32% Say U.S. Legal System Worries Too Much About National Security...

[Road Dawg]

32% Say U.S. Legal System Worries Too Much About National Security at Expense of Individual Rights

rasmussenreports.comTue Feb 19, 10:30 AM ET

Most Americans might have a difficult time sorting through the nuances of the Congressional debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but they are a bit more likely to trust Democrats in Congress than President Bush on the topic.

Just 25% of Americans say they followed news of the Congressional debate Very Closely. Another 31% said they followed it Somewhat Closely. Forty percent (40%) say they trust Democrats in Congress more than the President to establish "guidelines for wiretapping and other surveillance techniques." Thirty-six percent (36%) trust the President more while 23% are not sure who to trust.

As to the underlying issues, the country remains fairly evenly divided. Thirty-two percent (32%) believe that our legal system worries too much about national security at the expense of individual right. Twenty-five percent (25%) believe there is too much concern about individual rights at the expense of national security and 29% believe the balance is about right.

While still divided, those figures reflect a shift from last August when a plurality believed there was too much concern about individual liberty.

As you would expect, there are significant partisan differences on this question.

Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe there is too much concern for individual rights while 36% of the GOP faithful believe the balance is about right.

Among Democrats, 44% believe there is too much concern about national security while 24% believe the balance is about right.

As for those not affiliated with either major party, 35% say our legal system is too concerned with protecting national security, 29% say the balance is about right, and 19% say there is too much concern for individual liberty.

Looking ahead to Election 2008, 48% of Americans say they trust one of the Democratic Presidential candidates more on the issue of establishing surveillance guidelines—25% pick Barack Obama, 23% Hillary Clinton. Thirty-three percent (33%) trust Republican John McCain more than either Democrat.

McCain is overwhelmingly preferred by Republicans. Democrats are fairly evenly divided between Clinton and Obama. Among the unaffiliated, 27% trust Obama, 24% McCain, and 15% Clinton. But, a plurality, 33%, are not sure which candidate to trust on this issue.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Print Story: 32% Say U.S. Legal System Worries Too Much About National Security at Expense of Individual Rights on Yahoo! News

[Nicolos_Darvas]

32% Say U.S. Legal System Worries Too Much About National Security at Expense of Individual Rights

That means a majority 68% worry to little --- That is a problem -- We need people to continually be worried about national security.

Dear Politicians -- Protect our ASS !!!!!

[4625]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -- Guess

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by Nicolos_Darvas

That means a majority 68% worry to little --- That is a problem -- We need people to continually be worried about national security.

Dear Politicians -- Protect our ASS !!!!!

Who, exactly, is currently threatening the "national security" of the US?

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by 4625

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -- Guess

Benjamin Franklin, a TRUE patriot and man of unbounded genius.

[4625]

I already knew who would hit it first. . . .

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Who, exactly, is currently threatening the "national security" of the US?

Wake up Boy !!!

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by Nicolos_Darvas

Wake up Boy !!!

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

Dawg,
You expect a response from Nic?

Anyway IMO,the major threat to national security,as it relates to the safety of the public from a terrorist attack, would come from a false flag operation initiated by the CIA, or another part of the US intelligence apparatus.

Otherwise the threat of an independent terror attack,completely off the radar, not set in motion for an intended purpose is minimal.

As for a direct threat of a conventional military action by any other nation on the US "Homeland",no country on the planet would/or has the capability, to do that at this,or any time in the foreseeable future.

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by scrimmage

Dawg,
You expect a response from Nic?

Anyway IMO,the major threat to national security,as it relates to the safety of the public from a terrorist attack, would come from a false flag operation initiated by the CIA, or another part of the US intelligence apparatus.

Otherwise the threat of an independent terror attack,completely off the radar, not set in motion for an intended purpose is minimal.

As for a direct threat of a conventional military action by any other nation on the US "Homeland",no country on the planet would/or has the capability, to do that at this,or any time in the foreseeable future.

Summed up very nicely, Scrimmage. However, the FEAR must be pushed.

[ACCC]

I am not convinced there are major threats right now, and there should not be excess interference with individual liberties in the name of national security.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Summed up very nicely, Scrimmage. However, the FEAR must be pushed.

