Preventative detention? Who cares?

I think in the end, We the people will get what we deserve...the consequences of ignorance and indifference. Most Americans (or Irish people) don't even know the laws passed to take away their rights, nor do they care to learn about them...too much anxiety.

Here is just another example in the long line of draconian laws passed to 'protect' people from them thar 'terrorists'.

Who cares? We can't do anything about it anyway.



OR.....What in the hell is Posse Comitatus....and....who cares?




People who can't be bothered to defend their freedoms may not deserve them.

Wonder why I am disgusted?

Marines at DUI roadblocks

The evaporation of privacy and freedom

Man arrested/convicted for complaining to government

Ireland could learn from Iceland

The difference between the two countries is much greater than just one letter in their spelling. Both have suffered devastating economic collapse. Both are islands.

But the response of the people and governments to the crisis of today is quite different. Ireland is still trying to emulate the US style of business and to boost itself with the same strategy that gave birth to the Celtic Tiger: attracting foreign direct investment (jobs from foreign multinationals). Apparently, the leaders have not learned what Einstein said: One cannot fix a problem with the same thinking that created the problem.

Ireland is still hot to attract those major corporate employers to save the country. It is difficult to understand how so many do not notice that most of Ireland's skyrocketing unemployment is the direct result of reliance on foreign corporations (who now find Irish workers too expensive). Iceland, which suffered a much greater economic collapse is using another strategy: to reinvent itself. As someone once said, 'Insanity is not doing something entirely strange: it is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results'.

Iceland is forging ahead with a government that is now much more responsive to the people of Iceland - of course they did have to overthrow it to accomplish this, but then, that is the way of history. Iceland is going to make itself the global center of internet freedom of expression with the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative. The plan is brilliant: it not only supports the values of the people but promises to stimulate the economy and make Iceland a unique haven in the world.

"The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative addresses the key issues for free expression in the digital age, and may yet be the catalyst for the kind of legislative reforms that all 21st Century democracies will need." —Index on Censorship

"I am proud to advise the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative's proposal to create a global safe haven for investigative journalism. I believe this proposal is a strong way of encouraging integrity and responsive government around the world, including in Iceland. In my work investigating corruption I have seen how important it is to have have robust mechanisms to get information out to the public. Iceland, with its fresh perspectives and courageous, independent people seems to be the perfect place to initiate such an effort towards global transparency and justice." —Eva Joly MEP

I urge you to glance through the link above. The entire idea inspires hope in an age of darkness and demonstrates that people must demand their governments implement legislation which reflects the will of the people.

To my mind, this is not the case in Ireland. People are frightened here; and that fear of loss of the 'good life' or perhaps even a 'decent life' clouds their anger toward a government which has become entrenched in Jurassic age economic thinking - following the USA down the rosy path. People are grasping at straws and not yet damaged enough to say, 'Enough is enough!'

In only the past week, three high government officials left office; two because of the grinding mechanisms of the current political culture and another resignation due to perjury in the High Court. Yet it's only a bit of gossip. Public sector employees demonstrated against paycuts in the last budget. But these are the same people who voted to give away our fiscal power to Brussels by voting 'yes' on Lisbon. In essence, they voted themselves their own paycuts - and they didn't even know it. They followed Fianna Fail's party position without really looking at the issues the 'no' side was questioning. Now, they are clueless.

Had the Irish government listened to its own public sector employees protesting, it would have gotten the same treatment the EU is now giving Greece: austery cuts in public services mandated in Brussels. Ireland could re-invent itself as Iceland is doing.

The country has much to offer as a leader in the world. Ireland could brand itself the capital of organic farming and cuisine. It could market its unique history and scenic green hills to China. It could imitate the Swedish system of social welfare and medical care. I am sure there are many other ideas for Ireland to use its unique assets to create employment and economic growth.

But it won't happen. Because, unlike the Icelanders, the Irish are afraid to take their government to task for the purpose it was created: to serve the citizens. Things are not bad enough here - people will not rebel until they must. The major parties here are filled with the equivalent of American 'good ole boys'. They are a blast from the past...and intend to keep things that way.

