Former surgeon general Richard H. Carmona yesterday accused the Bush administration of muzzling him on sensitive public health issues, becoming the most prominent voice among several current and former federal science officials who have complained of political interference.
Carmona, a Bush nominee who served from 2002 to 2006, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B.
"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," he said. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."
In one such case, Carmona, a former professor of surgery and public health at the University of Arizona, said he was told not to speak out during the national debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research, which President Bush opposes.
"Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, [and] preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect," said Carmona, one of three former surgeons general who testified at yesterday's hearing. "I thought, 'This is a perfect example of the surgeon general being able to step forward, educate the American public.' . . . I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision had already been made -- 'Stand down. Don't talk about it.' That information was removed from my speeches."
White House spokesman Tony Fratto rejected claims of political interference, saying Carmona had all the support he needed to carry out his mission. "As surgeon general, Dr. Carmona was given the authority and had the obligation to be the leading voice for the health of all Americans," Fratto said. "It's disappointing to us if he failed to use his position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation."
Carmona said that when the administration touted funding for abstinence-only education, he was prevented from discussing research on the effectiveness of teaching about condoms as well as abstinence. "There was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to just preach abstinence, which I felt was scientifically incorrect," Carmona said.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the House panel's chairman, called for Congress to take steps to insulate the office from political influence. "We shouldn't allow the surgeon general to be politicized," he said. "It is the doctor to the nation. That person needs to have credibility, independence and to speak about science."
Carmona, a former deputy sheriff in Arizona with expertise in emergency preparedness, came to the administration's attention because of his work helping local governments plan their response to terrorist attacks. A high school dropout and former Army Special Forces medic, Carmona eventually received undergraduate and medical degrees from the University of California at San Francisco.
He is the latest in a string of government employees to complain that ideology is trumping science in the Bush administration.
In January, the leader of the National Institutes of Health's task force on stem cells, Story Landis, said that because of the Bush policy -- which aims to protect three-day-old embryos -- the nation is "missing out on possible breakthroughs." And in March, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni called the Bush policy "shortsighted."
Last year, NASA scientist James E. Hansen and other federal climate researchers said the Bush administration had made it hard for them to speak in a forthright manner about global warming. In 2005, Susan F. Wood, an assistant FDA commissioner and director of the agency's Office of Women's Health, resigned her post, citing her frustration with political interference that was delaying approval of over-the-counter sales of Plan B.
2007-07-07
Prosecutor in Rep. Lewis probe cites rules, not politics in exit
A federal prosecutor tapped to help revive the criminal probe involving Rep. Jerry Lewis said Friday his impending departure, though unwelcome, is more likely prompted by bureaucracy than politics.
Michael Emmick said he was asked this spring to get involved with the investigation -- after he learned his current one-year appointment at the U.S. Attorney's Los Angeles office would probably not be renewed.
"It was unlikely that I was going to be re-upped for the next year," Emmick , 54, said.
Emmick, who has worked for the Justice Department for 25 years, took early retirement in 2004. Since then, he has returned in one-year appointments.
He said he was aware of Department of Justice policy to limit the number of such appointments to two or three for a prosecutor in his situation, but he requested to continue his work in hopes that an exception would be made.
"The DOJ stuck to their guns," he said.
Officials from the Justice Department in Washington and the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles did not return calls seeking an explanation of policies about personnel moves.
Emmick's statements came days after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced he would resign amid questions about whether personnel moves in the department were motivated by politics.
Reports in the Los Angeles Daily Journal and The Associated Press questioned whether Emmick's departure was linked to his role in the Lewis inquiry.
Emmick declined to discuss specifics of that case.
The investigation, which involves Lewis, R-Redlands, and his dealings with a once-prominent lobbying firm, came to light last May when a federal grand jury issued subpoenas seeking information about the dealings from several Inland agencies and cities and both counties.
Lewis has not been formally accused of wrongdoing. On Friday, his spokesman, Jim Specht, again said investigators have not directly contacted Lewis.
"Congressman Lewis had no knowledge of which U.S. Attorney officials might be involved in case," Specht said. "We have no comment on any internal management decision by their office."
Lewis has spent about $1 million in legal fees since reports surfaced about the investigation, campaign finance records show.
The 72-year-old lawmaker, the ranking Republican member on the House Appropriations Committee, announced last week that he will seek a 16th term in next November's election.
Emmick handled several high-profile cases, including the espionage case of accused double agent Katrina Leung. He was involved in the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinski investigation in the late 1990s.
He is scheduled to leave his post at the end of September.
Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or bgoad@PE.com
Michael Emmick said he was asked this spring to get involved with the investigation -- after he learned his current one-year appointment at the U.S. Attorney's Los Angeles office would probably not be renewed.
"It was unlikely that I was going to be re-upped for the next year," Emmick , 54, said.
Emmick, who has worked for the Justice Department for 25 years, took early retirement in 2004. Since then, he has returned in one-year appointments.
He said he was aware of Department of Justice policy to limit the number of such appointments to two or three for a prosecutor in his situation, but he requested to continue his work in hopes that an exception would be made.
"The DOJ stuck to their guns," he said.
Officials from the Justice Department in Washington and the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles did not return calls seeking an explanation of policies about personnel moves.
Emmick's statements came days after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced he would resign amid questions about whether personnel moves in the department were motivated by politics.
Reports in the Los Angeles Daily Journal and The Associated Press questioned whether Emmick's departure was linked to his role in the Lewis inquiry.
Emmick declined to discuss specifics of that case.
The investigation, which involves Lewis, R-Redlands, and his dealings with a once-prominent lobbying firm, came to light last May when a federal grand jury issued subpoenas seeking information about the dealings from several Inland agencies and cities and both counties.
Lewis has not been formally accused of wrongdoing. On Friday, his spokesman, Jim Specht, again said investigators have not directly contacted Lewis.
"Congressman Lewis had no knowledge of which U.S. Attorney officials might be involved in case," Specht said. "We have no comment on any internal management decision by their office."
Lewis has spent about $1 million in legal fees since reports surfaced about the investigation, campaign finance records show.
The 72-year-old lawmaker, the ranking Republican member on the House Appropriations Committee, announced last week that he will seek a 16th term in next November's election.
Emmick handled several high-profile cases, including the espionage case of accused double agent Katrina Leung. He was involved in the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinski investigation in the late 1990s.
He is scheduled to leave his post at the end of September.
Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or bgoad@PE.com
2007-07-02
Mike Gravel: End the War on Drugs
July 2, 2007 -- In Thursday's All American Presidential Forum moderated by PBS' Tavis Smiley, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel repeatedly shared his belief that the "war on drugs" is a failure and should end immediately.
