Deadline Live With Jack Blood » Police State

Red-light cameras boost coffers, rile drivers

Kristen — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:07:50 +0000

California has the most expensive red-light camera tickets in the world – the fine is so steep that one camera in Oakland generates more than $3 million a year – and a Fremont man is launching a protest group to do something about that.

If Roger Jones has his way, that freezing dread that knifes through a driver the moment he sees the overhead flash of a traffic camera will become a thing of the past.

But he’s facing quite an uphill fight against officials hungry for the cash the cameras sweep in and police who are convinced they make the roads safer.

Anyone in California snapped violating a red light pays a fine of $480, and according to the traffic-watch site TheNewspaper.com, no other jurisdiction anywhere has a tab that high. The second-highest fine in the United States is $250, and it is usually more like $100.

The Legislature passed two bills in the past two years that would have reduced the fine or limited the cameras’ use, but both were vetoed. When he killed the most recent measure, Gov. Jerry Brown said the matter should be left to local jurisdictions.

“Occupy” Austin PD HQ Protest January 28th 2012

Jack Blood — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:44:16 +0000

JustLive.US

On Saturday January 28th, 2012, well over a hundred people from all walks of life, protested on the steps of the Austin Police Department for solidarity of the victims of police abuse on January 1, 2012. This was the second rally that was organized to protest police abuse in Austin, the first was Occupy Austin Courts on J19 at the criminal courthouse. I helped organize both of these events and was happy to see the support from Occupy Austin, anarchists, Ron Paul supporters and moms who were previously non-activists. The is a great example of how people in the community can come together and support each other for a noble cause. Activists took part in street actions stopping traffic with their signs and many speakers rallied the crowd with the use of a bullhorn. The support of the community was evident, with all the honks in support from all the vehicles passing by. We also had different local news media show up and shoot interviews, similar to the first protest. The police left us alone for the most part, although we did notice some on a roof observing, it was a peaceful rally without any trouble. It seemed as if everyone had a camera that day to capture this historically and for personal protection. We also had live coverage of the rally online that day with gonzo journalist, Kit O’Connell, live tweeting and I livestreamed video with my smartphone. The rally ended with a march through the streets of downtown around APD headquarters. It was an empowering experience exercising our rights and showing solidarity for the NYE 3.

Stay up to date with case on the Free the NYE 3 and Free Antonio Buehler Facebook pages.

Below is my interview on the Freezone with Freeman, talking about the events that happened on NYE and the Occupy APD protest. Also below is a great video compilation by Mike Hanson Archives and a photo slideshow from various attendees of the rally.

More Pictures / video HERE

Harold

Harold Gray is on a personal journey to share his knowledge with others. In 2008, he launched JustGetThere in order to dispense information about the draconian system.

After coming to the conclusion that the sheer amount of such information had begun to reach the point of repetition, Harold decided to turn his focus onto things he could control, and to pursue self-sufficiency through positive intentions — which lead to the launch of JustLive in 2010.

The (Police) State of US Surveillance

Jack Blood — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:38:31 +0000

Written by Doug Hornig
Date: 02-03-2012
Casey Research Articles

Via Freedoms Phoenix

Lovers of liberty have seemingly had a good bit to celebrate recently.

First, there was an unprecedented outpouring of negative public sentiment about the Congressional bills SOPA (House) and PIPA (Senate); they are legislation that would have thrown a large governmental monkey wrench into the relatively smooth-running cogs of the Internet. Millions of Americans signed online petitions against the bills after seeing websites’ various protests. Google shrouded its search page in black; Wikipedia and Reddit went dark entirely (although Wikipedia could be accessed if one read the information available via clicking the sole link on its protest page); Facebook and Twitter urged users to contact their representatives; and many other core Internet businesses also raised their voices in opposition.

Such was the outpouring of dissent that even Washington, D.C. had to listen. The bills, which a week earlier had seem assured of swift passage, suddenly turned to poison. Supporters, forced to concede that the public really was pissed off this time, fled. Leadership in both houses tabled the legislation, pending further review and revision.

But before we get too self-congratulatory, however, it’s wise to note that this victory dish is probably best enjoyed with a serving of caution. As Casey Extraordinary Technology editor Alex Daley summed up the situation for us here at Casey Research: “Be sure this will come back again, likely post-election, and snuck through as part of a bigger package. It arrests power from the judiciary, and the legislature likes nothing more than to thumb its nose at those ridiculous judges and all their due process this and Constitution that. It will eventually pass, just not like this.” We can’t now go to sleep on this one.

Second, the Supreme Court recently ruled 9-0 that police may not attach a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car without a search warrant. This is a landmark decision to be sure, but one that was carefully circumscribed by the justices. The placing of the device constituted a physical intrusion on the suspect, they wrote, and thus was impermissible. Left unruled upon was the larger question of tracking someone’s movements when there was no physical violation, as would be the case when, say, police access signals from a GPS-enabled smartphone. Though it wasn’t directly addressed, the concurring opinions strongly suggest that the justices might be more sharply divided on that issue.