Originally Posted by ACCC

I am not convinced there are major threats right now, and there should not be excess interference with individual liberties in the name of national security.

The FEAR must,and has been pushed to get all sorts of Acts and Directives passed which now give the government extra powers that dilute citizens constitutional rights.
Notice all the new powers that the government has assigned itself,The National Defense Authorization Act,The Military Commissions Act,National Security Presidential 51,Violent Activity and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act,and The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,are mentioned in detail,in the article that follows.
Our individual liberties are already in peril,and most people aren't aware of it,know,and inform yourselves and others about what's going on before it's too late:

Rule by fear or rule by law?
Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Rule by fear or rule by law?

[mr merlin]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

I'll tell ya, cuba and Iran, but cuba is the main concern right now.

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

I'll tell ya, cuba and Iran, but cuba is the main concern right now.

So exactly what is Cuba going to do, throw sugar and cigars at us?

[mr merlin]

I dont know, but i'm afraid of the cubans! We have to all stand together and stop them.

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

I dont know, but i'm afraid of the cubans! We have to all stand together and stop them.

So the embargo should continue.

[mr merlin]

Yup, they threaten us big time. And dont tell me I dont know what I'm talkin about, I've seen Red Dawn maybe 50 times!

[4625]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

Yup, they threaten us big time. And dont tell me I dont know what I'm talkin about, I've seen Red Dawn maybe 50 times!

Good movie for 1984; but the premise was later shown to be false. Though the Ruskies always had an enormous edge in armored vehicles, I think history later showed the bear to be less capable than he really was. Our kill ratio with the M1 Abrams against the Soviet main battle tanks of the period, the--T-72 and the T-64A--would have been tremendous. Moreover, though we couldn't have know it at the time of the movie due to our overly optimistic estimation of the quality of Soviet aircrew and aircraft, we would have enjoyed complete air superiority over North America. In the modern theater of war, he who has superiority of the air will own the ground as well. . . .

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by 4625

Good movie for 1984; but the premise was later shown to be false. Though the Ruskies always had an enormous edge in armored vehicles, I think history later showed the bear to be less capable than he really was. Our kill ratio with the M1 Abrams against the Soviet main battle tanks of the period, the--T-72 and the T-64A--would have been tremendous. Moreover, though we couldn't have know it at the time of the movie due to our overly optimistic estimation of the quality of Soviet aircrew and aircraft, we would have enjoyed complete air superiority over North America. In the modern theater of war, he who has superiority of the air will own the ground as well. . . .

What people fail to understand is that NORAD watched and continues to watch everything in the sky over North America. There would be no chance of paratroopers being able to land anywhere inside the continental United States without a US response.

[4625]

I only saw the movie a few times, but I think there was something or other that took out much of the capability of NORAD to allow the paratrooper insertion. Of course, in the movie you also had to swallow the "armored thrust through Canada" bit to get to the good stuff. . . .

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by 4625

I only saw the movie a few times, but I think there was something or other that took out much of the capability of NORAD to allow the paratrooper insertion. Of course, in the movie you also had to swallow the "armored thrust through Canada" bit to get to the good stuff. . . .

I remember it mentioning tactical nuclear strikes. What they fail to undertstand is that Cheyenne Mountain AFB, where the war room in "Wargames" was located, would, for the most part, survive a direct nuclear attack. Tactical nukes aren't of the strength of ICBM's.

Either way, you have to suspend your disbelief a lot to actually think Red Dawn could happen.

Americans, as a society, are quite heavily armed. It would be quite an undertaking for any army to invade the US and hold territory for any length of time.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

I remember it mentioning tactical nuclear strikes. What they fail to undertstand is that Cheyenne Mountain AFB, where the war room in "Wargames" was located, would, for the most part, survive a direct nuclear attack. Tactical nukes aren't of the strength of ICBM's.

Either way, you have to suspend your disbelief a lot to actually think Red Dawn could happen.

Americans, as a society, are quite heavily armed. It would be quite an undertaking for any army to invade the US and hold territory for any length of time.

What we need to worry about is the threat to our constitutional government from within, as the Bush administration is seeking to add ,the euphemistically titled "Protect America Act", to the growing list of measures[see post #12 in this thread for some others] that've have been passed, which limit or restrict individual liberties.