I am thinking Iceland looks pretty good. It will not be long until Ireland is simply a dancing puppet on the EU stage chasing the specter of the glory days of the Celtic Tiger. But the people voted this in - isn't democracy great!

We the people, wherever we are, will not get a better shake until we demand it. This is the real lesson from Iceland. I admire the courage of the people there and wish them the best in this new endeavour. And I hope we Irish learn something from them.

No more guns in the US for the people - HR 2159

The article and video below this commentary,
document the bills now in the US Congress to disarm the American public.

I don't like guns. I wish noone, including the government had any. And though I fall on the far left side of the political spectrum, these days I often find myself in agreement with some of the positions of the far right: these are confusing times where - Nothing's right, and nothing's left. Yet I do not believe in violence, except as a last, very very last, resort. The People could bring Big Government and Corporatism to its knees begging within one week with the methods of Ghandi. If only people would unite! If I belong to any 'ist' or 'ism' as an adherent, I would have to call myself a Constitutionalist. Only the people can ratify a constitution.


Loss of Constitutional rights, some say, is a slippery slope; and in some aspects, this is true. But the reality today, is this: AMERICANS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ANYMORE. The Patriot Act superseded all of them long ago - while America was shopping with mortgage refi money and raising angry fists to bomb them thar evil terrorists in Iraq. Yes they were all gone years ago....but US citizens are just realising this. Americans are in the valley below the slippery slope now.

Sadly, this is not just a US phenomenon. It is happening all over the world. The critical difference is that Europe is on fire with protests and America yawns hoping the bedtime story has a 'happily ever after' ending. While Europeans are fighting the changes they see eroding their human rights in the streets - they are still doing it from 'panic-virus'; hopefully, this will mutate into the realisation that 'together we are stronger', and many countries will unite within Europe to voice their concerns about the EU superstructure growing every moment.

Ironically, the EU machinery itself (as well as the US machinery) provides the very (international) democractic mechanism by which the People can control the Bureaucracy. It is being used now by the Irish in the NO to Lisbon campaign. It will not become our strength until EU citizens pressure their MPs for unification with other national populist movements.

Guns are not the issue here. Evaporation of civil rights which are replaced by an international surveillance and control system of every person's activities is a far more toxic pandemic. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional one in the US, the purpose of which was to ensure that government could never oppress the People with tyranny. However, now, anyone who opposes tyranny is a 'terrorist': even if the tyranny IS the government itself. And you don't have to own a gun....words on a blog such as this can very well designate one as a 'person of interest' nullifying all Consitutional rights by authority of the Patriot Act.

The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater. (Article below)

Whether one is far left, far right or center, this enforceable law described below will be what rules daily life for all. I await the day when Americans wake up and realise that people on the other side of the pond are not the enemy; but, fight for the same right to a decent life that all people from all nations want (this is THE purpose of government, no corporate/banking profitability).

I posted the story of Alistair Lundeby last week here. This is an example of how the Patriot Act defines a 'terrorist'. Yes, this can happen to you your family anytime - it only takes a call from a cranky neighbour or ex-lover reporting you for 'suspicious' activities or associations. Or perhaps you visited some dodgy websites while doing a search online. Hard to believe, isn't it? That the US (and Great Britain) now have the same state mechanisms as Stalin and Hitler. But a fascist but any name stinks as much.

Update on domestic terrorist labels

House Bill Aims to Strip “Rightwing Extremists”
of Second Amendment Right

05-11-2009
By Kurt Nimmo
Source
A sinister bill working its way through the House may eventually serve as a companion piece to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremist” report that labels veterans and advocates of the Second Amendment as dangerous terrorists — H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York.


The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The entire bill can be read on the Govtrack website.

A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in 2007 but did not make it out of committee.

As noted above, the DHS has compiled a long list of folks the government considers terrorists. The bill, if enacted, would allow the attorney general, a documented gun-grabber, to deny millions of Americans due process. “[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, tells WorldNetDaily.

