Crapaganda.com

Civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation says it has unearthed upwards of 40,000 intelligence violations relating to investigations carried out by the FBI.

In a report released today the EFF says that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has “compromised the civil liberties of American citizens far more frequently, and to a greater extent, than was previously assumed.”

The revelations in the report were unearthed in documents obtained by the EFF using Freedom of Information Act Litigation and show that the Intelligence Oversight Board, which is supposed to protect the public from FBI abuses, takes on average two-and-a-half years to report violations.

The documents have also revealed cases of serious misconduct by Federal agents including perjury, using dodgy evidence to obtain grand jury subpoenas and illegally accessing password-protected files without a warrant.

In all, the documents expose as many as 40,000 possible violations between 2001 and 2008.

The report (PDF) is based on close to 2,500 FBI documents sent to the Intelligence Oversight Board, a supposedly independent civilian organisation which is charged with reporting abuses of intelligence powers directly to the President.

The EFF says the report underscores the need for “greater transparency and oversight in the intelligence community” and that it will be sending
Source: thinq.co.uk

A new piece of technology may soon be coming to South Florida, but is already raising concerns from residents.

The Miami-Dade Police Department recently finalized a deal to buy a drone, which is an unmanned plane equipped with cameras. Drones have been used for years in Iraq and Afghanistan in the war against terror.

Many residents are concerned that the new technology will violate their privacy.

MDPD purchased a drone named T-hawk from defense firm Honeywell to assist with the department’s Special Response Team’s operations. The 20-pound drone can fly for 40 minutes, reach heights of 10,500 feet and cruise in the air at 46 miles an hour. “It gives us a good opportunity to have an eye up there. Not a surveilling eye, not a spying eye. Let’s make the distinction. A surveilling eye to help us to do the things we need to do, honestly, to keep people safe,” said Miami-Dade Police Director James Loftus.

The ACLU is one of the organizations that is concerned about the drone that may soon be coming to Miami-Dade County. Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida approves of the drones but also advocates strict regulation of the drones. “Technology: there’s no reason not to embrace technology if it makes the streets safer, if it helps the police. The concern is, though, that every new technology also has within it the capacity to threaten people’s privacy,” he said.

Terrorism expert Douglas Haas, however, believes that the drones will help in many ways, including fighting crime. “This has unlimited capabilities,” said Haas. “Not only is it good tactically for a SWAT call out or any tactical situation, there’s numerous search and rescue applications for it after a hurricane. They could send one of these up fast and assess damage.”

Residents have also questioned whether or not Miami-Dade Police can afford to purchase the drone, especially since the department has recently made a lot of budget cuts. “Nothing happens quickly in the purchasing process, and that’s something that really was in place, the funds for that, a couple of years ago,” Loftus said.

The purchase of the drone may have been made possible through a federal grant; however, this has not been confirmed.

Honeywell has applied to the FAA for clearance to fly the drone in urban areas. This has never been allowed before, but if it does happen, the Miami-Dade Police Department will be the first police agency in the US to use the technology.

Source: WSVN TV

After filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the Richmond Police Department for police training documents, Mo Karn received much more than expected in return: homeland security and crowd control guides that show how the police target protests.

The police filed for an emergency court order yesterday to prohibit Karn from publicizing any of the documents, which should never have been released. The cops’ reasoning? “Defendant Mo Karn is a known and admitted anarchist.”

The documents, however, have already been published online. And buried in the training guides are insights into three trends in law enforcement that have been occurring not just in Virginia, but nationally: the demonization of protest, the militarization of police, and turning local cops into “terrorism” officials.

The Demonization of Protest

The Richmond Police Department’s Emergency Operations Plan
includes a section on “civil disturbances.” While this sounds innocuous, “civil disturbances” are defined so broadly as to include what the police call “dissident gatherings.”

“The City of Richmond is a target rich environment” for antiwar protesters, the document says. And it warns that police and homeland security have reason to be increasingly concerned:

“Current training and intelligence reveals that protestors are becoming more proficient in the methods of assembly.”