A lapse of vigilance in these matters would be a mistake.

This is probably a good time to review how individual freedom fared over the past year vis à vis the technology of surveillance in general.

But before I do, I need to make a couple of things clear.

Where We Stand

We are not technophobes at Casey Research. We don’t think that it would be a good thing to retreat to the woods and live out our days spearing game and cooking it over fires. Quite the contrary. We’re technophiles who appreciate what tech has done to improve human living conditions, and we believe that it holds the key to the solution of many, if not all, of our present problems. We like to err on the side of hope.

In addition, we understand that society has a powerful interest in maintaining a certain level of order. It’s intolerable that personal disputes should be settled by gun battles in the streets or that serious infringements on the rights of others – whether it be physical crimes such as robbery, rape, or murder, or non-physical ones like fraud – should be ignored. The most ardent libertarian would generally agree that a government ought to have the authority to prevent or punish the aggression of one individual upon another and to enforce contracts freely entered into. Thus tradeoffs with our basic right to do as we see fit must be made if man’s worst impulses are to be deterred.

That said, the tricky part is deciding where to draw the line between reasonable and overzealous laws and enforcements. Surveillance technology is at the center of this debate. It’s good and getting ever better. Even the most law-abiding of citizens have been subjected to steadily increasing levels of governmental – as well as private sector – watchfulness over their daily lives. That has occurred with no indication that the public is yet prepared to say, “Enough. This is where we draw that line in the sand.”

The past year was no exception. I won’t go into developments I’ve already written about, such as the growth of the TSA’s VIPR operations, last summer’s lemonade-stand busts, the ghastly E-Verify proposal , and the Fed’s Social Listening Program. But the sad truth is that there are plenty more from which to choose. Space considerations permit a close examination of only a few.

It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s…

… a drone.

Remote-controlled drone aircraft, like the famed Predator, have become a staple of the nightly news. We see them launching missiles against terrorists, conducting spy missions over Pakistan, patrolling the borders looking for drug smugglers and alien infiltrators. Now we’re going to have to get used to seeing them in the skies over, well, all of us.

Yes, those same Predator drones are being used increasingly by local law enforcement in the US.

That was unknown to most Americans before late last year, when the great North Dakota cattle-rustling incident hit the press. It seems that back in June, six neighbors’ cows had the misfortune to wander onto a 3,000-acre farm in eastern North Dakota owned by the Brossart family, whose members allegedly belong to the Sovereign Citizen Movement, an anti-government group that the FBI considers extremist and violent.

When the sheriff attempted to reclaim the cows, the family refused to give them up, ordering him off its property at gunpoint. A 16-hour standoff ensued, with the sheriff requesting the usual reinforcements: state highway patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, and deputy sheriffs from three other counties. But he also called nearby Grand Forks Air Force Base and asked for help from a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone, normally used to secure the Canadian border for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Long story short, the drone silently surveilled the farm from two miles up, relaying information from its sophisticated sensors as to what the Brossarts were doing. When the surveillance showed that the family members had put their weapons down (yes, it can see that well at that distance), the authorities moved in, neutralizing the Brossarts and making the first known, drone-assisted arrests of US citizens.

Law enforcement was pleased, perhaps rightly so. No blood was spilled. Another Ruby Ridge was avoided. The cows – street value $6,000, but now rather a bit more costly – were recovered.

But that was just the beginning. Local North Dakota police say they have used the Grand Forks Predators to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have also used Predators for domestic investigations, officials admit. And Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, says that Predators are flown “in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis.” [emphasis mine]

Who knew?

Apparently not Congress, for one. Spokespersons for Customs, which owns the drones, claim there is legal authorization for this usage because it was clearly indicated in the purchase request for the Predators that one purpose was “interior law enforcement support.” But those four words sailed right by Congresswoman Jane Harman – Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee at the time the drone purchases were approved – who insists that “no one ever discussed using Predators to help local police.” So this expanded civilian use of military surveillance hardware came about with no new law, no public discussion, not even a written regulation… just a few words buried in a budget request that no one in charge of approving it noticed.

There will be mission creep here, as there always is. Expect drones to gather data on any large political demonstration, for example – only, to be fully accurate, you won’t be noticing them above you. They fly too high and are too silent for that.

Internet Surveillance

In addition to SOPA/PIPA, there is PCIP. SOPA/PIPA were about shutting down Internet sites that the federal government deems offensive. PCIP is about gathering information.

As is so often the case with “well-meaning” legislation, the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (H.R. 1981, or PCIP) is allegedly aimed at something about which all agree. Nobody argues against shielding kids from pornographers.

Not that the problem addressed isn’t real. The Internet has proven to be a fertile stalking ground for sexual predators. As a society, we have already agreed to a certain level of cyber-entrapment, allowing police to run online sting operations against those who are actively targeting kids. If that catches some innocent people in the net, so be it. The public majority is willing to accept such collateral damage so long as the real bad guys are found and put away.