Held at Howard University, the primetime Democratic forum was the first to feature a panel consisting entirely of African-American journalists. The forum focused mainly on issues relating to the African-American community. Topics discussed included immigration, healthcare, as well as inequities in education and income between the races.
During these discussions, Senator Gravel said that many of the issues in the African-American community stem from the criminalization of drugs. Gravel provided statistics regarding the substantial increase in incarcerations from 1979 to 2005 (with over 2.3 million Americans currently in jail) and said that he believed that the nation's strict drug laws were to blame.
On his website, Gravel elaborates on his views regarding drugs: "We are losing an entire generation of young men and women to our prisons. Our nation's ineffective and wasteful 'war on drugs' plays a major role in this. We must place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and prevention. We must de-criminalize minor drug offenses and increase the availability and visibility of substance abuse treatment and prevention in our communities as well as in jails and prisons."
Gravel believes that mandatory drug sentencing laws should be abolished and that drug abusers should be given rehabilitation opportunities instead of jail time: "Drug defendants convicted of nonviolent offenses should not be given mandatory prison sentences. We should emphasize the criminalization of the importers, manufacturers, and major distributors, rather than just the street venders. Prisons in this country should be a legitimate criminal sanction -- but it should be an extension of a fair, just and wise society."
Although Gravel's campaign has not received much national attention, he certainly has gained notice on YouTube, with his political ad titled "Rock" receiving over 150,000 views in the past month. The almost three-minute "Rock" advertisement features Gravel looking into the camera, saying nothing, for over a minute. Gravel then throws a rock into the nearby water and proceeds to walk away from the camera. Matt Mayes and Guston Sondin-Klausner of Otis College of Art and Design created the ad, which Gravel describes to MSNBC as a "metaphor ... the point of the spot is not the rock but the ripples it leaves in the water ... (just) as an ordinary citizen who's trying to make a difference by doing something and it causes ripples in society."
Source: Mike Gravel campaign
Held at Howard University, the primetime Democratic forum was the first to feature a panel consisting entirely of African-American journalists. The forum focused mainly on issues relating to the African-American community. Topics discussed included immigration, healthcare, as well as inequities in education and income between the races.
During these discussions, Senator Gravel said that many of the issues in the African-American community stem from the criminalization of drugs. Gravel provided statistics regarding the substantial increase in incarcerations from 1979 to 2005 (with over 2.3 million Americans currently in jail) and said that he believed that the nation's strict drug laws were to blame.
On his website, Gravel elaborates on his views regarding drugs: "We are losing an entire generation of young men and women to our prisons. Our nation's ineffective and wasteful 'war on drugs' plays a major role in this. We must place a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and prevention. We must de-criminalize minor drug offenses and increase the availability and visibility of substance abuse treatment and prevention in our communities as well as in jails and prisons."
Gravel believes that mandatory drug sentencing laws should be abolished and that drug abusers should be given rehabilitation opportunities instead of jail time: "Drug defendants convicted of nonviolent offenses should not be given mandatory prison sentences. We should emphasize the criminalization of the importers, manufacturers, and major distributors, rather than just the street venders. Prisons in this country should be a legitimate criminal sanction -- but it should be an extension of a fair, just and wise society."
Although Gravel's campaign has not received much national attention, he certainly has gained notice on YouTube, with his political ad titled "Rock" receiving over 150,000 views in the past month. The almost three-minute "Rock" advertisement features Gravel looking into the camera, saying nothing, for over a minute. Gravel then throws a rock into the nearby water and proceeds to walk away from the camera. Matt Mayes and Guston Sondin-Klausner of Otis College of Art and Design created the ad, which Gravel describes to MSNBC as a "metaphor ... the point of the spot is not the rock but the ripples it leaves in the water ... (just) as an ordinary citizen who's trying to make a difference by doing something and it causes ripples in society."
Source: Mike Gravel campaign
Airman's wife astonished by verdict, insulted by trial
The wife of the airman who was shot by a sheriff's deputy at the end of a high-speed car chase said Monday she is shocked a jury acquitted the deputy of criminal charges last week.
Mariela Carrion said she fully believed Ivory J. Webb Jr. would be convicted of at least one of the two counts he faced for the videotaped shooting of her husband, Air Force Senior Airman Elio Carrion.
"He was asked to get up twice. He got up, and he got shot," she said, describing what happened to her husband. "They should have convicted (Webb) because of that."
Webb shot Elio Carrion on Jan. 29, 2006, at the end of a car chase in Chino. Carrion, a veteran of the Iraq war, was a passenger in the car.
A videotape of the shooting made by a bystander shows Webb shoot Carrion as Carrion appears to follow the deputy's orders to stand up.
Largely because of that video, San Bernardino County prosecutors charged Webb with attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm. Jurors, however, acquitted the former deputy Thursday after deliberating for less than four hours at the end of his trial.
During a telephone interview Monday from her home near Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, where Elio
Advertisement
Click Here!
Carrion is stationed, Mariela Carrion said her husband still hasn't come to grips with the verdict.
He hasn't discussed it with anyone, not even her, she said.
"It must have hurt him really bad," she said. "He just stays quiet."
Mariela Carrion said she monitored news reports of the trial on the Internet.
She was insulted, she said, when Webb's lawyers argued that her husband instigated the shooting by being drunk and not following the deputy's orders to remain quiet and keep his hands on the ground.
"All of that was very hurtful," she said. "If you only knew the type of person Elio is. He would never do such a thing."
Especially offensive were the defense suggestions that her husband looked like a gang member based on the fact that he is Latino, has short hair and wore a black jacket with an Oakland Raiders logo on it, she said.
"People made it sound like Elio was the criminal," she said. "It was the other way around."
Her husband was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, she said.
Elio Carrion was shot in the leg, chest and shoulder.
He has since returned to duty with the Air Force, although his injuries have not allowed him to resume his former activities as a military policeman.
He is suing Webb and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department seeking monetary damages and changes in department policy.
Mariela Carrion said she hopes prosecutors also will bring federal civil-rights charges against Webb.
Webb no longer works for the Sheriff's Department.
Staff writer Rod Leveque can be reached by e-mail at r_leveque@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-9325.
Mariela Carrion said she fully believed Ivory J. Webb Jr. would be convicted of at least one of the two counts he faced for the videotaped shooting of her husband, Air Force Senior Airman Elio Carrion.
"He was asked to get up twice. He got up, and he got shot," she said, describing what happened to her husband. "They should have convicted (Webb) because of that."
Webb shot Elio Carrion on Jan. 29, 2006, at the end of a car chase in Chino. Carrion, a veteran of the Iraq war, was a passenger in the car.
A videotape of the shooting made by a bystander shows Webb shoot Carrion as Carrion appears to follow the deputy's orders to stand up.