Militarization of Local Police

Such a depiction of “assembly” (a First Amendment right) as a “disturbance” and a threat is all the more troubling when put in the context of the other police department guides. Richmond’s Crowd Management Operating Manualis for the police unit assigned to large protests (no experience required). Among the tools that the crowd management team are issued include riot shields, chemical agents, cut tools, helmets, body armor, cameras, video cameras, batons, gas masks, and a “mass arrest kit.”

Deputizing Local Cops as Counter-terrorism Officials

This militarization of local police is accompanied by another trend in law enforcement since September 11th: deputizing local cops to becoming “homeland security” and counter-terrorism officials. According to the Homeland Security Criminal Intelligence Unit Operating Manual, “The Richmond Police Department is under contract with the FBI to provide assistance through staffing, intelligence and equipment.” And one member of the homeland security unit is assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The result? Documents like the Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment. The 2009 document was created by the Virginia Fusion Center, of which the Richmond Police Department is part. Fusion centers are ostensibly designed to gather terrorism intelligence from multiple police agencies, and make us safer. In practice, they routinely label activists as “terrorists.” Among the “terrorist threats” identified in Virginia were animal rights activists, environmental activists, and anarchists.

According to the threat assessment, “The Virginia Federation of Anarchists has held two conferences in Richmond in November 2007 and January 2008″ and “Anarchist protesters at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. spilled over into Prince William County.”

Karn, meanwhile, wears her scarlet circle ‘A’ with pride, and has no problem being labeled an anarchist. The FOIA was submitted by the Wingnut Collective, a Richmond anarchist group, as part of their police accountability project.

In his court motion warning that Karn is an “anarchist,” Richmond’s Deputy Assistant Attorney Brian Telfair doesn’t allege the possibility of any violence or property destruction. Instead, he cites a blog post by Karn about acquiring government information through legal requests. The title? “FOIA Rocks!”

Source: GreenIsTheNewRed.com

By Tim Dees

For some, anarchy is a full-time job. The nature or cause of the event is a far secondary issue to the opportunity to disrupt people’s lives, destroy property, and flip the bird at authority. These folks devote their talents to devising new ways of creating quickly-constructed blockades of streets and buildings, improvising protective gear, and manufacturing weapons to use against riot police. Organizations such as the Direct Action Network, which played a major role in the 1999 “Battle in Seattle” riots, provide instrumentality for the riot-inclined. Fortunately, anarchists don’t organize well (imagine that), so the networks come and go.

These professional anarchists travel the globe to lend their skills at whatever demonstration might be handy, ranging from World Trade Organization meetings to student protests like London is experiencing. Like most other major cities, London has its share of organized protest demonstrations from time to time. Most recently, the Metropolitan Police contended with multiple incidents centered on the news that tuition at public universities was being increased substantially. The latest protests may have been the first instance of social networking used not just to organize the protests, but also to monitor activity in real time and subvert police efforts to keep the peace.

In December 2010, protest organizers used custom Google Maps to track police movements and rally points, updating the maps in real time with wireless Internet connections. The updaters even created custom icons to represent police, aircraft, and prisoner transport vans. Google Maps can be shared between designated users or made public, so anyone who knows where to look can see it. The maps for this event were public, and presumably the links to them were disseminated to other protest information sources.

Historically, police have had the upper hand in tactical information during public order events. Radio networks of officers posted at observation points, possibly coupled with closed-circuit television images, keep command post personnel apprised of what’s happening and where. Keeping that information current is absolutely critical for effective management of the situation. Without it, personnel and equipment won’t be where it’s most needed.

The proliferation of highly capable handheld ‘smartphones’ now makes it easy for protest organizers to communicate by voice, text and images, even with real-time video. The protesters may have more watchers and observation points than the police, and actually outpace the police in quantity and quality of intelligence.

Having this kind of information available has made it possible for disrupters to create decoy incidents to draw resources away from where they are needed most. An observation point may report that people are assembling a “protest tripod” to block an intersection at ‘X’ and ‘Y’ streets. These tripods are made of three tall poles, lashed together at one end with a protester dangling from the junction. They take up a lot of room and are difficult to dismantle quickly without injuring the protester. Meanwhile, there is a less obvious gathering of people in another location who intend to break out windows and tip over cars on a street as soon as forces are marshaled to intercept the tripod crew.