Some details on what "Protect America" really means follow in this article by Paul Craig Roberts,hardly a radical source[note his credentials at the end]:

More Lies From The Bush Fascists By Paul Craig Roberts 22/02/08 "ICH" -- - President George W. Bush and his director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, are telling the American people that an unaccountable executive branch is necessary for their protection. Without the Protect America Act, Bush and McConnell claim, the executive branch will not be able to spy on terrorists, and we will all be blown up. Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts. The fight over the Protect America Act has everything to do with our safety, only not in the way that Bush and McConnell assert. Bush says the Democrats have put our country more in danger of an attack by letting the Protect America Act lapse. This claim is nonsense. The 30 year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the executive branch all the power it needs to spy on terrorists. The choice between FISA and the Protect America Act has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, at least not from foreign terrorists. Bush and his brownshirts object to FISA, because the law requires Bush to obtain warrants from a FISA court. Warrants mean that Bush is accountable. Bush and his brownshirts argue that accountability is an infringement on the power of the president. To escape accountability, the Brownshirt Party came up with the Protect America Act. This act eliminates Bush's accountability to judges and gives the telecom companies immunity from the felonies they committed by acquiescing in Bushs illegal spying. Bush began violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2001 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/ when he spied on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. Bush pressured telecom companies to break the law in order to enable his illegal spying. In court documents, Joseph P. Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications International, states that his firm was approached more than six months before the September 11, 2001, attacks and asked to participate in a spying operation that Qwest believed to be illegal. When Qwest refused, the Bush administration withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Nacchio himself was subsequently indicted for insider trading, sending the message to all telecom companies to cooperate with the Bush regime or else. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/16/former-telcom-ceo-bushs-illegal-spying-began-months-before-911-attacks/ Bush has not been held accountable for the felonies he committed and for leading telecom companies into a life of crime. As the lawmakers who gave us FISA understood, spying on people without warrants lets a political party collect dirt on its adversaries with which to blackmail them. As Bush illegally spied a long time before word of it got out, blackmail might be the reason the Democrats have ignored their congressional election mandate and have not put a stop to Bushs illegal wars and unconstitutional police state measures. Perhaps the Democrats have finally caught on that they cannot function as a political party as long as they continue to permit Bush to spy on them. For one reason or another, they have let the Orwellian-named Protect America Act expire. With the Protect America Act, Bush and his brownshirts are trying to establish the independence of the executive branch from statutory law and the Constitution. The FISA law means that the president is accountable to federal judges for warrants. Bush and the brownshirt Republicans are striving to make the president independent of all accountability. The brownshirts insist that the leader knows best and can tolerate no interference from the law, the judiciary, the Congress, or the Constitution, and certainly not from the American people who, the brownshirts tell us, wont be safe unless Bush is very powerful. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison saw it differently. The American people cannot be safe unless the president is accountable and under many restraints. Pray that the Democrats have caught on that they cannot give the executive branch unaccountable powers to spy and still have grounds on which to refuse the executive branch unaccountable powers elsewhere. Republicans have used the war on terror to create an unaccountable executive. To prevent the presidency from becoming a dictatorial office, it is crucial that Congress cease acquiescing in Bushs grab for powers. As the Founding Fathers warned us, the terrorists we have to fear are the ones in power in Washington. The al Qaeda terrorists, with whom Bush has been frightening us, have no power to destroy our liberties. Compared to the loss of liberty, a terrorist attack is nothing. Meanwhile, Bush, the beneficiary of two stolen elections, has urged Zimbabwe to hold a fair election. America gets away with its hypocrisy because no one in our government has enough shame to blush. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.

from:
Protecting America – From the President

[Nicolos_Darvas]

Originally Posted by Road Dawg

Wide awake, Nic. Please tell me who you think is currently threatening the national security of the United States.

You are really absurb. Our borders are a sieve , Al Quaeida threatens us constantly, We have stopped umpteen attacks since 9/11 from terrorists and we have been attacked here at home and abroad numerous times in the last 20 years. My God -- The people in this country. "There is no problem, why are we so worried"

Again, I say, Wake up BOY !!!!