Largely because of that video, San Bernardino County prosecutors charged Webb with attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm. Jurors, however, acquitted the former deputy Thursday after deliberating for less than four hours at the end of his trial.
During a telephone interview Monday from her home near Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, where Elio
Advertisement
Click Here!
Carrion is stationed, Mariela Carrion said her husband still hasn't come to grips with the verdict.
He hasn't discussed it with anyone, not even her, she said.
"It must have hurt him really bad," she said. "He just stays quiet."
Mariela Carrion said she monitored news reports of the trial on the Internet.
She was insulted, she said, when Webb's lawyers argued that her husband instigated the shooting by being drunk and not following the deputy's orders to remain quiet and keep his hands on the ground.
"All of that was very hurtful," she said. "If you only knew the type of person Elio is. He would never do such a thing."
Especially offensive were the defense suggestions that her husband looked like a gang member based on the fact that he is Latino, has short hair and wore a black jacket with an Oakland Raiders logo on it, she said.
"People made it sound like Elio was the criminal," she said. "It was the other way around."
Her husband was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, she said.
Elio Carrion was shot in the leg, chest and shoulder.
He has since returned to duty with the Air Force, although his injuries have not allowed him to resume his former activities as a military policeman.
He is suing Webb and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department seeking monetary damages and changes in department policy.
Mariela Carrion said she hopes prosecutors also will bring federal civil-rights charges against Webb.
Webb no longer works for the Sheriff's Department.
Staff writer Rod Leveque can be reached by e-mail at r_leveque@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-9325.
2007-07-01
Webb's fear main factor in verdict
It was shaky, dark and blurry.
But what is clear about the videotape of the Elio Carrion shooting is that it wasn't enough to convict the gunman.
Former San Bernardino County sheriff's Deputy Ivory J. Webb Jr. was acquitted Thursday of all criminal charges against him for the shooting of the off-duty airman after a high-speed chase.
Confusing, deceiving, unclear were all words used by the jurors in San Bernardino to describe the video that many outside the jury box viewed as the crucial piece of evidence.
But if a video showing Webb firing three shots at an unarmed Carrion in Chino isn't enough to convict the ex-deputy, what is?
In officer-involved shootings, it comes down to the fear factor, experts said.
Jurors on Thursday said Webb's fear for his safety was believable. In their explanation, they stressed that Carrion was intoxicated and not complying with orders. Webb was also alone, without any backup, they said.
Grant Fredericks, an expert in forensic video analysis, said that in officer-involved shooting cases, a peace officer could be convicted if it is determined that he had no fear for his safety.
Just a hint of fear would mean the officer was reacting in
Advertisement
self defense, he said.
That's how juror Michael Thompson, 39, of Fontana explained it. Thompson downplayed the role of the amateur video, saying there were other pieces of evidence to show that Webb considered himself in danger after the high-speed chase.
Thompson, a production supervisor for the 7-Up bottling company, said the first time he saw the video was in the courtroom.
"What we saw was different than what somebody watched on television," he said. "We had the opportunity to hear statements made before and after (what happened on the video)."
The role video plays in the courtroom has evolved through the years, said Fredericks, who teaches video analysis to law-enforcement officers.
"In the old days, video was deemed as a silent witness that could speak for itself," Fredericks said. "As video becomes more prolific, it becomes easily misinterpreted. Violent events that occur very quickly, at night, using digital systems that posses errors ... the interpretation is critical."
Fredericks said if the jurors didn't find the video to be a helpful piece of evidence, they likely relied more on witnesses' testimony.
Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope said he had no regrets on how he prosecuted the case.
"I'm not sure if it was retried I would have done very much differently," said Cope after the verdict was read Thursday.
Stacy McGoldrick, a professor of sociology and criminology at Cal Poly Pomona, said there is a prevailing sense that jurors see police officers as credible in the courtroom.
"There's a long history of, at least, the impression that jurors are pro-police," McGoldrick said. "A lot of times, we want the police to be right. Sometimes the jury does give them leeway."
In Webb's case, McGoldrick says the acquittal will likely create some feelings of fear.
"I think people in the community feel - when they get this kind of acquittal - that the police are above the law," McGoldrick said. "It's very sad. It really damages the relationship between the community and the police force."
Staff writer Rod Leveque contributed to this report.
But what is clear about the videotape of the Elio Carrion shooting is that it wasn't enough to convict the gunman.
Former San Bernardino County sheriff's Deputy Ivory J. Webb Jr. was acquitted Thursday of all criminal charges against him for the shooting of the off-duty airman after a high-speed chase.
Confusing, deceiving, unclear were all words used by the jurors in San Bernardino to describe the video that many outside the jury box viewed as the crucial piece of evidence.
But if a video showing Webb firing three shots at an unarmed Carrion in Chino isn't enough to convict the ex-deputy, what is?
In officer-involved shootings, it comes down to the fear factor, experts said.
Jurors on Thursday said Webb's fear for his safety was believable. In their explanation, they stressed that Carrion was intoxicated and not complying with orders. Webb was also alone, without any backup, they said.
Grant Fredericks, an expert in forensic video analysis, said that in officer-involved shooting cases, a peace officer could be convicted if it is determined that he had no fear for his safety.
Just a hint of fear would mean the officer was reacting in
Advertisement
self defense, he said.
That's how juror Michael Thompson, 39, of Fontana explained it. Thompson downplayed the role of the amateur video, saying there were other pieces of evidence to show that Webb considered himself in danger after the high-speed chase.
Thompson, a production supervisor for the 7-Up bottling company, said the first time he saw the video was in the courtroom.
"What we saw was different than what somebody watched on television," he said. "We had the opportunity to hear statements made before and after (what happened on the video)."
The role video plays in the courtroom has evolved through the years, said Fredericks, who teaches video analysis to law-enforcement officers.
"In the old days, video was deemed as a silent witness that could speak for itself," Fredericks said. "As video becomes more prolific, it becomes easily misinterpreted. Violent events that occur very quickly, at night, using digital systems that posses errors ... the interpretation is critical."
Fredericks said if the jurors didn't find the video to be a helpful piece of evidence, they likely relied more on witnesses' testimony.
Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope said he had no regrets on how he prosecuted the case.
"I'm not sure if it was retried I would have done very much differently," said Cope after the verdict was read Thursday.
Stacy McGoldrick, a professor of sociology and criminology at Cal Poly Pomona, said there is a prevailing sense that jurors see police officers as credible in the courtroom.
"There's a long history of, at least, the impression that jurors are pro-police," McGoldrick said. "A lot of times, we want the police to be right. Sometimes the jury does give them leeway."
In Webb's case, McGoldrick says the acquittal will likely create some feelings of fear.
"I think people in the community feel - when they get this kind of acquittal - that the police are above the law," McGoldrick said. "It's very sad. It really damages the relationship between the community and the police force."