And yes, H.R. 1981 also contains some non-controversial provisions. Stricter punishment for interstate commerce transactions that promote child porn? Sure. Bolstering laws to protect child witnesses? No problem.

But, as always, the details are alive with devils. PCIP is also about pre-crimes – i.e., it entails gathering evidence before any crime is committed… perhaps even before said crime is contemplated. The goal is that, in the event of an arrest, supporting online records can quickly and easily be subpoenaed.

In order to accomplish that, everyone must be considered a potential criminal. Everyone.

What PCIP will mandate is that Internet providers keep detailed records about each one of us, including: name, address, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, all Internet activity for the previous 12 months (something sure to be extended after the first successful busts), and any IP addresses assigned to you – without a search warrant, court order, or even the slightest suspicion of criminal activity.

In other words, the government is proposing to expand the ranks of de facto private-sector cops, the same way that banks are now forced to report any “suspicious financial activity.” The legislation would enlist – nay, require – ISPs to compile detailed dossiers on every citizen, and to have them readily accessible for whatever “crime-fighting” or other purposes authorities want them. This thereby saves federal government officials the trouble and expense of doing it themselves. It’s breathtaking. You almost have to admire the elegance of their solution to the universal ‘Net surveillance problem that’s vexed them for some time.

No wonder the Electronic Frontier Foundation has scornfully tabbed this the “Data Retention Bill,” warning that the stored data “could become available to civil litigants in private lawsuits – whether it’s the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry.” And in a grotesque illustration of the law of unintended consequences, the EFF adds: “These databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous dissidents.”

H.R. 1981 sailed through the House Judiciary Committee in late July of last year but is yet to be voted on (although it was slated for “expedited consideration” in mid-December). Will it provoke the kind of public outcry directed against SOPA? Don’t count on it. What politician in his or her right mind would dare oppose legislation that “protects kids from pornographers?”

Reverse Surveillance

Meaning: when we turn the cameras on the government.

In a sense, we are all now street journalists. Most famously, the name “Rodney King” would mean nothing to anyone today but for a bystander with a cell phone camera. As these devices have become all but ubiquitous, we ordinary citizens now have an unprecedented ability to record crimes in progress, regardless of what side of the law the perpetrators are on.

Or do we?

While police understandably have welcomed citizen recordings that help them with their cases, they are again understandably not so sanguine when they themselves are the potential lawbreakers. And they’re hitting back. People filming unfolding events are routinely ordered away from the scene by the police, even if they happen to be standing on their own private property – and threatened with arrest if they don’t put the camera away.

Considering the First Amendment to the Constitution, that’s been a bluff… at least until recently.

Now authorities are asserting their right to charge video- or audiographers of police events with crimes ranging from obstruction of justice to eavesdropping to illegal wiretapping.

So far, to their credit, the courts have been mostly unsympathetic. In August, a jury acquitted a Chicago woman who used her cell phone to secretly record a conversation with police investigators about a sexual harassment complaint she was filing against the department. Also in August, the US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled in favor of the defendant in a case involving a complaint filed by a Boston man who filmed the scene of an October 2007 arrest on his cell phone, only to be arrested himself and charged with a violation of Massachusetts wiretapping laws.

In Illinois in September, a judge threw out five eavesdropping indictments – which carried maximum penalties of 15 years in prison on each count – against a man who had recorded conversations with local police officers who he claimed were harassing him on his own property. In a stinging rebuke to the prosecution, the judge wrote, “A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties. Such action impedes the free flow of information concerning public officials and violates the First Amendment right to gather such information.”

So far, so good. Still, these kinds of busts are on the rise nationwide. Even if they’re all laughed out of court, the mere threat of arrest (and the potential concomitant bodily harm) is often enough to make most people think twice about the wisdom of challenging a police order.

And, truthfully, would you trust the current Supreme Court – a majority of which has consistently supported government rights over that of citizens – to rule correctly on this?

Target: Casey Research!

One of the most ominous developments for us personally crawled out from under its rock in November. Again without any public debate, DHS unleashed its National Operations Center’s Media Monitoring Initiative. Yep, it’s exactly what it sounds like: The NOC’s Office of Operations Coordination and Planning is going to collect information from news anchors, journalists, reporters, or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

Thus Washington, D.C. unilaterally grants itself the right to monitor what you say. Doesn’t matter if you’re the New York Times, Brian Williams, a basement blogger, an online whistleblower, or known government critics like ourselves. They’re gonna take note of your utterances and file them away for future use.

Journalists are not the only targets, by the way. Also included among those subject to this surveillance are government officials (domestic or not) who make public statements; private-sector employees who do the same; and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” however large that umbrella might be.

At Casey Research, we’re not about to engage in self-censorship just because some bureaucrat somewhere has nothing better to do than watch what we’re saying. They’re welcome to it, and we’ll save them the trouble of archiving it; most of it’s preserved on our website, anyway.

The larger speculation is: what’s the endgame here?