[Road Dawg]

Originally Posted by Nicolos_Darvas

You are really absurb. Our borders are a sieve , Al Quaeida threatens us constantly, We have stopped umpteen attacks since 9/11 from terrorists and we have been attacked here at home and abroad numerous times in the last 20 years. My God -- The people in this country. "There is no problem, why are we so worried"

Again, I say, Wake up BOY !!!!

Actually, the border with Canada is the sieve. Yet, neither the R's or the D's are doing anything about it.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by Nicolos_Darvas

You are really absurb. Our borders are a sieve , Al Quaeida threatens us constantly, We have stopped umpteen attacks since 9/11 from terrorists and we have been attacked here at home and abroad numerous times in the last 20 years. My God -- The people in this country. "There is no problem, why are we so worried"

Again, I say, Wake up BOY !!!!

Who,what,and where are Al Qaeda exactly?
They're like a non-specific, amorphous blob of fear, that turns up in so many places,and can't be accurately described,found, or kept under control.This always present,lurking, danger is used as the reason for passing Acts and Directives,which have increased executive[presidential]power -in the name of security-while decreasing the individual citizens rights and liberties in many ways.
Many of the attacks that have been stopped since 9/11,were instigated by informants,or government agents who encouraged hapless,or gullible usefull-idiots/fools to indulge their imaginations,and/or fantasies of grandiose terrorist plots,that would never be pulled off.
When there's a 45 billion dollar Homeland Security budget, than a somewhat credible threat has to come up once in awhile even if one needs to be manufactured,or staged in-house.

[scrimmage]

A real wake up call!
1 reason that the Canadian border has been allowed to be a sieve,could be to allow for easier mobility for US and Canadian troops to cross into each others territories.
An agreement to allow this was signed Febreuary 14th,2008 in Texas,but neither government did much to inform their citizens of the new reality.
What kind of emergency is being envisioned?;and could this be another step toward a rumored North American Union?

Canada, U.S. Agree To Use Each Other's Troops In Civil Emergencies By David Pugliese Canwest News Service 22/02/08 "Canwest News" -- -- Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal. Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas. The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency. The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S. The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal. "It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians. Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines. "Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked. Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said. But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used. He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve. "But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments." If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added. News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries. On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities. "Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus." Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress. Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet. Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added. © Ottawa Citizen 2008 Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive

source:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19410.htm

[scrimmage]

InfraGard another word for "snitch"?

Here's another extra-governmental group largely unknown to the general public,tied to the FBI and Homeland Security.

It started with a few people and had a modest mission ,but has now grown to to 23,682,with a much broader mandate.

InfraGard is an information trading system,which could be used against those with unpopular ideas/opinions,and as a domestic spying platform.Those who join InfraGard agree to strict secrecy,which is anti-thetical to what a supposedly free and open society is all about.

What kind of threat to American civil society could an outfit like InfraGard,operating in the shadows,develop into?

InfraGard: An Unhealthy Government Alliance by Gary D. Barnett

There is an organization that is quietly and secretly becoming very large and powerful. The FBI started this partnership or alliance between the federal government and the private sector in 1996 in Cleveland with a few select people. After September 11, 2001, when the general population replaced their rationality with fear, this organization, called InfraGard, continued growing, and with little notice. By 2005 more than 11,000 members were involved, but as of today, according to the InfraGard website, there are 23,682 members, including FBI personnel. At first glance, many would think this alliance healthy and useful in the fight against “terrorism,” but upon further examination, one has to wonder.



InfraGard began as an alliance between the FBI and local businesses with the objective of investigating cyber threats. Since that time, little resemblance to that design exists. According to InfraGard’s own website,

InfraGard is an information sharing and analysis effort serving the interests and combining the knowledge base of a wide range of members. At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector. InfraGard is an association of businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement agencies, and participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence [emphasis added] to prevent hostile acts against the United States.

Every InfraGard chapter has an FBI special agent coordinator attached to it, and this FBI coordinator works closely with FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. Initially, while under the direction of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), the focus of InfraGard was cyberinfrastructure protection, but things have gotten much more interesting since September 11, 2001. NIPC then expanded its efforts to include physical as well as cyberthreats to critical infrastructures.

A progression is occurring, but it gets even more interesting as time passes. In March 2003, NIPC was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security which now has total responsibility for critical infrastructure protection (CIP) matters. Part of the Department of Homeland Security’s mission is to facilitate InfraGard’s continuing role in CIP activities and to further develop InfraGard’s ability to support the FBI’s investigative mission, especially as it pertains to counterterrorism and cyber crimes.