Staff writer Rod Leveque contributed to this report.
Shootings by SB police on the rise
AN BERNARDINO - Halfway into the year, six people have died by police officers' bullets in the city - four last month - more than annual totals in recent years.
San Bernardino police officials said a loss of life is always cause for concern but that the slow, steady rise in shootings is not due to policy breakdowns or trigger-happy cops.
"What we are seeing is perhaps a little more violent behavior (by) criminals," said Assistant Chief Frank Mankin. "Because of these incidents, law-enforcement officers - not just at the San Bernardino Police Department - are much more vigilant because they know there are people out there who will assault them."
Since January, officers have fired at eight people, six of whom died. Last year, there were 10 officer-involved shootings, and five people died. In 2004 and 2005, police shot at seven people each year, killing two and then three, respectively.
No charges have been filed against officers for fatal shootings, but there are civil cases by the victims' families.
Police Lt. Scott Paterson is quick to point out that at least five of the suspects this year pulled a gun, attacked an officer or threatened police in some way.
"I've seen more instances
Advertisement
where people are waiting around to kill the police officer, not to get away," said the 17-year veteran. "They are purposefully waiting."
The most recent case was Ricardo Rahshawn Jackson, 28, who was shot by an officer Monday after tackling two other officers and grappling for their guns. He was suspected of shooting his mother several times during an argument at their North G Street home.
Officers and experts list myriad reasons for why more cop-criminal confrontations are becoming deadlier.
People are desensitized by violent video games and movies, illegal guns continue to flood the streets, officer recruits keep getting younger and police response time has improved, they say.
"In many cities across the United States, violent crime has been increasing and police have been responding to these incidents more quickly than they have in the past," said Brian Levin, a professor of criminal justice at Cal State San Bernardino and a former New York City cop.
An average response time for San Bernardino officers was unavailable Friday.
Officers agreed that responding to crime quicker puts police directly in the line of fire, so to speak, but they say they only pull the trigger to protect themselves or innocent bystanders.
"If they're willing to go toe to toe with a police officer, what are they willing to do to someone on the street?" Paterson asked.
Shawn Lamond Watson, a suspected gang member who was accused of killing another man in May, pulled a gun on officers who tried to talk to him in the Ascot apartments June 10, officials said.
Police say it's unfortunate that Watson lost his life by threatening officers, but believe they saved others from being harmed. That is often the case, officials said.
About 400 people are justifiably killed by police officers nationwide each year, according to the Department of Justice.
San Bernardino officers are required to undergo rigorous training programs a minimum of once a month, Paterson said. Many choose to shoot more frequently.
"Twenty years ago, if you were in an officer-involved shooting, you probably retired within three years," said Nancy Bohl, director of the Counseling Team International in San Bernardino. "Now you remain for the rest of your career."
Every officer who fires a weapon here is sent to counseling to work through any emotions that may linger.
Officers occasionally become victims, too.
Officials could not recall any officers who have been gunned down in San Bernardino, but 52 California officers were shot in 2006, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
"We just have more guns on the street," Levin said. "More guns on the street means police officers will face more gun-toting people, and sometimes think they're gun-toting even when they might not be."
Seizing illegal firearms has become a top priority in San Bernardino. Six to eight U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents are expected to set up shop next week to reduce violent crime.
Police are hoping it will also drastically reduce the chances of them drawing on suspects.
Contact writer Stacia Glenn at (909) 386-3887 or via e-mail at stacia.glenn@sbsun.com.
San Bernardino police officials said a loss of life is always cause for concern but that the slow, steady rise in shootings is not due to policy breakdowns or trigger-happy cops.
"What we are seeing is perhaps a little more violent behavior (by) criminals," said Assistant Chief Frank Mankin. "Because of these incidents, law-enforcement officers - not just at the San Bernardino Police Department - are much more vigilant because they know there are people out there who will assault them."
Since January, officers have fired at eight people, six of whom died. Last year, there were 10 officer-involved shootings, and five people died. In 2004 and 2005, police shot at seven people each year, killing two and then three, respectively.
No charges have been filed against officers for fatal shootings, but there are civil cases by the victims' families.
Police Lt. Scott Paterson is quick to point out that at least five of the suspects this year pulled a gun, attacked an officer or threatened police in some way.
"I've seen more instances
Advertisement
where people are waiting around to kill the police officer, not to get away," said the 17-year veteran. "They are purposefully waiting."
The most recent case was Ricardo Rahshawn Jackson, 28, who was shot by an officer Monday after tackling two other officers and grappling for their guns. He was suspected of shooting his mother several times during an argument at their North G Street home.
Officers and experts list myriad reasons for why more cop-criminal confrontations are becoming deadlier.
People are desensitized by violent video games and movies, illegal guns continue to flood the streets, officer recruits keep getting younger and police response time has improved, they say.
"In many cities across the United States, violent crime has been increasing and police have been responding to these incidents more quickly than they have in the past," said Brian Levin, a professor of criminal justice at Cal State San Bernardino and a former New York City cop.
An average response time for San Bernardino officers was unavailable Friday.
Officers agreed that responding to crime quicker puts police directly in the line of fire, so to speak, but they say they only pull the trigger to protect themselves or innocent bystanders.
"If they're willing to go toe to toe with a police officer, what are they willing to do to someone on the street?" Paterson asked.
Shawn Lamond Watson, a suspected gang member who was accused of killing another man in May, pulled a gun on officers who tried to talk to him in the Ascot apartments June 10, officials said.
Police say it's unfortunate that Watson lost his life by threatening officers, but believe they saved others from being harmed. That is often the case, officials said.
About 400 people are justifiably killed by police officers nationwide each year, according to the Department of Justice.
San Bernardino officers are required to undergo rigorous training programs a minimum of once a month, Paterson said. Many choose to shoot more frequently.
"Twenty years ago, if you were in an officer-involved shooting, you probably retired within three years," said Nancy Bohl, director of the Counseling Team International in San Bernardino. "Now you remain for the rest of your career."
Every officer who fires a weapon here is sent to counseling to work through any emotions that may linger.
Officers occasionally become victims, too.
Officials could not recall any officers who have been gunned down in San Bernardino, but 52 California officers were shot in 2006, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
"We just have more guns on the street," Levin said. "More guns on the street means police officers will face more gun-toting people, and sometimes think they're gun-toting even when they might not be."
Seizing illegal firearms has become a top priority in San Bernardino. Six to eight U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents are expected to set up shop next week to reduce violent crime.
Police are hoping it will also drastically reduce the chances of them drawing on suspects.
Contact writer Stacia Glenn at (909) 386-3887 or via e-mail at stacia.glenn@sbsun.com.