Pratt worries that the new bill will be used in conjunction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt continues. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”



On May 1, 2009, Infowars reported on the existence of another DHS document, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” It adds more suspected terrorists to the government’s list, including people working in the alternative media, anarchists, pro-life activists, skinheads, lone terrorists, members of the militia movement, “decentralized” terrorists, and others.

Update on domestic terrorist labels


The DHS reports were distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Earlier this week, a man was stopped in Louisiana and detained by police for the crime of displaying a “Don’t tread one me” bumper sticker on his car. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group, according to The American Vision website. “Don’t tread on me” was originally displayed on a flag designed by general and statesman Christopher Gadsden during the Revolutionary War. It is depicted as a terrorist symbol in the DHS “Rightwing Extremist” report.


House Bill Aims to Strip Rightwing Extremists of Second Amendment Right


Stephen Halbrook, Independent Institute Research Fellow and author of the book The Founders’ Second Amendment, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Attorney General nominee Eric Holder.


During Holder’s shoo-in confirmation hearings earlier this year, Stephen Halbrook, Second Amendment attorney, detailed Holder’s vehement opposition to the right to bear arms. Holder’s role in the Waco massacre and Ruby Ridge were expected to be brought up during the hearings but were not.

Shortly after 9/11, Holder penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists.” In the article, the future Attorney General argues that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also states that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities. In order to make his point, Holder makes the ludicrous hypothesis that Osama bin Laden would be able to purchase an unregistered firearm at a gun show in America.

The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater.

The Matrix that is not a movie.

Yes there is a real Matrix government project.
The information is more impressive from the source ACLU page here.

The blog

News you WANT to read - Data Sharing on Hold

I have often felt like David against Goliath in trying to stay the tide of civil rights violations through governmental digital sharing. All efforts have seemed like a handful of sand thrown into a typhoon.

For the first time, an EU agency has stood up for the civil right of privacy for EU citizens: someone has said NO to the bureaucrats. The USA National Security Agency has no right whatsoever to the private electronically held details of EU citizens (e.g. medical records, credit card purchases, political affiliation, your electric bill, tax status etc.) UNLESS A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. And there is proper oversight and applications for such information on those residing in the EU.

Pre-emptive data sharing violates the right to privacy and endangers individuals by making personal information available to the USA government and other authorities WITHOUT accountability. Pre-emptive has become the watch word of our century...wars, surveillance, arrests...it's not a pretty start to the new millenium.

This means, if they make a mistake, tough titty. There is no supervision of this unprecedented access to EU citizen details by a foreign power, the USA. And no recourse. Why more Europeans are not concerned with this is a mystery to me. For those who just don't give a dam, we will all lose our freedoms for the benefit of blissful ignorance. I am delighted by this decision to stay the data-sharing of EU citizens with the USA National Security Agency.

I am not a criminal or a 'terrorist'; and I do not have to prove it! Do you?

Data chief attacks
transatlantic police plan

"Unprecedented" data sharing
not so caring

By Mark Ballard
Friday, 14 November 2008
Source
EUROPE'S DATA chief has told Washington and Brussels to put the brakes on a plan to share police and other government data across the Atlantic. The "unprecedented" US/EU plans are being thrown together so hastily that they risk giving police and government agencies carte blanche to share whatever and as much data as they liked, in disregard of human rights, and even drawing on private sector databases, said Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), in an official report yesterday. "The EDPS calls for more transparency", he said in the report, and "any haste in the elaboration of the principles should be avoided as it would only lead to unsatisfactory solutions".

The proposals, laid out in June by the High Level Contact Group on information sharing and privacy, fall short of the minimum standard of data protection already established in European human rights law. Hustinx called for "more clarity and concrete provisions" because the scope of the plan was vague, it left no room for oversight, did not ensure that data given to US authorities would be treated with adequate care, and gave insufficient recourse for European's to challenge US abuses of their data in a court of law.

This was particularly problematic because police and government data sharing plans were developing too fast: "The request of enforcement authorities of third countries for personal information is constantly widening, and... also extends from traditional government databases to other types of files, in particular files of data collected by the private sector," he said. At least the authorities were discussing data protection, said Hustinx, but they should give it greater credence: "[It] could legitimise massive data transfers in a field - law enforcement - where the impact on individuals is particularly serious, and where strict and reliable safeguards and guarantees are all the more needed".