InfraGard’s stated goal “is to promote ongoing dialogue and timely communications between members and the FBI.” Pay attention to this next part:

InfraGard members gain access to information that enables them to protect their assets and in turn give information to government that facilitates its responsibilities to prevent and address terrorism and other crimes.

I take from this statement that there is a distinct tradeoff, a tradeoff not available to the rest of us, whereby InfraGard members are privy to inside information from government to protect themselves and their assets; in return they give the government information it desires. This is done under the auspices of preventing terrorism and other crimes. Of course, as usual, “other crimes” is not defined, leaving us to guess just what information is being transferred. Since these members of InfraGard are people in positions of power in the “private” sector, people who have access to a massive amount of private information about the rest of us, just what information are they divulging to government? Remember, they are getting valuable consideration in the form of advance warnings and protection for their lives and assets from government. This does not an honest partnership make; quite the contrary.



In my article “The New Crime of Thinking,” I criticized H.R.1955 and Senate 1959, which, if passed, will literally criminalize thought against government. As usual, the exact type of thought is left undefined. This vagueness in the thought-crime legislation together with the secrecy of InfraGard makes for a dangerous combination. S.1959, if passed, will be attached to the Homeland Security Act and InfraGard is already a part of the Department of Homeland Security. This is not a coincidence. Under section 899b of S.1959 it is stated:

Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

This appears to be a direct reference to the InfraGard program. Moreover, in section 899c of S.1959 the new commission created after passage is to build upon and bring together the work of other entities, and will establish, as designated under 899d, a “Center of Excellence.” This center will be university-based, and is to study “violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism” in the United States. According to InfraGard’s mission statement, it is a group of businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement, and other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence. Keep in mind that this new center will be, and InfraGard already is, a part of the Department of Homeland Security. I’m just speculating, of course, but is it possible that InfraGard will be a domestic police and spying arm for the government concerning “thought crime”?

There is a definite and natural link here, and it should give us pause. The definitions concerning thought crime are vague and unclear, left to the interpretation of government only. InfraGard, on the other hand, is an organization cloaked in secrecy. It holds secret meetings with the FBI. It also, according to FBI Director Robert Mueller, shares information (what information, we don’t know) with the Secret Service and all government agencies involved with security in the United States.

One question on InfraGard’s application for membership is, Which critical infrastructures does your organization belong to? Some choices listed are defense, government, banking and finance, information and telecommunications, postal and shipping, transportation, public health, and energy. At least 350 of the Fortune 500 companies have representation in InfraGard, this according to their website. These representatives have access to most of our private records, including phone and Internet use, health records, and banking and finance records. Considering the recent attempts by President Bush and his administration to protect many telecommunications companies and executives from prosecution for releasing private information, how many of the top telecom executives are members of InfraGard? I, for one, would be very interested in this information, but alas, it is not public information; it is secret.



According to InfraGard’s own policies and procedures,

The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members. Independent of the type of presentation, (interview, brief, or published documentation) the InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should be made aware of the upcoming presentation. The InfraGard member and the FBI representative should agree on the theme of the presentation. The identity of InfraGard members should be protected at all times.

This means that no one outside InfraGard is to know who is a member unless previous approval has been given. In addition, when interviews with members of the press are forthcoming, all questions should be submitted in writing prior to the interview. The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the character of the answers, and identify the appropriate person to be interviewed prior to the interview. Even demeanor is addressed in this directive, and strict guidelines for behavior are listed. You see, when I said secret, I wasn’t kidding.


The bottom line is this: This is an organization created by the FBI, sanctioning individuals from the private business sector to provide information, sensitive and private information, to government agencies for special concessions. These concessions, or favors, according to an article titled “The FBI Deputizes Business,” in The Progressive magazine, include advance warning on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism. InfraGard notes as much on their website by advertising for members “access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards and much more.” Also advertised: “Learn time-sensitive, infrastructure related security information from government sources such as DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and the FBI.” Is this elitist group of InfraGard members a group of Americans superior to the rest of us? Are they truly privileged or just selling their souls for protection and favors? And how involved will they be in watchdog activities, activities sanctioned by the U.S. government? Is this a new kind of conscription by government meant to increase its surveillance capabilities so that it can monitor our lives even more than it does now?