2007-06-29
Pendleton Marines investigated in alleged killings
ORTH COUNTY ---- A federal agency is investigating whether Camp Pendleton Marines shot and killed a group of prisoners in the city of Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004, according to several military and legal sources.
The sources told the North County Times that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe centers on whether five to 10 Marines violated the laws of war.
"They have interviewed about 20 people so far and some have been read their rights," a source with direct knowledge of the probe said Friday.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the killing of a captured enemy combatant who does not present a threat is considered murder.
Some of those being questioned are no longer in the Marine Corps, and at least one has hired a private defense attorney who specializes in military law, sources said. Because of the sensitivity of the matter, the five sources who spoke with the newspaper agreed to do so on the condition that they not be named.
The Marines are believed to have been involved in the deaths of as many as eight people who were captured during one of the largest battles of the Iraq war, according to the sources.
Questions the sources said that they could not immediately answer include whether the Iraqis had been declared prisoners, whether any or all were bound in any way and where specifically the slayings occurred.
The incident reportedly took place on or about Nov. 10, 2004, three days after the U.S. launched a major assault in Fallujah, an Anbar province city in western Iraq that at the time was under insurgent control.
One of the Marines has said that the troops believed they were carrying out the orders of their commanders when the insurgents were shot, according to one source.
A Marine Corps public affairs officer referred questions to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Washington, D.C.
Agency spokesman Ed Buice, who was presented with questions reflecting the essence of what the newspaper had been told, said Friday that no one would comment on the report. The Department of the Navy law enforcement agency is composed of civilian investigators who are not under Marine Corps control.
The sources said the Fallujah investigation arose as a result of the ongoing prosecution of three Camp Pendleton enlisted Marines charged with murder in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in the city of Haditha on Nov 19, 2005. Four officers face charges of dereliction of duty for failing to fully investigate the deaths at Haditha.
In another ongoing Iraqi death case, five of eight Camp Pendleton troops have pleaded guilty for their roles in the abduction and shooting of a retired Iraqi policeman in April 2006. Three defendants in that incident face trial this summer.
None of the men being prosecuted in the Haditha or Hamdania cases are subjects of the Fallujah investigation, a source said.
The battle for Fallujah was one of the major fights of the Iraq war that came after the insurgency took control of the city after U.S. forces left it in April of that year.
On Nov. 6, 2004, a main group of troops from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st and 5th Marine Regiments, along with supporting Marine units and U.S. Army forces, massed and launched an assault to take back the city the next day.
Intense fighting took place during the next week with the final resistance cleared by late December. Several Camp Pendleton Marines were later honored with awards such as the Navy Cross for valorous actions during the fighting.
Ninety-five U.S. servicemen were killed during the fight for the city and more than 600 were wounded. An estimated 1,350 insurgents were killed and an additional 1,000 captured, according to military authorities.
A movie about the battle, titled "No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah," based on a book written by Bing West is scheduled for release next year.
Lt. Gen. James Mattis, current commander of the I Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton and head of Marine forces throughout the Middle East, is portrayed in the movie by actor Harrison Ford. Mattis helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and was one of the top commanders at Fallujah.
Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
The sources told the North County Times that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe centers on whether five to 10 Marines violated the laws of war.
"They have interviewed about 20 people so far and some have been read their rights," a source with direct knowledge of the probe said Friday.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the killing of a captured enemy combatant who does not present a threat is considered murder.
Some of those being questioned are no longer in the Marine Corps, and at least one has hired a private defense attorney who specializes in military law, sources said. Because of the sensitivity of the matter, the five sources who spoke with the newspaper agreed to do so on the condition that they not be named.
The Marines are believed to have been involved in the deaths of as many as eight people who were captured during one of the largest battles of the Iraq war, according to the sources.
Questions the sources said that they could not immediately answer include whether the Iraqis had been declared prisoners, whether any or all were bound in any way and where specifically the slayings occurred.
The incident reportedly took place on or about Nov. 10, 2004, three days after the U.S. launched a major assault in Fallujah, an Anbar province city in western Iraq that at the time was under insurgent control.
One of the Marines has said that the troops believed they were carrying out the orders of their commanders when the insurgents were shot, according to one source.
A Marine Corps public affairs officer referred questions to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Washington, D.C.
Agency spokesman Ed Buice, who was presented with questions reflecting the essence of what the newspaper had been told, said Friday that no one would comment on the report. The Department of the Navy law enforcement agency is composed of civilian investigators who are not under Marine Corps control.
The sources said the Fallujah investigation arose as a result of the ongoing prosecution of three Camp Pendleton enlisted Marines charged with murder in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in the city of Haditha on Nov 19, 2005. Four officers face charges of dereliction of duty for failing to fully investigate the deaths at Haditha.
In another ongoing Iraqi death case, five of eight Camp Pendleton troops have pleaded guilty for their roles in the abduction and shooting of a retired Iraqi policeman in April 2006. Three defendants in that incident face trial this summer.
None of the men being prosecuted in the Haditha or Hamdania cases are subjects of the Fallujah investigation, a source said.
The battle for Fallujah was one of the major fights of the Iraq war that came after the insurgency took control of the city after U.S. forces left it in April of that year.
On Nov. 6, 2004, a main group of troops from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st and 5th Marine Regiments, along with supporting Marine units and U.S. Army forces, massed and launched an assault to take back the city the next day.
Intense fighting took place during the next week with the final resistance cleared by late December. Several Camp Pendleton Marines were later honored with awards such as the Navy Cross for valorous actions during the fighting.
Ninety-five U.S. servicemen were killed during the fight for the city and more than 600 were wounded. An estimated 1,350 insurgents were killed and an additional 1,000 captured, according to military authorities.
A movie about the battle, titled "No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah," based on a book written by Bing West is scheduled for release next year.
Lt. Gen. James Mattis, current commander of the I Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton and head of Marine forces throughout the Middle East, is portrayed in the movie by actor Harrison Ford. Mattis helped lead the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and was one of the top commanders at Fallujah.
Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
U.S. to review airman shooting case
By PAUL LAROCCO
The Press-Enterprise
With the words "not guilty," former sheriff's deputy Ivory J. Webb Jr. burst into celebration at San Bernardino County Superior Court on Thursday, free of the attempted manslaughter charge he faced for shooting an unarmed airman last year.
But Webb is not yet clear of possible criminal liability connected to the shooting.
A U.S. attorney's office spokesman said prosecutors there would now review evidence in the just-completed state trial to determine if there is a basis to charge Webb with a federal violation of civil rights under the color of authority.
The potential federal charge, which was used to convict Los Angeles police officers who were acquitted by the state in the Rodney King beating, is not taken lightly, said spokesman Thom Mrozek.
There is no timeline, once federal prosecutors receive the requested reports, for making a decision in Webb's case.