Data Storage Capacity

Back in 1997, I wrote an article entitled Here’s Looking at You, which examined the ways in which big government was encroaching upon our private lives. The piece was published in February 1998 in a very popular national men’s magazine. (In my defense, I hasten to add that these glossy periodicals were among the very few public outlets, before Casey Research was born, for journalists who wrote about such “fringe” topics.)

As I was writing this piece you are now reading, I couldn’t help but take a look back fourteen years. It seems almost like a prehistoric era… before 9/11, the PATRIOT Act, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, drones, “free-speech zones” at political conventions, wall-penetrating radar, iPhones, and wholesale government monitoring of email and phone conversations, among a zillion other things. Heck, even the Internet was still more or less a novelty: I found that I had cautioned readers to be mindful of an insidious newfangled thing called “cookies.”

The tech of today is light-years more advanced. But even back then, I was concerned. And I predicted where I saw the trend heading. Naturally enough, not all of my predictions came to pass – I was certain for instance that by now we’d have a national ID card – but unfortunately, most of them did.

The reason I bring this up here is not to tout myself as particularly prescient. It’s to note something of actual importance. In 1998, I could still maintain that our saving grace was that data-storage capabilities were way insufficient for the total surveillance of hundreds of millions of Americans and probably would be for a long time to come.

How wrong I was.

It is already technologically feasible for governments to record nearly everything that is said or done within their borders – every phone conversation, electronic message, social media interaction, the movements of nearly every person and vehicle, and video from every street corner.

Before long, it’ll also be financially feasible to archive it, according to a sobering report published last December by the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation.

The report concludes that: “Plummeting digital storage costs will soon make it possible for authoritarian regimes to not only monitor known dissidents, but to also store the complete set of digital data associated with everyone within their borders. These enormous databases of captured information will create what amounts to a surveillance time machine, enabling state security services to retroactively eavesdrop on people in the months and years before they were designated as surveillance targets. This will fundamentally change the dynamics of dissent, insurgency and revolution.”

Emphasis mine. Consider the implications.

The key, according to the Brookings report: “Over the past three decades, [data] storage costs have declined by a factor of 10 approximately every 4 years, reducing the per-gigabyte cost from approximately $85,000 (in 2011 dollars) in mid-1984 to about five cents today.” Using GPS, mobile phone and WiFi inputs, “identifying the location of each of one million people to [a 15-foot] accuracy at 5-minute intervals, 24 hours a day for a full year could easily be stored in 1,000 gigabytes, which would cost slightly over $50 at today’s prices.” Fourteen cents a day to archive the collective movements of any selected million of us.

Phone calls? “The audio for all of the telephone calls made by a single person over the course of one year could be stored using roughly 3.3 gigabytes. On a per capita basis, the cost to store all phone calls will fall from about 17 cents per person per year today to under 2 cents in 2015.”

Video storage takes far more space, of course, and there are also major logistical problems involved in managing such a huge amount of data. But the point is made. Technological innovation will provide the tools. And as soon as government can do something, they invariably will do it.

Investing

These few examples, winnowed from hundreds of others I could cite, testify to a mushrooming new industry in the US, what some have called the cyber-industrial complex.

It’s big business. How big we don’t know, because much of it is shrouded in either government or corporate secrecy. The Washington Post‘s Dana Priest, twice a Pulitzer winner and one of the few true investigative journalists in America still working inside the mainstream media, published some groundbreaking work on the subject in the summer of 2010. If you haven’t read it already, you should. The website is dynamic, with regular updates posted on the subject and reader input invited.

Several other recent probes also have opened the shadowy surveillance world to a little more light. You can check out some of the latest techniques and which companies are implementing them at The Surveillance Catalog published by the Wall Street Journal and The State of Surveillance: The Data, published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Perhaps in your browsing you’ll find some publicly traded companies that will attract your investment interest. For our part, at Casey Research we prefer to seek out companies that are engaged in changing our world for the better rather than the worse. Those are the ones you’ll find in our portfolio.

In the end, we must acknowledge that technological advancement, especially at the rate we’re experiencing it in the present era, is bound to spawn evil applications along with the good. But we’re optimists here. We believe humanity is in a long-term uptrend, with technology setting torches on the path to a better life.

But that all depends on keeping people free. That’s why we will continue to expose – and oppose – government efforts to stifle innovation, creativity, and personal liberty. I’m not holding my breath but perhaps eventually Washington, D.C. will get the point, and follow our lead.

[Technology wars are being waged in a variety of ways, but the one that may affect investors the most is the war for the best talent. You have to invest smart to be on the winning side of this battle; learn how to back the victors and reap outsized profits.]

Vermont inmates hide pig in official police car decal

Jack Blood — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:34:20 +0000

By Zach Howard

Thu Feb 2, 2012 9:45pm EST

(Reuters) – Inmates working at a Vermont correctional unit’s print shop managed to sneak a prank image of a pig into a state police crest that is emblazoned on police cars, and 30 cruisers sported the design for the last year, officials said on Thursday.

