Privacy Vs Security

Over at Donklephant Justin Gardner has had some rather interesting posts regarding privacy abuses under current US Anti-Terrorism laws. I'm practically Libertarian about privacy. Largely I think that stems from growing up in the middle of nowhere with so much privacy that we could have sun bathed naked on the front lawn and nobody would have known coupled with the fact that I'm an only child. I'm just used to more privacy than most Americans. On that note it was largely The Patriot Act and the ease with which it could be abused that started me down the path to become a blogger. Since the Patriot Act it's only gotten worse. Take for example this article from the WaPo:

The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials.

The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country. Officials say the records, which are analyzed by the department’s Automated Targeting System, help border officials distinguish potential terrorists from innocent people entering the country.

But new details about the information being retained suggest that the government is monitoring the personal habits of travelers more closely than it has previously acknowledged. The details were learned when a group of activists requested copies of official records on their own travel. Those records included a description of a book on marijuana that one of them carried and small flashlights bearing the symbol of a marijuana leaf....

The DHS database generally includes "passenger name record" (PNR) information, as well as notes taken during secondary screenings of travelers. PNR data -- often provided to airlines and other companies when reservations are made -- routinely include names, addresses and credit-card information, as well as telephone and e-mail contact details, itineraries, hotel and rental car reservations, and even the type of bed requested in a hotel.

The records the Identity Project obtained confirmed that the government is receiving data directly from commercial reservation systems, such as Galileo and Sabre, but also showed that the data, in some cases, are more detailed than the information to which the airlines have access.

Now combine that with this short list of abuses of current anti-terrorism law:

FBI apologizes to lawyer held in Madrid bombings: Link

Homeland Security saves America by busting a toy store owner for legally selling a Rubik’s Cube knockoff: Link

FBI invokes Patriot Act for Criminal Copyright Infringement: Link

Though warned in 2001 to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 National Security Letters in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans: Link

Drug-tunnel bust aided by controversial provision of USA Patriot Act: Link

FBI Improperly Used Patriot Act to Gain Information on Citizens, Justice Department Says: Link

Search Records Requests under Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional: Link

Police invoked the Patriot Act when surreptitiously entering and searching a home or office without notifying the owner 108 times during a 22-month period, according to a one-page summary released by the Justice Department: Link

Police Log Confirms FBI Role In Arrests of anti-War Protesters: Link

Patriot Act smackdown: Librarians 1, FBI 0: Link

FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations: Link

After 9/11: The War on Immigrants: Link

Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints:
Link

ACLU, Muslims sue FBI over mosque surveillance: Link

Patriot Act used to round up “eco-terrorists.”: Link

Now stop and think of everything you've ever said via phone, IM, and email that you'd prefer to remain just between you and its intended recipient. Because if we don't draw the line soon, given the current march of technological innovation, eventually every argument with a girlfriend, every reaction to news of the death of a loved one, every remembrance of "how good last night was" will be on file somewhere. Now what bureaucrat do you trust with that?

Terrorists Teaming Up With Drug Cartels

From the Washington Times:
Terrorists teaming with drug cartels

Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.

"Since drug traffickers and terrorists operate in a clandestine environment, both groups utilize similar methodologies to function ... all lend themselves to facilitation and are among the essential elements that may contribute to the successful conclusion of a catastrophic event by terrorists," said the confidential report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
(snip)
In the two years since the report was written, other DEA intelligence officials have said they are still struggling to cooperate with and share and gather information from other lead U.S. agencies charged with fighting the war on terrorism.
(snip)
"We are the eyes and ears when it comes to gathering intelligence on the cartels and smugglers," said the DEA official. "What we know for sure is that persons associated with terrorist groups have discovered what cartels have known all along — the border is the backdoor into the U.S."

According to a Department of Homeland Security intelligence report obtained by The Times, nearly every part of the Border Patrol's national strategy is failing.

"Al Qaeda has been trying to smuggle terrorists and terrorist weapons illegally into the United States," the 2006 document states. "This organization has also tried to enter the U.S. by taking advantage of its most vulnerable border areas. The seek to smuggle OTMs [other than Mexicans] from Middle Eastern countries into the U.S."
(snip)
Peter Brown, terrorism and security consultant, stated that the "biggest element" to the DEA report is the ease with which terrorist cells have taken on new identities.

"The ability for people to completely transform their nationalities absent of their own identities is a dangerous step in the evolution of this cross-border operation," he said. "This is a true threat."
(snip)
Lending credence to Mr. Brown's concern, an El Paso, Texas, law-enforcement report documents the influx of "approximately 20 Arab persons a week utilizing the Travis County Court in Austin to change their names and driver's licenses from Arabic to Hispanic surnames."full article

The fact that each party has failed to produce any meaningful border security legislation because they've been too busy arguing over their special interests provisions in said legislation says a lot about how messed up our political system is.