Having a real-time map, complete with satellite photos, of where everyone is at any one moment is almost as good as having your own helicopter overhead — maybe better, if you can distract the crew of the helicopter.

First Amendment and net neutrality issues being what they are, there isn’t much law enforcement can do to keep protest organizers from using these resources. What you can do is know that your opposition has access to this kind and quality of information, and not to underestimate them or their capability. Managing large-scale public order incidents is a science, and it’s possible to leverage a relatively small force to be effective against a large gathering. If you anticipate the possibility of a protest or other anarchist demonstration in your community, prepare now.

The protesters are preparing already.

Source: PoliceOne.com

A federal appeals court says three Seattle police officers did not employ excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a visibly pregnant woman for refusing to sign a speeding ticket.

The lawyer representing Malaika Brooks said Monday that the court’s 2-1 decision sanctioned “pain compliance” tactics through a modern-day version of the cattle prod.

“To inflict pain on a person if that person is not doing what the police want that person to do is simply outrageous,” said Eric Zubel, the woman’s attorney. “I cannot say that loud enough.”

Zubel said he would ask the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear Friday’s 2-1 decision that drew a sharp dissent from Judge Marsha Berzon:

“Refusing to sign a speeding ticket was at the time a nonarrestable misdemeanor; now, in Washington, it is not even that. Brooks had no weapons and had not harmed or threatened to harm a soul,”  Berzon wrote. “Although she had told the officers she was seven months pregnant, they proceeded to use a Taser on her, not once but three times, causing her to scream with pain and leaving burn marks and permanent scars.”

The majority noted that the M26 Taser was set in “stun mode” and did not cause as much pain as when set on “dart mode.” The majority noted that the circuit’s recent and leading decision on the issue concerned excessive force in the context of a Taser being set on Dart mode, which causes “neuro-muscular incapacitation.”

Stun mode, the court noted, didn’t rise to the level of excessive force because it imposes “temporary, localized pain only.”

The majority reversed a lower court judge who said the woman’s rights were violated. The lower court’s failure to distinguish between the two levels of pain modes “led the court to err in finding excessive force.”

The woman was driving her 12-year-old to the African American Academy in Seattle when she was pulled over on suspicion of speeding in 2004. The child left the car for school and a verbal spat with the police resulted in the woman receiving three, 50,000-volt shocks, first to her thigh, then shoulder and neck while she was in her vehicle. An officer was holding Brooks’ arm behind Brooks’ back while she was being shocked.

Brooks gave the officer her driver’s license, but Brooks refused to sign the ticket — believing it was akin to signing a confession. She was ultimately arrested for refusing to sign and to comply with officers asking her to exit the vehicle.

“A suspect who repeatedly refuses to comply with instructions or leave her car escalates the risk involved for officers unable to predict what type of noncompliance might come next,” Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall wrote for the majority. She was joined by Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain.

“Therefore, while using the Taser three times makes this a closer case, we find that it does not show excessive force in light of the corresponding escalation of Brooks’ resistance and the fact that it was the third tasing that appeared to dislodge her such that the officers could finally extract her from her car and gain control over her,” Hall wrote.

Source: Wired.com

It was the period in the history of the United States known as Prohibition, from 1920-1933. During this time, the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol for consumption was banned throughout the US as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Noble Experiment was a colossal failure.  As public use of alcohol was illegal, all drink was driven underground.  Syndicated crime sky rocketed, as the need to provide illegal liquor increased.

Doctors were accustomed to alcohol poisoning by then, the routine of life in the Prohibition era. The bootlegged whiskies and so-called gins often made people sick. The liquor produced in hidden stills frequently came tainted with metals and other impurities. But this outbreak was bizarrely different. The deaths, as investigators would shortly realize, came courtesy of the U.S. government.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.”

Read the rest of the story at: The Chemist’s War (Slate)

Watch Prohibition – The Last War on Drugs