The official crest depicts a spotted cow against a background of snowy mountains, but the inmates’ version featured one of the cow’s spots shaped like a pig in an apparent reference to the pejorative word for police, state police spokeswoman Stephanie Dasaro said.

“It dishonors the memory of those past and present members, especially for those who have lost their lives in the line of duty,” Dasaro said.

Vermont contracts with correctional facilities employing prisoners to make some print products, including the cruiser decals. Police said someone who works at the print shop changed the emblem from the officially sanctioned design.

A police employee noticed the prank on Wednesday and reported it. Police said the 60 16-inch door decals would be removed as soon as it was practical.

The “source and timing” of the change to the design is under investigation, Dasaro said.

“While some may find humor in the decal modifications, the joke unfortunately comes at the expense of the taxpayers,” Police Major Bill Sheets said in a statement.

Iran set up? NYPD document: Gather intel info at Shiite mosques

Jack Blood — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:08:18 +0000

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Police Department recommended increasing surveillance of thousands of Shiite Muslims and their mosques, based solely on their religion, as a way to sweep the Northeast for signs of Iranian terrorists, according to interviews and a newly obtained secret police document.

The document offers a rare glimpse into the thinking of NYPD intelligence officers and how, when looking for potential threats, they focused their spying efforts on mosques and Muslims. Police analysts listed a dozen mosques from central Connecticut to the Philadelphia suburbs. None has been linked to terrorism, either in the document or publicly by federal agencies.

The Associated Press has reported for months that the NYPD infiltrated mosques, eavesdropped in cafes and monitored Muslim neighborhoods with plainclothes officers. Its spying operations were begun after the 2001 terror attacks with help from the CIA in a highly unusual partnership.

The May 2006 NYPD intelligence report, entitled “US-Iran Conflict: The Threat to New York City,” made a series of recommendations, including: “Expand and focus intelligence collections at Shi’a mosques.”

The NYPD is prohibited under its own guidelines and city law from basing its investigations on religion. Under FBI guidelines, which the NYPD says it follows, many of the recommendations in the police document would be prohibited.

The report, drawn largely from information available in newspapers or sites like Wikipedia, was prepared for Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. It was written at a time of great tension between the U.S. and Iran. That tension over Iran’s nuclear ambition has increased again recently.

Police estimated the New York area Shiite population to be about 35,000, with Iranians making up about 8,500. The document also calls for canvassing the Palestinian community because there might be terrorists there.

“The Palestinian community, although not Shi’a, should also be assessed due to presence of Hamas members and sympathizers and the group’s relationship with the Iranian government,” analysts wrote.

The secret document stands in contrast to statements by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said the NYPD never considers religion in its policing. Kelly has said police go only where investigative leads take them, but the document described no leads to justify expanded surveillance at Shiite mosques.

The document also renews debate over how the NYPD privately views Muslims. Kelly has faced calls for his resignation recently from some Muslim activists for participating in a video that says Muslims want to “infiltrate and dominate” the United States. The NYPD showed the video to nearly 1,500 officers during training.

Documents previously obtained by the AP show widespread NYPD infiltration of mosques. It’s not clear, however, whether the May 2006 report prompted police to infiltrate the mosques on the list. One former police official who has seen the report said that, generally, the recommendations were followed but he could not say for sure whether these mosques were infiltrated.

A current law enforcement official, also familiar with the report, said that since it was issued the NYPD learned that Hezbollah was more political than religious and concluded that it’s not effective to monitor Shiites.

Both insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

Neither David Cohen, the NYPD’s top intelligence officer, nor department spokesman Paul Browne responded to emails or phone calls from The Associated Press this week.

Iran is an overwhelmingly Shiite country, but Shiites are a small percentage of the U.S. Muslim population. By contrast, al-Qaida is a Sunni organization and many U.S. leaders consider Shiite clerics as allies in the fight against homegrown extremism. Shiites are often oppressed overseas and many have sought asylum in the West.

The document is dated just weeks after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Congress that, “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.”

Even now, the U.S. remains particularly concerned with Iran, not only because of its nuclear research but also because intelligence officials don’t believe they know how Iranian sympathizers inside the United States would respond if the two countries went to war. By far, the largest group of Iranians in the U.S. lives in or around Los Angeles. Yet the NYPD, with a smaller Iranian population that police estimated at about 8,500 in New York City, shared the concerns about reactions to an open military conflict.

Asad Sadiq, president of the Bait-ul-Qaim mosque in the Philadelphia suburb of Delran, N.J., said the NYPD was being unfairly broad.

“If you attack Cuba, are all the Catholics going to attack here? This is called guilt by association,” Sadiq, a dentist, said after seeing his mosque in the NYPD document. “Just because we are the same religion doesn’t mean we’re going to stand up and harm the United States. It’s really absurd.”

The AP showed the document to several veteran counterterrorism analysts. None said they had seen anything like it.