We need to rethink the war on drugs. I've stated before that it needs to be a war on trafficking since the same people, equipment, and routes are frequently transporting more than one type of illicit cargo. My question is are coyotes transporting potential terrorists or Iraqi refugees?

Warrantless Wiretapping Approved

From the NY Post:

President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

...the new law for the first time provides a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London. full article

Critics fear that the new law is too broadly worded, an end to privacy, or is likely to be abused. I'd argue that privacy is frequently not guaranteed when communicating with citizens of other countries. Additionally in an age when terrorists are frequently ahead of the curve in using the internet to their advantage there are scenarios when time could be of the utmost import. However I in no way, shape, or form trust any administration permanently with the powers this law grants. But as long as this law requires approval every six months and the law is continually refined in the process I'll concede that it may be a necessary tool in order to prevent terrorist acts on U.S. soil. But once it ceases to serve that purpose or is used for another end I'll be among the first to advocate scrapping it.

The Devil We Know

Hamilton urges U.S. to rout al Qaeda from Pakistan
(CNN) -- U.S. forces should go into Pakistan to rout al Qaeda from the safe haven it has found in the mountains on the border with Afghanistan, a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who also served as the vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, says the Iraq war distracted the United States when it had al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on the run in the tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He says it's now time to finish the job.

"This has to be carefully calibrated, worked out with the Pakistanis, but I am very concerned that you have a safe haven in Pakistan today where they (al Qaeda) can regroup, rethink, and get ready for more attacks," Hamilton said on CNN's "Newsroom" on Wednesday.

Declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate released Tuesday reported that al Qaeda has "protected or regenerated key elements" of its ability to attack the United States while in this region.

Some intelligence analysts believe bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are hiding in western Pakistan. more

He's right. We should go after them. But the question is can we afford to? Musharraff is barely in a politically tenable position in the cities. He had previously signed over control of much of the rural areas to local tribal leaders in order to remain in power. Its highly questionable as to whether or not he can allow us to perform such an operation let alone allow his military to participate in it and stay in power. No matter how little you may think of Musharraff you have to admit that he a: knows where his nukes are b: knows how many nukes he has c: hasn't used any of them and d: hasn't sold them or the recipe/blueprints to anyone.

The fact that we haven't gone in after Al Qaeda in Pakistan strongly suggests that Musharraff would be out of power if we did. If he loses power in a cioux we have no guarantee that a through d remain true. So for better or for worse he is, if nothing else, the devil we know.

U.S. Scrapped '05 Raid on Top Al Qaeda Leaders

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

WASHINGTON, July 7 — A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said. more

Now if you bought into The Path to 9/11's story this administration has something in common with the last. I can understand the logic of not violating your allies' border with a couple hundred troops. I'm sure there would have been serious political unrest in Pakistan had we done so with or without Mushareff's permission. I am however curious as to why we didn't bomb the meeting site. Perhaps the administration strongly preferred capturing them and pumping them for intel or would have rather let Zawahiri walk and hopefully lead us to Bin Laden.

One thing is for certain. It's going to be hard for the Administration to continue to bill itself as being tough on terror when its choosing to let them wander out of our sights.

Military Still Canning Gay Arabic Linguists

From the AP:
U.S. military continues to discharge gay Arab linguists, and Congress members seek hearing

WASHINGTON: Lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic linguists because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable language specialists go.

Seizing on the latest discharges, involving three specialists, members of the House of Representatives wrote the House Armed Services Committee chairman that the continued loss of such "capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists continues to compromise our national security during time of war."

(snip)

Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan, who has pushed for repeal of the law, organized the letter sent to Skelton requesting a hearing into the Arab linguist issue.

"At a time when our military is stretched to the limit and our cultural knowledge of the Middle East is dangerously deficient, I just can't believe that kicking out able, competent Arabic linguists is making our country any safer," Meehan said.

The letter, signed by about 40 House members, says that, with the latest firings, 58 Arab linguists have been dismissed from the military under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It said Congress should decide whether this application of the policy "is serving the nation well."

(snip)

Marine Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Defense Department is enforcing the law.

"The Department of Defense must ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth by Congress," he said, adding that those dismissed can serve their nation by working as contractors or at other federal agencies."

While I could wax about how stupid and antiquated this law is or about how badly the military needs Arab linguists I'll just say this:

Any American citizen that is willing to fight and die for their country and meets the physical and mental standards to qualify for that duty while having no serious criminal record should be allowed to serve their country in the military. Period.