"It's unusual for us to even acknowledge we're interested in a particular matter," Mrozek said. "But with civil-rights violations, we want the public to know it's very serious and the federal government is going to do everything in its power."
Representatives of the Carrion family said Thursday that they plan to ask for federal prosecution of Webb. A federal civil lawsuit already has been filed.
Webb, 46, was set free after a four-week trial centering on the grainy amateur videotape that showed him shooting Elio Carrion after a car chase through Chino in January 2006. The former deputy became the first officer in San Bernardino County criminally charged for a shooting in the line of duty, and faced charges of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm.
On Friday, members of the sheriff's union and the Sheriff's Department expressed relief at the acquittal.
During a question-and-answer session Friday, San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod called the shooting one of the toughest things he has dealt with during his decade-plus tenure. The verdict, however, was taken as good news throughout his department.
"Everyone was pretty thrilled," Penrod said.
But it doesn't mean that Webb will again work for the Sheriff's Department. Without revealing the specific reasons for Webb's exit last year, Penrod said the circumstances mean "we wouldn't reinstate him at this time."
Webb's plans remain unknown. His attorney, Michael Schwartz, did not return a request to comment Friday.
The head of Webb's union, however, said the former deputy has a right to reapply for a job if chooses, and the union would support him.
The acquittal also pleased union members, said William Abernathie, president of the San Bernardino County Employee Benefits Association.
"Sometimes you have to rely on the system," Abernathie said, "and judging from the verdict yesterday, the system works."
Prosecutors argued that Webb was reckless and had no reasonable cause when he shot and wounded the 23-year-old Carrion, who was a passenger in a Corvette that had led Webb on a high-speed pursuit.
The victim, an off-duty Air Force military policeman who later tested at twice the presumptive blood-alcohol level for drunken driving, appeared to be obeying orders to get up when he was shot.
But jurors favored the defense's argument that the video did not tell the entire story, and that Webb was in unfamiliar terrain dealing with two men who were not obeying his orders. At the moments prior to the shooting, Schwartz argued that Carrion appeared to be reaching into his jacket, a sign Webb took as meaning he may have been armed.
Penrod acknowledged that there were several decisions by Webb that night that "probably could have been done in a better way."
The position of Webb's patrol car was one, Penrod said, but Webb's decision to approach Carrion and the driver of the Corvette, Luis Escobedo, without backup was not second-guessed.
"What he did was the right action at the time," Penrod said, explaining that Webb did not know where his closest backup was.
The sheriff and Webb did not speak immediately after the verdict, but Penrod acknowledged the two had long exchanges after the incident and before the trial.
"He's a very nice, easygoing guy," Penrod said.
The Press-Enterprise
With the words "not guilty," former sheriff's deputy Ivory J. Webb Jr. burst into celebration at San Bernardino County Superior Court on Thursday, free of the attempted manslaughter charge he faced for shooting an unarmed airman last year.
But Webb is not yet clear of possible criminal liability connected to the shooting.
A U.S. attorney's office spokesman said prosecutors there would now review evidence in the just-completed state trial to determine if there is a basis to charge Webb with a federal violation of civil rights under the color of authority.
The potential federal charge, which was used to convict Los Angeles police officers who were acquitted by the state in the Rodney King beating, is not taken lightly, said spokesman Thom Mrozek.
There is no timeline, once federal prosecutors receive the requested reports, for making a decision in Webb's case.
"It's unusual for us to even acknowledge we're interested in a particular matter," Mrozek said. "But with civil-rights violations, we want the public to know it's very serious and the federal government is going to do everything in its power."
Representatives of the Carrion family said Thursday that they plan to ask for federal prosecution of Webb. A federal civil lawsuit already has been filed.
Webb, 46, was set free after a four-week trial centering on the grainy amateur videotape that showed him shooting Elio Carrion after a car chase through Chino in January 2006. The former deputy became the first officer in San Bernardino County criminally charged for a shooting in the line of duty, and faced charges of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm.
On Friday, members of the sheriff's union and the Sheriff's Department expressed relief at the acquittal.
During a question-and-answer session Friday, San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod called the shooting one of the toughest things he has dealt with during his decade-plus tenure. The verdict, however, was taken as good news throughout his department.
"Everyone was pretty thrilled," Penrod said.
But it doesn't mean that Webb will again work for the Sheriff's Department. Without revealing the specific reasons for Webb's exit last year, Penrod said the circumstances mean "we wouldn't reinstate him at this time."
Webb's plans remain unknown. His attorney, Michael Schwartz, did not return a request to comment Friday.
The head of Webb's union, however, said the former deputy has a right to reapply for a job if chooses, and the union would support him.
The acquittal also pleased union members, said William Abernathie, president of the San Bernardino County Employee Benefits Association.
"Sometimes you have to rely on the system," Abernathie said, "and judging from the verdict yesterday, the system works."
Prosecutors argued that Webb was reckless and had no reasonable cause when he shot and wounded the 23-year-old Carrion, who was a passenger in a Corvette that had led Webb on a high-speed pursuit.
The victim, an off-duty Air Force military policeman who later tested at twice the presumptive blood-alcohol level for drunken driving, appeared to be obeying orders to get up when he was shot.
But jurors favored the defense's argument that the video did not tell the entire story, and that Webb was in unfamiliar terrain dealing with two men who were not obeying his orders. At the moments prior to the shooting, Schwartz argued that Carrion appeared to be reaching into his jacket, a sign Webb took as meaning he may have been armed.
Penrod acknowledged that there were several decisions by Webb that night that "probably could have been done in a better way."
The position of Webb's patrol car was one, Penrod said, but Webb's decision to approach Carrion and the driver of the Corvette, Luis Escobedo, without backup was not second-guessed.
"What he did was the right action at the time," Penrod said, explaining that Webb did not know where his closest backup was.
The sheriff and Webb did not speak immediately after the verdict, but Penrod acknowledged the two had long exchanges after the incident and before the trial.
"He's a very nice, easygoing guy," Penrod said.
2007-06-28
Jurors hear conflicting reasons why man was shot by sheriff's deputy
08:13 AM PDT on Thursday, June 28, 2007
SAN BERNARDINO - Jury deliberations are set to begin this morning in the case of the first San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy to be prosecuted for an on-duty shooting.
"My client had an honest fear and a reasonable fear," defense attorney Michael Schwartz said Wednesday on behalf of ex-deputy Ivory Webb Jr., who is arguing self-defense in his wounding of a drunken off-duty military policeman.
Webb, 46, could be imprisoned for nearly 20 years if convicted of the most serious charge he faces, attempted voluntary manslaughter. Both sides agree that Air Force military policeman Elio Carrion was hit by three .45-caliber bullets fired by Webb following a January 2006 car chase and confrontation in Chino.