Legislation, bureaucracies, and government/business partnerships created since 9/11 have severely infringed our freedom. Almost all of the so-called terror-protection legislation has been linked – and in many cases it is linked – to increased government oversight of the rest of us. This is evident concerning InfraGard and the Department of Homeland Security. If this program is for the benefit of this country, why are the members’ names and their activities kept so secret? Why do some gain protection and early warning while the rest of us do not? And what information and “intelligence” is being shared? Since these business members are fully protected by government, how far will they go, and when will it be too late to stop this secret assault by this behemoth we call government?

February 23, 2008

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.
Copyright © 2008 Future of Freedom Foundation
link:
InfraGard: An Unhealthy Government Alliance by Gary D. Barnett

[diggin'4gold]

INFRAGARD=RAT OUT YOUR NEIGHBORS

DARE=RAT OUT YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS

TREASON=RAT OUT THE FEDERAL GOVENMENT

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by diggin'4gold

INFRAGARD=RAT OUT YOUR NEIGHBORS

DARE=RAT OUT YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS

TREASON=RAT OUT THE FEDERAL GOVENMENT

diggin,
Is the DARE you're referring to the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program,which puts police in 3 out of 4 school district classrooms?
DARE's a 2 billion dollar failed in it's stated mission,but someone's making money on it,and get government more involved in citizens personal business program.
Does DARE encourage students to provide information to police,while presenting itself as solely educational?
Ratting out the government might usually be TREASON,but sometimes the whistle needs to be blown,and someting needs to be disclosed for the public good[eg. The Pentagon Papers,or the 6 nukes that were flown over the US in 2007],then it's truly PATRIOTIC to do so.

Here's some info on DARE:
Ineffective DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program Remains Popular

Virtually everyone loves the Drug Abuse Resistance Education or DARE program. That is, except scientific researchers who consistently find that that it is completely ineffective. In fact not a single published report has ever found DARE to be effective and some have even found it to be
counterproductive. That is, students who took the program later consumed more alcohol and did more drugs than did those who didn’t take the program.

Given its complete failure and expensive price tag (costing perhaps two billion dollars each year), why would anyone not be opposed to the boondoggle? About three of every four school districts in the U.S. uses the DARE program. Perhaps its popularity represents the victory of hope over reality. In any case:

to read more:
Ineffective DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Program Remains Popular

[diggin'4gold]

Hey Scrim, I'm on your side, my slant on this mess is to return internal security to the states, let the states decide which programs are needed.

The DARE program teaches the wrong message, the message is........
TURN IN ANYONE YOU SUSPECT OF USING DRUGS, this includes your own family, another glaring example of the using the citizens of this country to spy on each other (once your busted, regardless if you are convicted, you are subject to further investigation), thus giving those in power more leverage.

My thinking is that all this internal spying in the name of national security is hogwash, the people of this country armed to the teeth, anyone would have to be out of their mind to launch a ground attack here, its claimed that on opening day of big game hunting season in Pennsylvania there is amassed the largest single armed force on the planet. That being said, if BIG BROTHER needs to spy on those he feels are a threat, he can get a judges order!

Besides, who was it that started letting in the "BAD GUYS" in the first place, and who was it that started the hostility between them and us?
Most intelligent people know that the support of Israel was/is the root issue here. Allowing Israel to function as a rouge state for fifty plus years
has escalated the problem, and now, even if Israel was somehow reigned in, the damage is done. Israel's stance has always been very clear, one Jewish life is worth a hundred Arab lives, to this end the hostilities will continue.

[scrimmage]

Add the "Reynard"project,to the US governments sweeping attempt to achieve total information awareness,-primarily through the combination of legislation,social engineering,mass media persuasion/brainwashing,and technology-on what everbody's doing and why ,any and everywhere,all the time.

What is the ultimate purpose of this contol grid?

U.S. Spies Want to Find Terrorists in World of Warcraft
By Ryan Singel February 22, 2008 | 2:15:43 PMCategories: Spooks Gone Wild

Be careful who you frag. Having eliminated all terrorism in the real world, the U.S. intelligence community is working to develop software that will detect violent extremists infiltrating World of Warcraft and other massive multiplayer games, according to a data-mining report from the Director of National Intelligence.


