you use encryption, then you painted a big red bull’s-eye on yourself as that is automatically suspicious; the NSA will store it forever…just in case you're evil. But once the NSA’s facility in Utah is completed, it will hold onto everything for all eternity.

“The NSA wants to be at the point where at least all of the metadata is permanently stored,” Snowden stated. “In most cases, content isn't as valuable as metadata because you can either re-fetch content based on the metadata or, if not, simply task all future communications of interest for permanent collection since the metadata tells you what out of their data stream you actually want.”

Snowden confirms NSA and Israel wrote Stuxnet

Plugging leaks is naturally something the government does want; the war on leakers includes charging whistleblowers and leakers with the Espionage Act. Although we’ve known the U.S. and Israel created Stuxnet, Edward Snowden confirmed, “NSA and Israel co-wrote it.” The FBI immediately launched a manhunt to unmask the leaker and now President Obama’s ‘favorite general,’ former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is in the crosshairs of a DOJ investigation.

Retired Marine Gen. James 'Hoss' Cartwright, a man who was once the second ranking officer in the U.S. military, has been described as the “father of Stuxnet;” but now he is the favorite “target” suspected of leaking Stuxnet. Unnamed legal sources told NBC that Cartwright is under investigation “for allegedly leaking information about a massive attack using a computer virus named Stuxnet on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Prosecutors supposedly identified Cartwright “without resorting to a secret subpoena of the phone records of New York Times reporters.”

Naked Security reminded future whistleblowers to “pay heed” to the FBI’s data-crunching tools and surveillance techniques because your digital communications and phone records can and will be used against you. In fact, Snowden warned that once NSA targets a person, you are forever “owned.” He told Spiegel Online:
An analyst will get a daily (or scheduled based on exfiltration summary) report on what changed on the system, PCAPS 9 of leftover data that wasn't understood by the automated dissectors, and so forth. It's up to the analyst to do whatever they want at that point -- the target's machine doesn't belong to them anymore, it belongs to the US government.
Regarding the “warrantless wiretapping of millions and millions of communications,” Snowden believes nothing will be done about it in a US court. “Who ‘can’ be brought up on charges is immaterial when the rule of law is not respected. Laws are meant for you, not for them.”

EPIC privacy group goes to Supreme Court over NSA domestic spying

Just the same, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a privacy rights group, is taking an emergency petition straight to the Supreme Court. Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of EPIC, told The New York Times that the “lawsuit would be the first to directly challenge the legal authority of the FISA court to approve the phone records’ collection under the Patriot Act.”

NSA’s domestic surveillance program collects, among other things, millions, perhaps billions, of Americans’ phone records. The FISA secret surveillance court said that is OK, but EPIC attorney Alan Butler said, “the judge 'lacked the authority to require production of all domestic call detail records.' He noted that the Patriot Act provision cited by the FISA court required that the business records produced be 'relevant' to an authorized national security investigation. “It is simply implausible that all call detail records are relevant.”

Indeed and amen.

20130714

Federal Judge None Too Impressed With Government's Defense of Its 'No Fly' List

The top secret "No-Fly" list has been problematic since day one. The DHS and FBI apparently believe over 20,000 people are too dangerous to allow to board a plane but not dangerous enough to arrest.

This is the process the government follows to place would-be travelers on the no-fly list.

1. The government places a person on the no-fly list.
That's all there is to it. The list is too "sensitive" to publish and exposing its methodology would apparently result in airliners raining down around us.

If you're a lucky recipient of the "no-fly" designation, here's how you're informed of your new status.
1. Purchase a ticket and attempt to travel.
2. Be rebuffed by TSA personnel.
This process can sometimes be applied with more flexibility.
1. Purchase a roundtrip ticket and fly to a foreign destination.
2. Attempt to return home.
3. Be rebuffed by local customs/security officials.
You won't know you're on The List until the list is triggered, which could happen when you're a few thousand miles from home. And if you think you're boarding the next boat back to the US, think again. The list is also "no-sail," meaning passenger ships are out of the question.