He called on the High Level Contact Group (HLCG) to carefully define the scope - the limits - of its data sharing plans so that police and government agencies do not use it for data transfers in breach of people's human rights. He wanted any agreement to specify precisely who would be able to share data, what data they would share and for what purposes. The authorities must also come clean about the wider context of the proposals, known as the "global transatlantic security area", which is a US initiative to create a common electronic border system with allies such as the EU, Australia and Canada that could be used for security, immigration control, public health and other unspecified functions.

The fact that the plans were so loosely defined made it possible for them to grow through function creep: "Is it also meant to allow for the exchange of data for other public interests such as possibly public health risks?" asked Hustinx. Hustinx, the official responsible for ensuring that public authorities' data systems do not abuse human rights, said transatlantic data sharing should only be allowed between countries when it is "absolutely necessary for a specific purpose" decided "on a case by case basis". "The EDPS recommends to restrict the purpose to precisely identified data processing, and to justify the policy choices leading to such definition of purpose," he said, adding a plea for a loophole that would allow the "transfer of personal data between private and public parties" to be closed.

The plans would give US police and government authorities such wide remit to access EU data that Hustinx even had to ask whether they would have access to " other databases such as tax databases".

Would spooks get access too, he asked. Were they seeking free access? And, he warned, US demands under the agreement would lead to copy cat demands between EU member states, as it had for airline passenger data. US access to details of the world's financial transactions, held by the EU-based Swift, would be legitimised by the agreement and that might prompt EU authorities to seek such routine access themselves.

To make matters worse, EU law wasn't even prepared for such proposals. " Halt," he said, "and prepare the ground first". He proposed the HLCG wait until the EU Lisbon Treaty came into force, though that is not even certain. But he feared that the plan would be slipped in under a coming law that provided weak protections for data transfers to third countries (data protection in the third pillar legal framework, to be introduced imminently).

Preparing the ground first would give people basic protections from abuse by the state - protections that had not been provided in the proposals. The agreement should be binding on authorities, rather than casual as similar such agreements have been. In particular, the US should be held to account by EU standards of civil rights. Basically, the HLCG had proposed an all-encompassing data protection regime that would provide inadequate protection but would be applied to all transatlantic data transfers, said Hustinx.

The group should rather implement some protections as a minimum standard, and then, taking each instance of official data sharing on a case by case basis, design specific protections for each. The authorities should be held to account for their data sharing, he said. The current proposals would not enforce that as they stood.

Things I read Jan 10, 2009 - More police state

'Things I read' has a purpose: for those who have few hours, many responsibilities and still wish to be aware of the hard hunted stories which just do not seem to fit into the busy budget of time in family, work and entertainment modes.
They are the, 'I didn't hear about that', stories, in many cases. Whatever your reason for reading them, whether to keep up on the obscure, or to follow current info on themes you are interested in, I hope you will have a pleasant and/or enlightening read.

Today's theme is on the impinging police state, the little by little measures being implemented for us all globally which extinguish our civil rights. Bits and pieces are added to the collection. Soon, I will corrolate all these 'bits' into a major blog: I am so dreading it. We are like frogs being boiled slowly. Let us jump before it is too late.

NYPD wants tech to disrupt
wireless communications

RAW STORY
January 8, 2009
Source
In a Thursday testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly revealed that his department is seeking technology that can disrupt cell phone and other wireless communications in the event of a crisis. Click source above to continue reading.

Face scanners to be installed in schools




Source Schools could be fitted with futuristic face scanners which screen pupils' faces with an invisible infra-red light as they attempt to enter the building to keep out strangers. Continue reading here.

Oops, there goes another Constitutional right

The Seventh Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Meaning ... while twenty dollars doesn't go as far as it used to, the right to a trial by jury remains a mainstay of penal justice. In fact, in order to waive this right, a criminal defendant must be interviewed by a Judge with counsel present--called a plea colloquy--and sign a sworn affidavit. Cases that have arisen under this issue have dealt with whether plea terms have been contractually honored and whether a defendant was competence to understand the nature of the right being waived.

