From the ACLU tonight:

Fusion Centers To Obtain Access To Classified Military Intelligence

Turns out, it appears in the Massachusetts statute defining disorderly conduct. The cop goaded the agitated Gates into stepping outside of his house (he made sure to give a reason for this in the report – poor acoustics in Gates’ kitchen!) to create the grounds for an arrest.  The cop already knew the specific – though vague and debatable – adjective he should use in his report to make the charge sound incontestable to the lawnorder crowd.

The proliferation of new laws in the wake of 9/11, all full of vague and debatable terms, has given the authorities infinite points of entry into all of our lives. They truly can arrest first and read the statutes later; you’re sure to have done something wrong. Even if they eventually drop the charges or fail to convict you, don’t count on getting any compensation for your anxiety, lost time, injuries, or legal fees.

An analogous situation prevails in international affairs, where the global police churn out endless legal pretexts for subjecting whole countries to full body-cavity searches, house arrest, assault, and capital punishment, and we’re watching it play out yet again in the case of Iran. But that’s a post for another day.

Jon Stokes, the author, correctly notes how government organizations are doing a disservice to tax payers for two reasons.

First, there is little empirical data to suggest that the NSA’s current data mining system has been effective at stopping terrorism whereas there is a lot of evidence that it violates individual privacy.

Second, in the age of cloud computing, the scramble for ideal data center locations is limited by a number of constraints (including uninterrupted power supply and environmental temperature). Because the NSA can use its deep taxpayer-funded pockets, it can outbid rivals such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon — companies that actually create utility for mankind — for prime locations.

Be sure to check out the comments of the story and see how these observations are greeted. Hint: he is unsurprisingly slimed.

To be fair, that is literally progressive.

When I was the guest at a luncheon discussion in Paul’s office last Thursday, I spoke primarily about torture and warrantless wiretapping. Apropos the Jane Harman controversy, I asked the members of Congress: “How many of you are confident that your phone calls are NOT being wiretapped?”

I mentioned a comment by congressional leader Hale Boggs in 1971 on the effect of congressional “fear” of the FBI – how the FBI’s boundless surveillance undermined congressional oversight of the FBI in the 1960s and early 1970s. I asked whether the same thing could be happening now regarding congressional oversight of the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

The luncheon was off-the-record, so, unfortunately, I cannot disclose the responses to my questions. (Disclosing one’s own comments or questions is not a breach of confidentiality).

As an economist who has specialized in the economic analysis of law, I am quite frustrated by the statements of some commentators that the Obama Administration and the Congress should not look backwards in trying to uncover and/or prosecute member of the Bush Administration who may have been guilty of illegal actions, war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva Conventions and so forth.

In a sense, the prosecution of any alleged criminal is pointless. The act is done – the past is irrevocable – so why not just look to the future and not let it happen again?

Life is not like that. The law looks backwards so that it won’t happen again – or, at least, that the chances that it will happen again are reduced. To wax philosophical for a moment: We live in time and there is continuity between the past, present and future.

With all of the advantages of power – especially secrecy – what are the incentives to keep the State in line? We have laws and treaty obligations. When they are violated, is it enough that those guilty merely be subject to public disapproval? We cannot vote Bush out of office. We cannot now impeach him. We cannot convict him in a trial before the Senate. Any Administration can avoid all of these things by keeping things covered up until they are out of office. So the incentive to secrecy is great. The power is there to accomplish it. So the “political system” can be prevented from doing its job of disciplining office holders.

So now what? If the Constitution and our laws have worth beyond the papers they are written on, there must be consequences. There must be investigations and prosecutions if warranted. There is no other option that can make the system honest.

People will say that there have been worse crimes than possibly approving torture, illegal wiretapping, etc. For example, there was the fire-bombing of Dresden during the Second World War – an act without justification except vengeance. (And I have not mentioned Harry Truman deeds.) But this is just evidence of what the government is capable of where there are no consequences.

More relevantly, there is the objection that an inquiry into the Bush Administration actions will split the country and cause unrest. My answer is simple. Americans need to know what went on if they are going to control their government in the future. If people argue about what the government has done and whether it was justified, then that is all to the good. It will take the place of discussions about Michelle Obama’s dresses, the first-dog, etc.

Finally, if we expose what was done and it is bad, then that exposure will give “ammunition” to our enemies.  First, the enemies almost certainly know more than the American people. (Perhaps they read the Washington Post or New York Times.) Second, we have bigger fish to fry: the integrity of our system of government. We can survive terrorist acts but we cannot survive the collapse of the rule of law. Third, we would not be simply exposing what when on but punishing it when appropriate. This is loyalty to great ideals. The world will notice.

Alas, you can’t fool KMOV St. Louis, Channel 4. They know an enemy of the state when they see one; one of the bumper stickers they prominently featured marking an American citizen as some sort of potential terrorist was from….Antiwar.com. Yes, no one is as dangerous to the state as an advocate for peace.

Why?

Perhaps this explains it:

So, while a few die hard “24″ fans — and Alberto Gonzales, and Michael Mukasey — might still claim confusion about waterboarding being torture, nearly everyone else would agree that having your penis sliced with razors once a month IS torture.