Webb had been under extreme stress, the defense argues, because the lone officer was facing two potentially dangerous suspects who had been driving at 100 mph so recklessly that any reasonable officer would have suspected they were desperate to escape.
A neighborhood resident videotaped the shooting, and the tape was enhanced by the Sheriff's Department and the FBI.
The tape begins with Webb holding Carrion at gunpoint, while Carrion is sprawled on the ground outside the crashed Corvette. And it appears to show Webb open fire as Carrion is complying with the officer's orders to get up.
"There is no issue, even though the defense would like you to believe there is, whether or not (Webb) asked Mr. Carrion to get up," San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope told the jury. "That's what's being said."
Webb emphasized the order by gesturing with his pistol for Carrion to rise, Cope said.
Rather than shooting in self-defense, Webb fired because he was angry and emotionally out of control, Cope said.
Webb says that the shooting was justified because he truly believed he had to shoot to defend himself against Carrion, who the defense says reached into his jacket -- as if grabbing for a gun -- and seemed to lunge toward the officer while rising off the ground.
Carrion was unarmed. But the deputy faced a tense, uncertain and rapidly changing situation that required him to make a split-second decision on whether to shoot, Schwartz told the jury.
"That's this case," said Schwartz. "Self-defense doesn't even have to mean (Carrion) had a gun."
What matters, the lawyer told the jury, is whether Webb reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
And Webb couldn't see Carrion's hand fully, Schwartz said.
"Deputy Webb, that night, wasn't watching an enhanced video," Schwartz argued.
As Schwartz tells it, it was Carrion -- not Webb -- who was angry that night, as well as uncooperative, defiant and threatening toward the deputy.
If Webb had lost all emotional control, as the prosecutor argued, the officer wouldn't have fired three controlled shots and immediately radioed for paramedics, Schwartz told the jury.
But the prosecutor warned the jury to be skeptical of Webb's version of events.
For example, Webb's claims of being under extreme stress are wildly exaggerated because there's evidence that shows he lied about nearly having a head-on collision with the Corvette just before the crash and confrontation, Cope said.
"That simply didn't happen," said Cope, displaying photographs of skid marks at the crash scene.
Reach Richard Brooks at 909-518-4979 or rbrooks@PE.com
Experts say jurors in Inland case may find it hard to convict ex-sheriff's deputy
08:15 AM PDT on Thursday, June 28, 2007
As a San Bernardino County jury begins weighing a grainy videotape and hours of testimony in the case of a former deputy accused of shooting an unarmed Iraq war veteran, legal experts say jurors sometimes find it difficult to believe an officer would harm someone for no reason.
Closing arguments wrapped up Wednesday in the monthlong trial of Ivory J. Webb Jr., the first time in San Bernardino County history that a sheriff's deputy has been prosecuted for an on-duty shooting.
Webb is charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter and firearm assault charges stemming from the January 2006 incident where he shot and wounded Elio Carrion, a U.S. Air Force senior airman.
Story continues below
Jurors could convict Webb of one or the other, but not both. Or, they may find him not guilty if they believe the shooting was a case of justified self defense.
Legal experts for more than a year have said the video taken by a bystander will prove key in whether Webb acted criminally when he shot three times after the brief high-speed chase through Chino.
The shooting took place in a matter of seconds and jurors must piece together what happened before and after the shots to help decide whether Webb is guilty, said Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor who has closely followed the case.
Levenson said the video is important evidence but not enough alone for a conviction.
"No one thinks this video tells the whole story," said Levenson, who has reviewed the video more than two dozen times. "The jury has to reconstruct everything that is not on the video. This is like getting a book, but only every other chapter."
In the years since the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers, the public has become more sophisticated in evaluating videotaped events, Levenson said.
"Rodney King really opened prosecutors' eyes, and the community's eyes, about how difficult these cases are," Levenson said.
Story continues below
Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Lane Liroff prosecuted that county's first homicide case against a peace officer in 35 years. He said Wednesday that prosecutors face an uphill battle in winning a conviction.
"Jurors when faced with a law enforcement officer involved in a shooting in the line of duty find it very difficult to convict," said Liroff, who lost a 2005 case against Mike Walker, an officer with the state's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
"They don't want to second-guess them, and fear that blood of future officers will be on them."
But the fear of a loss in court should not deter prosecutors from pursuing police misconduct cases, Liroff said.
"It is terribly important that DAs don't use that as an excuse to not hold law enforcement officers accountable," he said. "That means some cases just have to be tried. It is a tough thing to do. I know that personally."
While each case is different, Liroff's post-trial interviews with jurors might give an indication of the mindset of the jury deliberating the case against Webb.
"They just kept saying they wanted something more. And boy did I have a strong case," Liroff said. "It wasn't what they said, so much as the difficulty they had in coming to the conclusion that a law enforcement officer can screw up and make a mistake."
Dennis Stout, a former San Bernardino County district attorney, said the jury is faced with a case where there is no rational reason for Webb's actions.
With that, Stout said, "It is hard for more people to believe a police officer would shoot someone for no reason."
San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos was at the California District Attorneys Association summer conference in Napa this week and was not available for comment.
Last year, when charges against Webb were announced, Ramos said the tape showing the shooting played a key role in the decision to prosecute.
Since 2000, the district attorney's office has reviewed more than 120 officer-involved shootings. Apart from the Webb case, four of those were deemed unjustified, but no charges were filed because the office had insufficient evidence to prove a crime had been committed, said Mike Risley, a former assistant district attorney.
When the charges were filed against Webb last year, Risley, who has since retired, said that both the videotape and the fact that prosecutors had a surviving victim made the case different from the others.
Bill Abernathie, president of the San Bernardino County Safety Employee Benefits Association, the union representing sheriff's deputies, said he sees the Webb case as an anomaly and doesn't expect to see more prosecutions of officers.
"I don't see a higher level of scrutiny," he said. "I think there's always a high level of scrutiny of the law enforcement profession just because of the nature of the profession."
Staff writer Imran Ghori contributed to this report.
Reach Duane W. Gang at 909-806-3062 or dgang@PE.com
2007-06-26
Judge Discusses Details of Work On Secret Court
At 3 a.m. on Aug. 8, 1998, the day after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the chief judge of a special court that supervises applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was awakened at home in order to approve five wiretaps, including one of Osama bin Laden's former secretary in Texas.
"Those five wiretaps turned out to be very productive," U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said Saturday during an unusually open discussion of his work at the helm of the FISA court. Wadih el-Hage, the bin Laden aide, was tried and convicted in the bombings in 2001, and "all the evidence from those wiretaps that I authorized that night were used at the trial," Lamberth said.