Pakistani, Afghan troops clash at border

From the AP:

By SADAQAT JAN, Associated Press WriterSun May 13, 3:06 PM ET

Pakistani and Afghan forces exchanged fire at their rugged border Sunday in their most serious skirmish in years. Pakistan claimed it killed five Afghan soldiers, but Afghanistan said just two Afghan civilians were killed.

Tension has been running high between Afghanistan and Pakistan, both key U.S. allies, over controlling their 1,510-mile shared border and stemming the flow of Taliban and al-Qaida militants that stage cross-border attacks inside Afghanistan. Pakistan's move to fence parts of the disputed frontier has also angered Afghanistan.

Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad accused the Afghan army of firing first at Pakistani border posts: "This was unprovoked and without any reason."

A Pakistan military statement said its troops returned fire and five Afghan soldiers were killed.

On the Afghan side, Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi accused Pakistani forces of crossing more than a mile into Afghanistan's Paktia province.

"Border police tried to stopped them, and the Pakistani army started firing heavy weapons toward the Afghan forces," he said.

Two students were killed, he said.

Paktia Gov. Rahmatullah Rahmat said the Afghan forces fired in self-defense after the Pakistani soldiers launched artillery rounds and troops on foot attacked a border security post Sunday morning in the province's Jaji district.

"The Pakistanis launched artillery, shot their guns, and they left behind civilian casualties in the area. It is a clear violation — crossing the border to attack Afghanistan," Rahmat said.

Azimi claimed that thousands of locals joined the Afghan forces after the clash, which he described as the worst in years between the two countries.

Pakistan later denied its forces had entered Afghan territory or that they had hit civilian targets. Pakistan also complained that Afghan forces had fired on a NATO helicopter in the area. NATO officials in Kabul could not be reached for comment.

Afghanistan accuses the government in Islamabad of harboring and helping supporters of the former Taliban regime ousted in late 2001, which Pakistan denies.

The friction between Karzai and Musharraf has been well publicized however this is this first time our allies have traded gunfire. The question is this attributable to Pakistani regulars or militia supposedly under Musharraf's control. After all Musharraf ceded that portion of the country to tribal authority over six months ago.

Taliban Military Leader Is Killed

From the WaPo:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 13 -- Mullah Dadullah was the face of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan as it used suicide bombings, videotaped beheadings and targeted assassinations to escalate its insurgent campaign over the past two years.

Dadullah periodically turned up on television to taunt the Afghan government and U.S.-led international forces with threats of ever more ambitious attacks.

On Sunday, his face was on display again, resting on a pink sheet, bloody and lifeless. A bullet hole was visible in the back of his head, with two more piercings in his stomach.

Dadullah, the Taliban's top operational commander, was killed Saturday after U.S.-led troops and Afghan forces tracked him down and surrounded him in southern Afghanistan, according to Afghan and international security officials.

His death was hailed by those officials as a critical victory in the fight against the Taliban at a time when the extremist Islamic movement has destabilized large portions of the country through Dadullah's uncompromising approach to warfare.

"We fully expect Mullah Dadullah will be replaced in time, but for now the insurgency has received a serious blow," said Maj. John Thomas, a spokesman for the NATO-led force that patrols Afghanistan and that supported U.S.-led operations against Dadullah.

Thomas described Dadullah as "the top person in our scope in Afghanistan that we were interested in removing."

It was unclear who would replace Dadullah. Another top leader, Akhter Mohammed Osmani, was killed in December, and a third, Obaidullah Akhund, was captured in February. Although the group's overall leader, Mohammad Omar, remains at large, he is believed to play a lesser role in the organization's military operations.

A Taliban spokesman denied that Dadullah had been killed, but witnesses who inspected the body as it lay at the governor's palace in the southern city of Kandahar on Sunday identified it as Dadullah's, based on distinctive facial features and a missing left leg. More

Good going! Between this and the two Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders all being taken out in the past two weeks I'd say we're having a heck of a month.

So good in fact that if I were more suspicious or prone to being conspiratorial I'd say that they had been keeping the bodies on ice until support for the war fell to an all time low .....

Gen. Petraeus Warns Against Using Torture

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 11, 2007; A03

The top U.S. commander in Iraq admonished his troops regarding the results of an Army survey that found that many U.S military personnel there are willing to tolerate some torture of suspects and unwilling to report abuse by comrades.

"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus wrote in an open letter dated May 10 and posted on a military Web site.

He rejected the argument that torture is sometimes needed to quickly obtain crucial information. "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary," he stated.