“It’s really problematic if you make a jump from a possible international conflict to saying therefore we need to monitor Shiite mosques writ large,” said Brian Fishman, the former research director at West Point’s Combatting Terrorism Center. “It doesn’t follow.”

For instance, the NYPD analysts focused much of the report on the Alavi Foundation, a New York nonprofit group that the federal government has since accused of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government. Analysts then looked at a mosque where Alavi members prayed and that police say may have been linked to an effort to buy information about rocket technology for Iran.

There is no explanation, however, for how those suspicions warranted expanding surveillance to other Shiite mosques, including those far outside the department’s jurisdiction in Connecticut and New Jersey.

“Any time that you begin to isolate certain communities from a policing perspective because you think there’s risk, you have the potential that somebody overreaches,” said Robert Riegle, a former Department of Homeland Security analyst who oversaw efforts to work with state and local agencies.

At the Al-Mahdi Foundation mosque in Brooklyn, worshippers intoned their prayers Wednesday while touching their foreheads to disks of clay on the floor, a Shiite tradition.

“After 1,400 years, the Shias are being targeted in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, everywhere,” imam Malik Sakhawat Hussain said after being told that his mosque was in the NYPD document. “If U.S. authorities become suspicious of the Shias, I would say we are a very oppressed community of the world.”

At the Masjid Al-Rahman, a prayer hall in the basement of a Brooklyn apartment building, manager Abo Maher was surprised to see his mosque on the NYPD’s list of Shiite locations.

“This isn’t even Shia,” he said. “Their information is wrong.”

The police department’s Demographics Unit, the secretive squad of plainclothes officers used to monitor restaurants, social clubs and other gathering spots, found similar issues in Iranian neighborhoods, one former NYPD official recalled.

Muslims make up only a fraction of New York’s Iranian community so squad members returned from their rounds in Iranian neighborhoods and reported finding Jews and Christians, the former official said.

Sadiq, the New Jersey mosque president, said about 250 families — mostly Pakistanis and Indians and few Iraqis — attend his mosque. Every few years, he said, an FBI agent stops by, introduces himself and asks whether there’s been any radical rhetoric in his mosque and whether he knows anyone with connections to Iran. The most recent meeting was just Wednesday, he said, and the NYPD would be welcome if it came openly.

The intelligence unit operates in secrecy with little outside oversight. The City Council is not told about secret intelligence programs. And though the unit operates under the auspices of a federal anti-drug task force and receives federal money, it is not overseen by Congress. The Obama administration, including the Justice Department, has repeatedly sidestepped questions about whether it endorses the NYPD’s tactics.

“They think that they can do whatever they want and get away with it,” Sadiq said.

The document also suggests a broader international intelligence mission than the department has previously acknowledged. The NYPD has officers stationed in 11 foreign cities such as London, Paris, Madrid, and Tel Aviv, where they work with local police and act as the NYPD’s eyes and ears overseas.

In their recommendations for the foreign liaison unit, analysts wrote that officers should: “Focus international intelligence collection on the Iranian threat, to include the activities of the IIS, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. throughout Europe and the Middle East.”

NYPD officers abroad are not supposed to be spies and do not answer to the U.S. director of national intelligence or the CIA station chiefs who coordinate America’s efforts to gather intelligence on Iran. In fact, the NYPD’s international officers aren’t even paid by the department. Rather, the program is paid for through a nonprofit foundation that raises money from corporate donors.

It has not previously been known that the NYPD would consider gathering overseas intelligence on Iranian intelligence services. The police department does not disclose details about the inner workings of the international program to the City Council, to Congress or to U.S. intelligence agencies.

___

View the NYPD document: http://bit.ly/wYrAUX

FBI Uses Chainsaw In Raid On Wrong Apartment

Jack Blood — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:14:40 +0000

FBI agents used a chainsaw to enter a Fitchburg apartment.

FITCHBURG (CBS) – It’s going to be a while before things get back to normal for Judy Sanchez and her three-year-old daughter.

Last Thursday, a team of FBI agents swarmed her apartment building as part of a massive citywide drug and weapons gang raid.

Trouble is, Sanchez lives in apartment 2R.

The suspect they were after is in 2F.

At 6:04 last Thursday morning, just before Sanchez’ alarm was set to go off, she heard a pounding outside her second floor apartment.

“I just happened to glance over and saw this huge chainsaw ripping down the side of my door,” she explains. “And I was freaking out. I didn’t know what was going on.”

Within moments, the chainsaw had cut through most of her door, and someone on the FBI’s arrest team kicked the rest of it in.

“That’s when I heard the clicking of a gun and I heard ‘FBI, get down!’, so I laid right on down.

And they said get your dog, so I got her and at the same time I am laying in her urine because she did pee on herself at the same time.”

That dog is the family’s three-month-old pit bull puppy.

Sanchez says they left her on the floor for 35 minutes, with her daughter screaming for her mommy in the other room.

“I was told not to move, so I didn’t move,” she tells WBZ, out of fear that she’d be shot.