The Reynard project will begin by profiling online gaming behavior, then potentially move on to its ultimate goal of "automatically detecting suspicious behavior and actions in the virtual world."

• The cultural and behavioral norms of virtual worlds and gaming are generally unstudied. Therefore, Reynard will seek to identify the emerging social, behavioral and cultural norms in virtual worlds and gaming environments. The project would then apply the lessons learned to determine the feasibility of automatically detecting suspicious behavior and actions in the virtual world.
• If it shows early promise, this small seedling effort may increase its scope to a full project.

Reynard will conduct unclassified research in a public virtual world environment. The research will use publicly available data and will begin with observational studies to establish baseline normative behaviors.

The publicly available report -- which was mandated by Congress following earlier concerns over data-mining programs -- also mentions several other data-mining initiatives. These include:

• Video Analysis and Content Extraction - software to automatically identify faces, events and objects in video
• Tangram - A system that wants to create surveillance and threat warning system that evaluates known threats and finds unknown threats to issue warnings ahead of an attack
• Knowledge Discovery and Dissemination - This tool is reminiscent of the supposedly-defunct Total Information Awareness program. It seeks to access disparate databases to find patterns of known bad behavior. The program plans to work with domestic law enforcement and Homeland Security.

The report gives no indication why the find-a-terrorist cell in Sims project is called Reynard, though that is a traditional trickster figure in literature.
Photo: CyberExtruder
Via Secrecy News. Full unclassified DNI data mining report (.pdf)
link:
U.S. Spies Want to Find Terrorists in World of Warcraft | Threat Level from Wired.com

[4625]

Can somebody explain to me why we are looking for terrorists in virtual reality??

[diggin'4gold]

Convicted criminal John Poindexter runs this program

http://forums.eog.com/politics-and-g...er-123595.html

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by 4625

Can somebody explain to me why we are looking for terrorists in virtual reality??

Originally Posted by diggin'4gold

Convicted criminal John Poindexter runs this program

http://forums.eog.com/politics-and-g...er-123595.html

4625,
Maybe that's where Osama bin Laden's been hiding out all these years,LOL,he,and some other alleged terror threats, don't seem to exist in the real physical world anymore anyway.
and,or
It could be payback,and the start of cyber-snooping,for the hack done on John Poindexter too,LOL.

As this excerpt
from diggin'4gold's linked article tells:

Keeping Track of John Poindexter

Paul Boutin 12.14.02 | 2:00 AM
The head of the government's Total Information Awareness project, which aims to root out potential terrorists by aggregating credit-card, travel, medical, school and other records of everyone in the United States, has himself become a target of personal data profiling.

Online pranksters, taking their lead from a San Francisco journalist, are publishing John Poindexter's home phone number, photos of his house and other personal information to protest the TIA program.

Matt Smith, a columnist for SF Weekly, printed the material -- which he says is all publicly available -- in a recent column: "Optimistically, I dialed John and Linda Poindexter's number -- (301) 424-6613 -- at their home at 10 Barrington Fare in Rockville, Md., hoping the good admiral and excused criminal might be able to offer some insight," Smith wrote.

"Why, for example, is their $269,700 Rockville, Md., house covered with artificial siding, according to Maryland tax records? Shouldn't a Reagan conspirator be able to afford repainting every seven years? Is the Donald Douglas Poindexter listed in Maryland sex-offender records any relation to the good admiral? What do Tom Maxwell, at 8 Barrington Fare, and James Galvin, at 12 Barrington Fare, think of their spooky neighbor?"

Smith said he wrote the column to demonstrate the sense of violation he felt over his personal records being profiled by secretive government agencies.
"I needed to call Poindexter anyway, and it seemed like a worthy concept that if he's going to be compiling data that most certainly will leak around to other departments and get used, one way to get readers to think about it was to turn that around," Smith said.

What Smith didn't realize was that Poindexter's phone number and other information would end up on more than 100 Web pages a week later as others took up the cause.

Phone-phreaking hackers supplied details on the Verizon switch serving the admiral's home. The popular Cryptome privacy-issues website posted satellite photos of the house.