(snip)

Protecting Iraqi civilians rather than abusing them is a major part of Petraeus's offensive to improve security in Baghdad. Their mission there, Petraeus noted in his first letter to the troops, on Feb. 10, is to "improve security for the Iraqi people."

He reinforced the point in a recent letter to U.S. military advisers working with Iraqi units, stating that: "Iraqi forces must distances themselves from the abusive practices of the former regime. . . . It is very important that we never turn a 'blind eye' to abuses, thinking that what Iraqis do with their own detainees is 'Iraqi business.' " Full Article

That's heartening. Inflicting pain on someone to pump them for info only results in them telling you what they think you want to hear. How do I know this? 1: Studied the Spanish Inquisition 2: Studied the Knight Templar "trials" 3: Been there. (Don't ask)

More importantly once we started using such techniques we lost the moral high ground on the world stage. We ceased to be the "good guys". We lost the ability to point out the human rights abuses of oh say Russia as it'd just a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Petraeus has been showing the types of strategies and thinking that we've needed for a long time and he just took a step towards making us the good guy again. And we as a nation need that. After all, its hard to lay claim to being the greatest nation in the world if that claim can be refuted with,"But America tortures people."

May 15th Gas Boycott Doomed

The last time I talked to my mom she asked me to blog about this and I neither agreed or argued because I knew that a one day boycott is as useless as disagreeing with mom.

From MSNBC courtesy of The Rite Wing Technopagan (God luv 'em)

"The real problem with this idea is that — as some versions of this e-mail helpfully suggest —these "boycotters" simply top off their tanks May 14 or wait to fill them up May 16. All that does is shift sales from one day to another. Any money “lost” from lower gasoline sales on May 15 will be made up with higher sales on the days before and after the “boycott.”"

The only way to affect gas prices is to reduce consumption. As this has a side effect of reducing funds to countries that support terrorism and improving air quality it's an effort that is highly worthwhile.

Since the coffee is still brewing I'm just going to copy and paste a post I made elsewhere on how to reduce gas consumption painlessly:

gasbuddy.com tracks prices all over America on a station by station basis. They have websites for most major cities
(insert city name)gasprices.com so for me its sanantoniogasprices.com

Also make sure your tires are properly inflated normally thats 35 on the little meter thingy for most cars and light trucks. Under inflated tires can cost ya 2 mpg.

Remove any dead bodies from your trunk, move that dashboard altar inside, and limit yourself to 1 gun and 2 magazines per car. 100 pounds = 1 mpg

Time for that tune up and/or oil change that you've been putting off = up to 5 mpg (if you're bad about maintenance, request platinum plugs, they last for 3 years)

Other maintenance Air Filter (you CAN do this yourself in 5 minutes), PVC valve (costs 5$ and is as easy to change as an air filter), Fuel filter (these suckers vary wildly in price and ease of installation ask your mechanic about it when you get your tune up)

And ya may wanna run a gas treatment through your car next fill up.

Sam's Club and Costco have the cheapest gas in town if you already have a membership. But don't go buying a 35 to 50$ membership just to save a dime per gallon on gas. However if you start buying you're gas, potty paper, trash bags, water filters, pet food, laundry detergent and Vaseline there you'll save money in the long run. (Note: Costco is usually cheaper than Sam's. Costco caps its profit margin at 20% Sam's doesn't AND Costco's often have liquor stores in them.)

Plus in the event we are ever besieged by Zombies having to pull over to forage for gas as little as possible becomes really important.

Terrorists Improving Internet Operations

I had previously covered this topic last year when the FBI's computers were hacked:




And according to this interview Al Quaeda has been the pushing the boundaries of what can be done over the internet for 20 years




"I've been tracking Al Qaeda and actually bin Laden and his group forward since the late 1980s. And it's simply because as a group that is operating in what can be referred to as best practice, they really are very good at what they do. I'm always willing to learn from somebody who may learn something that I should know. So I've been watching them for quite a while. And they are very, very good at everything from money laundering, to secure communications. And to underestimate them at any point in time is suicidal."

Florida Senate approves bill telling funds to divest from Sudan and Iran

From the St. Petersburg Times courtesy of TMV




Florida looks to lead charge on businesses in Iran, Sudan

TALLAHASSEE - The state of Florida may soon sell pension funds invested in some companies that do business with Iran and Sudan.

State senators on Friday unanimously voted in favor of a bill that would require divesting pension funds from companies doing business with the petroleum sector in Iran and the government of Sudan, where the Darfur region has been bloodied by violence that by some estimates has left more than 400, 000 people dead and 3-million people homeless.

Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, sponsored the legislation. Deutch said there's no reason for the state to invest in genocide and terror, and Florida residents "don't want their money being used this way." more