Eventually the feds figured out they were in the wrong spot and they arrested the suspect they were after in the next door apartment.

Sanchez can’t believe that a two-year long federal investigation ended at the wrong door.

“The looks on their faces when they knew they got the wrong door was priceless,” she recalls. “They looked at each other dumbfounded.”

Sanchez says another agent came by later that day to offer an apology, but it was one that Sanchez felt wasn’t quite genuine.

“For me it felt routine apology, it felt like just a regular, ‘I’m sorry for the inconvenience. Here’s the phone number for your landlord to get reimbursed for the door, have a good day.’

And that’s how I felt, like it was a smack in the face.”

Tazed again – Park Ranger uses weapon on man for letting dog off leash

Jack Blood — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:52:54 +0000

Is there no where left to go to avoid the Global Police State?

SF Chronicle

A Montara man walking two lapdogs off leash was hit with an electric-shock gun by a National Park Service ranger after allegedly giving a false name and trying to walk away, authorities said Monday.

The park ranger encountered Gary Hesterberg with his two small dogs Sunday afternoon at Rancho Corral de Tierra, which was recently incorporated into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, said Howard Levitt, a spokesman for the park service.

Hesterberg, who said he didn’t have identification with him, allegedly gave the ranger a false name, Levitt said.

The ranger, who wasn’t identified, asked Hesterberg to remain at the scene, Levitt said. He tried several times to leave, and finally the ranger “pursued him a little bit and she did deploy her” electric-shock weapon, Levitt said. “That did stop him.”

San Mateo County sheriff’s deputies and paramedics then arrived and Hesterberg gave his real name, the park spokesman said.

Hesterberg, whose age was not available, was arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information, Levitt said.

He was then released. He did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest seemed excessive for someone walking two small dogs off leash.

“It was really scary,” said Michelle Babcock, who said she had seen the incident as she and her husband were walking their two border collies. “I just felt so bad for him.”

Babcock said Hesterberg had repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained. She didn’t answer him, Babcock said.

“He just tried to walk away. She never gave him a reason,” Babcock said.

The ranger shot Hesterberg in the back with her shock weapon as he walked off, Babcock said.

“We were like in disbelief,” she said. “It didn’t make any sense.”

Rancho Corral de Tierra has long been an off-leash walking spot for local dog owners. In December, the area became part of the national park system, which requires that all dogs be on a leash, Levitt said.

The ranger was trying to educate residents of the rule, Levitt said.

The park service is investigating the incident, he said.

Occupy London assault: Bailiff plows car through protesters

Kristen — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:08:04 +0000

Police in London have been accused of excessive force in their efforts to clear out Occupy demonstrators. Protesters stood together last night as officers broke down the doors to their camps. RT’s Laura Smith has more on the London based battle between occupiers and officers.

Indianapolis Goes into Police State Mode for Super Bowl Week

Jack Blood — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:37:43 +0000

Yeah sure… The Super Bowl is a big stage and a big target. The only problem with turning the city into a high tech police state is… You cannot actually stop a “terrorist” if they truly want to attack the big show (Especially from a suicide attack). We personally witnessed a massive republican guard in force in NYC at the 2004 coronation of George W. Bush. What we took away was that it was all for show. Yes, the elites have good protection, and even more so when they are cocooned in their castles…. But the people are not much safer. Anyone with a backpack full explosives should be able to do massive damage, which could get major international attention for their cause. Seeing as the borders are wide open, and IED’s are pretty easy to create…. Its easy to imagine how it could all go down.

Of Course…That will not happen. How do we know? Because 99% of all “terrorism” only happens with funding and permission from Global Authorities. (Id Est: The REAL Terrorists) – An attack stateside would be a black eye for such a massive show of force, and would have “we the peeps” doubting the effectiveness of such security.

However, in the aftermath of Super Bowl 46, the people will be just a bit more CONditioned to give up their liberties, and to rah rah rah for the global police state keeping them safe at their gladiatorial bread and circus event.

Security = CONTROL!

(Take NY and the points …….. and always root for Patriots!)

Thousand police officers deployed on streets of Indianapolis as massive Super Bowl security operation swings into gear

Daily Mail

150,000 Patriots and Giants fans expected to converge on city
Tom Brady arrives and says he’s already organised a victory party
Special teams sweeping Lucas Oil Stadium

By Wil Longbottom

A massive security operation involving 1,000 police officers has been launched in Indianapolis as the city’s first Super Bowl rolls into town this week.

Super Bowl fever has already hit the city and 150,000 NFL fans are expected to descend on downtown Indianapolis in one of the most high-security events in the U.S.

The city has invested millions of dollars to keep spectators safe, including most bizarrely the installation of 150 new manhole covers after a series of underground explosions.