Jury duty on hold

Chloe Johnson
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
source
Superior courts in New Hampshire are suspending jury trials for a month this fiscal year as one of many cost saving measures. Another month off has been proposed, which could further delay civil cases for those seeking a right for a wrong.

Due to a state budget shortfall, Gov. John Lynch and the state Legislature requested cuts from government agencies and branches. The decision to suspend jury trails, under the direction of Superior Court Chief Justice Robert Lynn, is part of an effort to cut back $2.7 million in the judicial branch.

Since then, the branch has been asked to cut another $3 million, of which less than one-sixth was deemed feasible by Chief Justice John Broderick in a letter to the governor last month. That would include a second month of suspended jury trials for an estimated savings of $73,000. Jurors are paid $10 per half-day.

To come closer to the requested amount of cuts would require reductions in personnel. Personnel payroll accounts for 75 percent of the budget. Because of financial constraints, many positions have already been left vacant in all parts of the judicial branch. Broderick, in his letter, says the shortage of judges has consequences to the operation of the courts and delivery of justice. He warned against further reduction in staffing but posed two options for it.

“We have written this letter in the spirit of cooperation, trying to do what we reasonably can to help narrow the looming deficit. In fact, some of the items we have put on the table in this letter, we believe are not reasonable, but we have done so to squeeze every dollar we can from our FY 2009 budget,” Broderick wrote.

The right to a speedy trial means criminal cases are often scheduled before civil cases, said Ellen Shemitz, executive director of the New Hampshire Association for Justice. The suspension of jury trials means civil cases to mediate a wrong will be delayed further, she said. Shemitz said that inadequate staffing in the courts has already caused some cases to be rescheduled up to three times, with gaps of about six months in between. Civil cases can include product liability, public health concerns, employment discrimination, personal injuries or other situations in which a citizen alleges wrongful harm.

The financial crunch shines a spotlight on the problem of declining accessibility to justice, she said. By not investing in the courts, she added, the government is limiting essential services and affecting constitutional rights. “There are structural problems in our government,” Shemitz said. “We are chronically under-funded.”

Belknap County began the suspension in December, while most counties, including Rockingham, will suspend jury trails in February. The suspension won’t take place until April in Strafford County. Trials that were to go forward during those months will be rescheduled. The schedules remain unchanged in Sullivan and Coos counties, where jury trials occur every other month.

Are YOU a terrorist? Better check.

By Sheilanagig
For those who have not heard about the US bill HR 1955, this article is for you. For those international readers who feel smug and unaffected by the repressive legislation passed recently in the USA, if you are reading this on the internet, this article is also for you.

Non-US citizens may not think they are affected, but the reality is your passports and internet access WILL be affected by this legislation, by virture of any conversation you have on the net with anyone in the US who is regarded as a 'homegrown terrorist', by virtue of the microchip now implanted in your passports. Your name may wind up on a list you have no idea exists, and your liberty taken from you with no recourse.

Other articles in this blog concern how the dignity of freedom is being taken from people, not only in the US, but also in Europe. Taken together with the global information network, its time to take this seriously; we cannot fight what we do not know about.

Basically, HR 1955 takes away one's right to say anything negative about the US government, and defines this as 'homegrown terrorism'. The penalty for this crime is detention and incarceration. With reciprocal agreements in place to deport 'accused' terrorists internationally, this means a citizen of one country could be deported to the US simply by speaking out against the US government. The standards in judging which criticisms are criminal are totally subjective to those in power.

Because so many bloggers and internet articles explain this so well, I am providing links which will explain this bill much better than I can here. If you want to find some really interesting articles on HR 1955, do an IMAGE search on google for it. The following are reading links and for those of you with broadband, video links.

For those still interested, please enjoy (and be awakened):

Text links
Martial Law, Concentration Camps, and Fascism: Are These Real Concerns To Americans?

Col. DAN SMITH

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Wiki Summary

Video links
A great summary
You Tube 1
You Tube 2
Response from Ohio senator