Now, if you're on the list and wish to be removed or, at the very least, informed of why you've been banned from commercial airline travel, there's no reason to panic. The DHS has a resolution process that relies very heavily on "process" and skips the "resolution" completely.
Their only recourse is to file a request with the Department of Homeland Security's "Traveler Redress Inquiry Program," after which DHS responds with a letter that does not explain why they were denied boarding. The letter does not confirm or deny whether their names remain on the No Fly List, and does not indicate whether they can fly. The only way for a person to find out if his or her name was removed from the No Fly List is to buy a plane ticket, go to the airport, see if he or she can get on the flight – taking the risk of being denied boarding and marked as a suspected terrorist, and losing the cost of the airline ticket.
One wonders what a letter that answers no questions and explains nothing is supposed to "redress."
Dear Sir/Madam No Fly,

Thank you for expressing an interest in our Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. The Department of Homeland Security works in conjunction with all domestic airports, as well as those in 22 other nations worldwide, in order to provide you with a safe traveling experience. We hope that you will continue to make use of our products and services.

Thank you again for your support.

If you have additional comments or questions, please dial (202) 282-8495.

Sincerely,
The Department of Homeland Security
This decade-long lack of specifics or actual redress has led to the ACLU suing the federal government on the behalf of thirteen no-fly list members.
Thirteen people on the no-fly list have sued the U.S. government, arguing that their placement deprives them of due process and smears their reputation by branding them as terrorists. Several of the men who filed suit have been surrounded at airport security areas, detained and interrogated.

The suit seeks to either remove the plaintiffs from the no-fly list or tell them why they are on it.
Government attorney Scott Risner addressed these complaints by arguing that air travel is not a "right" but a "convenience."
Risner said placement on the list doesn't stop people from traveling, and stopping people from using one mode of travel doesn't deprive them of their liberty. That's a key question in determining whether the government must ensure due process and one that's at the heart of the constitutionality of being placed on the list.
"We're not suggesting that there's not a convenience in air travel," Risner said. "(But) there's no right to travel without impediments. That's what's happening here.
Risner went so far as to point out that those stranded by sudden inclusion on the no fly list had made it back to the US via alternate forms of travel, thus "proving" a lack of air travel isn't preventing traveling.

Unfortunately for Risner, Judge Anna J. Brown wasn't buying it.
"To call it 'convenience' is marginalizing their argument," Brown said. [She] said alternatives to flying are significantly more expensive. "It's hugely time-consuming, and who knows what impediments there are between the Port of Portland and other countries."
She also pointed out that sea and land travel options aren't suitable replacements for flying, especially when time is of the essence and that the government's argument "fails to take into account the realities of modern life."

The DHS and FBI would obviously like everything to proceed the way it has for years, which means convincing the judge that flying isn't a fundamental right. This removes the question of constitutionality, as least as far as flight restrictions go.

The ACLU has gone further, though, declaring the entire system to be screwed up.
"We're asking the court to finally put a check on the government's use of a blacklist that denies Americans the ability to fly without giving them the explanation or fair hearing that the Constitution requires. It's a question of basic fairness," said ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, one of the ACLU attorneys who will argue the case Friday in Portland. "It does not make our country safer to ban people from flying without giving them an after-the-fact redress process that allows them to correct the errors that led to their mistaken inclusion on the list."
It also points out that issuance of notice and due process are required for much less far-reaching actions.
The ACLU argues that this system violates the Fifth Amendment's command that the government cannot deprive a person of liberty "without due process of law." Courts have ruled that the Constitution requires some kind of notice and hearing for far less severe actions, such as losing state assistance for utility bills or being suspended from school for 10 days.
Judge Brown hasn't said when she'll issue a ruling, but so far she seems less than impressed with the government's arguments. In the meantime, 20,000 people, including the 13 US citizens represented here (four of which are military veterans), are still stuck in War on Terror limbo -- unofficially "detained" in the US by secretive travel restrictions.