Fever: Police officers watch the crowd in Super Bowl village, Indianapolis, ahead of the big game on Sunday

Security: A guard stands at the side of a concert in the heart of Indianapolis as crowds continue to gather ahead of the Super Bowl

Officers at the event have been equipped with smartphones and other electronic hand-held devices to allow them to feed photos and videos to a new state-of-the-art operations centre on the city’s east side. (Facial recognition apps)

Police cruisers will be driven around a 44-block area in the heart of the city as backup, and officers from the FBI will also be scanning the crowd for signs of pickpocketing, prostitution or other trouble. (That is crime NOT Terror, in which case 4th and 5th amendments need to be heeded, as well as the 1st amendment for any protestors! )

The Super Bowl venue, Lucas Oil Stadium, will even be swept for nuclear threats as authorities leave nothing to chance.

Gridiron: The pilot holds the New England Patriots’ flag out of the cockpit after the team’s charter flight arrived in Indianapolis yesterday

Super star: Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady wheels his luggage on to the team bus after a sendoff at the Gilette Stadium, Foxborough

Experience: Fans photograph Super Bowl rings on show at an NFL exhibition in downtown Indianapolis

Public Safety Director Frank Straub said: ‘This is clearly bigger in terms of the amount of people who will be downtown over an extended period of time.’

Indianapolis is used to hosting large sporting events – the Indianapolis 500 attracts more than 200,000 fans every year and the NCAA’s men’s Final Four basketball tournament has been held there six times since 1980.

But its first Super Bowl poses some unique challenges.

Under a security risk rating system used by the federal government, the Super Bowl ranks second just below national security events involving the president and the Secret Service, according to Indianapolis Chief of Homeland Security Gary Coons.

Thrill-seekers: Fans climb a tower to have a go on one of four zip slides running through the Super Bowl Village in downtown Indianapolis and, right, one woman has to be rescued after her harness got caught

Show: DJ Pauly performs on the main stage in Indianapolis. Around 150,000 fans are expected in a 44-block area of downtown for Sunday’s Super Bowl

Attraction: A young fan tackles a sprint challenge in the Super Bowl Village and, right, the stadium where Sunday’s game will take place

The ratings are based on factors including international attention, media coverage, number of people the event attracts and visits by celebrities and foreign dignitaries.

In comparison, the Indianapolis 500 ranks two levels below the Super Bowl.

A series of explosions in Indianapolis Power & Light’s (IPL) underground network of utility cables has caused concern over the safety of fans – with a dozen blasts since 2005 sending manhole covers hurtling through the air.

The IPL has spent $180,000 installing new locking manhole covers in the Super Bowl village. The covers lift a couple of inches off the ground if an explosion takes place – enough to vent gas without feeding oxygen to magnify the blast.

Special teams from the Department of Energy will sweep the stadium – normally home to the Indianapolis Colts – for nuclear terror threats and the new $18million communications centre has been opened in time for the lead-up to the big game.

Competitor: New York Giants’ quarterback Eli Manning holds the NFC Championship trophy after his team beat the San Francisco 49ers to reach the Super Bowl

Game: Quarterback Tom Brady at a press conference in Indianapolis yesterday. Both teams have won the Super Bowl three times

Glamour: Tom Brady’s Brazilian supermodel wife Gisele Bundchen and, right, Eli Manning poses at a film premiere with his wife Abby McGrew

Mr Straub added: ‘We’re using more technology, and state-of-the-art technology, than has been used in any Super Bowl before this one.’

Super Bowl XLVI pitches the New England Patriots against the New York Giants, in a replay of the 2008 game in Glendale, Arizona.

Both teams have won the Vince Lombardi trophy three times, but the Giants beat the Patriots in XLII 17-14.

Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady was given a raucous sendoff in Foxborough yesterday as he gave a confident interview to 25,000 fans.

He said: ‘We’re going down there for one reason. We’re going to give it our best and hopefully we’ll have a lot more people at our party next weekend.’

Flashback: The Patriots and Giants faced off against each other in Super Bowl XLII in Glendale Arizona – with New York scoring a surprise win

Arena: The Super Bowl will take place in Lucas Oil Stadium, home of the Indianapolis Colts

It is the Patriots’ fifth Super Bowl in the last 11 years and their first since the Giants scored their shock win.

But team were more subdued after arriving in Indianapolis.

Wide receiver Wes Welker told the New York Daily News: ‘We’re just planning on this game. Putting a game plan together and getting ourselves ready to play is object No. 1′

Last year, the Super Bowl became the most watched American television programme in history, with an average audience of 111million viewers.

‘I’m going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe’: British pair arrested in U.S. on terror charges over Twitter jokes

Kristen — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:23:22 +0000

Two British tourists were barred from entering America after joking on Twitter that they were going to ‘destroy America’ and ‘dig up Marilyn Monroe’.

Leigh Van Bryan, 26, was handcuffed and kept under armed guard in a cell with Mexican drug dealers for 12 hours after landing in Los Angeles with pal Emily Bunting.

The Department of Homeland Security flagged him as a potential threat when he posted an excited tweet to his pals about his forthcoming trip to Hollywood which read: ‘Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America’.