According to the close-the-barn-door-late theory, should official confirmation of this behavior escape the U.S. establishment cone of silence, it would be a PR disaster. That, not the perennial whine of “National Security,” is the source of the pressure the British Judges felt.

There is a lot of smoke around the L.A. Times article suggesting Barak Obama’s Executive Order ending extraordinary renditions was bogus.

But even if Mr. Obama did end the extraordinary brand of renditions, according to a Democracy Now! interview with Michael Rattner of The Center for Constitutional Rights, there is still a hole big enough to drive tour busses full of victims into the Gulag.

Will this be another big disappointment like Mr. Obama’s plans to double the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan — and his authorization of Predator drone strikes on the tribal people of Pakistan? And will we meet other Binyam Mohameds in the future, this time created by the Obama Administration?

Eric brought this news item to my attention and asked if I wanted to blog about it.

“Not really. What should I add?”

“Add your outrage.”

I paused and thought about it. “But I’m not outraged right now.”

And that got me to thinking — why AREN’T I outraged? Is it that I am so used to this Administration jailing people for absurd and frivolous reasons? Am I now merely bored by the thought of the government spying on American citizens on the basis of nebulous and unlikely threats of terror? Has it become so “whatever” to hear of someone denied an explicit constitutional right because it might help the propaganda arm of an organization our government has declared a terrorist organization but which is not by all legitimate and objective standards a terrorist organization?

The last time I checked, the only time Hezbollah lifted a finger to physically harm Americans was when the latter were occupying Lebanon — and even then, it’s not proven. Israel might consider Hezbollah to be terrorists for daring to challenge the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, but as I live in the United States, I don’t care much to live by the warped standards of Israeli justice.

This was not shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Al-Manar may broadcast distasteful programs, but it doesn’t incite its viewers to commit violence. This case IS an outrage and should outrage anyone who prefers liberty over security — not that anyone is more secure by Iqbal’s certain conviction.

Broadcasting Al-Manar should not be considered a crime in the United States, where the law of the land explicitly declares that it is the exact opposite: the protected activity of expression.

The report ominously warns that “Twitter has also become a social activism tool for socialists, human rights groups, communists, vegetarians, anarchists, religious communities, atheists, political enthusiasts, hacktivists and others to communicate with each other and to send messages to broader audiences…”

There is really no end of possibilities now that the I-Pod nano rocks in nine amazing colors. Prescient trend watchers might also note that bus systems, fast food and strip clubs can also be utilized by terrorists. The only possible use of such obvious and pointless breakthroughs in “intelligence” is to make the case to the dim and frightened that if terrorists might be using some common and day-to-day element of normal human life, then that common and day-to-day element of human life needs close surveillance and containment by the feds.

Meanwhile, Antiwar.com is making use of Twitter here and here.

Homeland Security’s space-based domestic spy program is now operational, despite lacking privacy safeguards.

A brigade from the 3rd Infantry is now the first official military unit to become permanently garrisoned in the US as part of the new Northern Command. What Posse Comitatus Act?

Despite any record of violent or criminal intent, Maryland officials have admitted that they had added antiwar activists to national databases of suspected terrorists.  Good luck getting off that list, right?

And while I do not condone hacking email accounts, the alleged perpetrator in the Sarah Plain case was arrested and indicted — for the very same activities that the NSA, FBI and other federal agencies do on a daily basis.

It should also be noted while there was a justifiably large outcry over the $700 billion bailout two weeks ago, a mere three weeks ago — without a debate — Congress passed the new defense spending bill: a hefty sum of $612 billion.

At least no one is threatening martial law, right?

See also: The Fear Factory
Official US newspeak

Oh wait, no, that didn’t happen.

In a case of the pot calling the kettle black, the US NCIX told Americans traveling abroad that their electronic devices (such as laptops and cell phones) could be compromised by foreign spies.

Curiously, there was no mention of the domestic spying conducted every day by a plethora of US intelligence agencies.

And while the PRC may indeed be tracking your movements and attempting to spy on your online activity, the current US administration has no moral high ground to stand on, as it has:

- created a militarized cyber command to conduct covert espionage on digital properties, both foreign and potentially domestic
- used the NSA and other intelligence agencies to intercept all electronic communication
- enacted dozens of anti-privacy statutes including the PATRIOT Act and REAL ID
- amended FISA to immunize companies that operate wiretapping stations and retroactively legalize any potential illegalities
- compiled an ever increasing dragnet dubiously called the “No Fly List” which has more than a million suspects
- continued to operate and upgrade ECHELON listening stations domestically and overseas

Last year Judge Napolitano discussed these intrusions in length at the summer FFF convention, noting then that the NSA is also provided a backdoor to track and monitor all cellular devices.

And not content with strip searching you in public a new Homeland Security policy allows the US government to confiscate (indefinitely) and search any electronic device at any port of entry.

Thus, ignoring star chambers, detention camps, extraordinary rendition, and PLA torture techniques, no amount of foreign borrowing could prop up the insolvent nature of the US administrations moral bankruptcy and brazen disregard for individual privacy.

Via Kathryn Muratore

See also: The Fear Factory
Professional Protestors and the Political Class