[scrimmage]

Another day another list,like the Treasury Department "blacklist" which comes out of the TD's "Office of Foreign Asset Control",or OFAC,and has 6,400 names on it already.Many routine financial transactions result in a person being checked against this list.
If this was an isolated case of government information gathering and managing,it might not matter that much,but when added to the growing arsenal of acts,directives,laws,lists etc., it's troubling to think of the wide array of legal and other trouble,which could be brought to bear, in the near-future, on anyone that deviates too far from a certain standard citizen profile.


A Wave of the Watch List, and Speech Disappears

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 4, 2008

Steve Marshall is an English travel agent. He lives in Spain, and he sells trips to Europeans who want to go to sunny places, including Cuba. In October, about 80 of his Web sites stopped working, thanks to the United States government.

The sites, in English, French and Spanish, had been online since 1998.

Cuban history and culture. Still others — www.ciaocuba.com and www.bonjourcuba.com — were purely commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists.

“I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at all,” Mr. Marshall said on the phone from the Canary Islands. “We thought it was a technical problem.”

It turned out, though, that Mr. Marshall’s Web sites had been put on a Treasury Department blacklist and, as a consequence, his American domain name registrar, eNom Inc., had disabled them. Mr. Marshall said eNom told him it did so after a call from the Treasury Department; the company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it learned that the sites were on the blacklist through a blog.

Either way, there is no dispute that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall’s sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain names to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, eNom has taken his property and interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his Web business over the last several months, and now many of the same sites operate with the suffix .net rather than .com, through a European registrar. His servers, he said, have been in the Bahamas all along.

Mr. Marshall said he did not understand “how Web sites owned by a British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be affected by U.S. law.” Worse, he said, “these days not even a judge is required for the U.S. government to censor online materials.”

A Treasury spokesman, John Rankin, referred a caller to a press release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. It said Mr. Marshall’s company had helped Americans evade restrictions on travel to Cuba and was “a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people.” It added that American companies must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to do.

Mr. Marshall said he was uninterested in American tourists. “They can’t go anyway,” he said.

Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University in Florida who has studied the blacklist — which the Treasury calls a list of “specially designated nationals” — said its operation was quite mysterious. “There really is no explanation or standard,” he said, “for why someone gets on the list.”
Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name registrars are based in the United States gives the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, control “over a great deal of speech — none of which may be actually hosted in the U.S., about the U.S. or conflicting with any U.S. rights.”
“OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech disappear,” Professor Crawford said.

The law under which the Treasury Department is acting has an exemption, known as the Berman Amendment, which seeks to protect “information or informational materials.” Mr. Marshall’s Web sites, though ultimately commercial, would seem to qualify, and it is not clear why they appear on the list. Unlike Americans, who face significant restrictions on travel to Cuba, Europeans are free to go there, and many do. Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in New York, said the Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr. Marshall’s case.

“The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S. citizens in Cuba,” Mr. Sims said, “but it doesn’t properly have any jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and which are lawful under foreign law.”

Mr. Rankin, the Treasury spokesman, said Mr. Marshall was free to ask for a review of his case. “If they want to be taken off the list,” Mr. Rankin said, “they should contact us to make their case.”

That is a problematic system, Professor Fitzgerald said. “The way to get off the list,” he said, “is to go back to the same bureaucrat who put you on.”
Last March, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights issued a disturbing report on the OFAC list. Its subtitle: “How a Treasury Department Terrorist Watch List Ensnares Everyday Consumers.”

The report, by Shirin Sinnar, said that there were 6,400 names on the list and that, like no-fly lists at airports, it gave rise to endless and serious problems of mistaken identity.

“Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, car dealerships, health insurers, landlords and employers,” the report said, “are now checking names against the list before they open an account, close a sale, rent an apartment or offer a job.”

But Mr. Marshall’s case does not appear to be one of mistaken identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere with his business.
That, Professor Crawford said, is a scandal. “The way we communicate these days is through domain names, and the Treasury Department should not be interfering with domain names just as it does not interfere with telecommunications lines.”

Curiously, the Treasury Department has not shut down all of Mr. Marshall’s .com sites. You can still find, for now, www.cuba<240>-guantanamo.com.


from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us...ll&oref=slogin