Lamberth, known for his outspoken nature, was the court's chief judge from 1995 to 2002 and during that period was privy, he said, "to every deepest, darkest secret our country has." His presentation Saturday, at the American Library Association's convention, was probably the most revealing discussion to date of actions by the FISA court, which since 1978 has approved wiretaps and other secret surveillance activities involving foreign intelligence and terrorism cases.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the court shifted gears. "We changed procedures and put in all the orders from September 12 forward based on the oral briefing with the director of the FBI and the chief judge of the FISA court," Lamberth said. "The courts can respond in times of national crisis, and I think the courts have to, and we did."
One reason, he said, is that "if you move very quickly, that's when things are most productive, particularly in e-mails. As soon as an event happens, everybody is e-mailing everybody and you pick up the most productive tape."
Lamberth's defense of the court's speed and efficiency came after senior Bush administration officials said its procedures were too cumbersome to meet counterterrorism needs in the post-9/11 world, and created a system of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency that did not include judicial review.
Taking direct aim at the administration's assertion, Lamberth noted that members of the court had approved almost 99 percent of the FISA applications presented. He added that he could not see a better way of conducting such surveillance.
"What the president did with the NSA," Lamberth said, was "a proposal for a worse way."
Lamberth recalled several other counterterrorism cases in which he played a key role, noting that he could speak because the court's involvement had been declassified during trials.
One case involved Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested at a Canadian border crossing with explosives in December 1999. He was later convicted of taking part in a plot to bomb U.S. sites during millennium celebrations. Lamberth said investigators found a "little piece of paper . . . with a phone number on it" in Ressam's wallet.
"The FBI came to me that same night for a warrant for that number. I gave it to them. It led to an apartment in New York. The tap on that apartment in New York led them to the cell in Montreal that had set Ressam on his way," the judge added. The apartment was raided on "a warrant that I issued under FISA . . . and they found bomb-making materials at the apartment."
Lamberth also talked about the summer of 2001, when, he said, "we knew from the intelligence we were gathering that we were going to be hit; we just didn't know when." But officials knew, he said, when "the first plane hit it was probably bin Laden, and when the second plane hit that it had to be bin Laden."
He said he was driving near the Pentagon on his way to work on Sept. 11, having been to the dentist, and recalled, "My car was engulfed in smoke, and I couldn't move." He called for help, and the FBI came "to get me in a position where I could get Justice to start approving FISA [warrants]. . . . By the time the FBI got to me in my car, I had already approved five."
As Lamberth described the FISA process, the chief justice of the United States chooses 11 district judges from around the country to serve on the special court. They rule individually on FISA applications for wiretaps, physical surveillance or search warrants.
The applications are written by a special group within the Justice Department and are based on requests from the FBI, CIA or NSA. The Justice group prepares a legal brief supporting the request along with an affidavit from the supervising investigative agent. That material is accompanied by a certification by the head of the agency making the request, usually the FBI. A final certification comes from the attorney general.
"That the attorney general had to personally sign on the dotted line that they had reviewed it and thought it was appropriate," Lamberth said, provided "the political accountability."
In a FISA court hearing, according to Lamberth, a Justice Department lawyer presents the application, usually 40 or 50 pages, and the investigative agent is put under oath. "I have the agent before me," Lamberth said. "I can question the agent. I can get into the nitty-gritty of exactly what we're doing and why."
During the Clinton administration, Lamberth said, members of the court learned that false affidavits had been filed. "Our judges thought of a real easy solution. We'll just bar that agent from ever appearing in our courtroom. So it didn't really matter if it was negligent or it was intentional. . . . And he's one of their top counterintelligence agents."
Louis J. Freeh, then director of the FBI, "came over and begged me to rescind the order, everything under the sun that could be done about that order," Lamberth said. "We never rescinded it. We enforced it. And we sent a message to the FBI: You've got to tell the truth."
"Those five wiretaps turned out to be very productive," U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said Saturday during an unusually open discussion of his work at the helm of the FISA court. Wadih el-Hage, the bin Laden aide, was tried and convicted in the bombings in 2001, and "all the evidence from those wiretaps that I authorized that night were used at the trial," Lamberth said.
Lamberth, known for his outspoken nature, was the court's chief judge from 1995 to 2002 and during that period was privy, he said, "to every deepest, darkest secret our country has." His presentation Saturday, at the American Library Association's convention, was probably the most revealing discussion to date of actions by the FISA court, which since 1978 has approved wiretaps and other secret surveillance activities involving foreign intelligence and terrorism cases.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the court shifted gears. "We changed procedures and put in all the orders from September 12 forward based on the oral briefing with the director of the FBI and the chief judge of the FISA court," Lamberth said. "The courts can respond in times of national crisis, and I think the courts have to, and we did."
One reason, he said, is that "if you move very quickly, that's when things are most productive, particularly in e-mails. As soon as an event happens, everybody is e-mailing everybody and you pick up the most productive tape."
Lamberth's defense of the court's speed and efficiency came after senior Bush administration officials said its procedures were too cumbersome to meet counterterrorism needs in the post-9/11 world, and created a system of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency that did not include judicial review.
Taking direct aim at the administration's assertion, Lamberth noted that members of the court had approved almost 99 percent of the FISA applications presented. He added that he could not see a better way of conducting such surveillance.
"What the president did with the NSA," Lamberth said, was "a proposal for a worse way."
Lamberth recalled several other counterterrorism cases in which he played a key role, noting that he could speak because the court's involvement had been declassified during trials.
One case involved Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested at a Canadian border crossing with explosives in December 1999. He was later convicted of taking part in a plot to bomb U.S. sites during millennium celebrations. Lamberth said investigators found a "little piece of paper . . . with a phone number on it" in Ressam's wallet.
"The FBI came to me that same night for a warrant for that number. I gave it to them. It led to an apartment in New York. The tap on that apartment in New York led them to the cell in Montreal that had set Ressam on his way," the judge added. The apartment was raided on "a warrant that I issued under FISA . . . and they found bomb-making materials at the apartment."
Lamberth also talked about the summer of 2001, when, he said, "we knew from the intelligence we were gathering that we were going to be hit; we just didn't know when." But officials knew, he said, when "the first plane hit it was probably bin Laden, and when the second plane hit that it had to be bin Laden."
He said he was driving near the Pentagon on his way to work on Sept. 11, having been to the dentist, and recalled, "My car was engulfed in smoke, and I couldn't move." He called for help, and the FBI came "to get me in a position where I could get Justice to start approving FISA [warrants]. . . . By the time the FBI got to me in my car, I had already approved five."
As Lamberth described the FISA process, the chief justice of the United States chooses 11 district judges from around the country to serve on the special court. They rule individually on FISA applications for wiretaps, physical surveillance or search warrants.
The applications are written by a special group within the Justice Department and are based on requests from the FBI, CIA or NSA. The Justice group prepares a legal brief supporting the request along with an affidavit from the supervising investigative agent. That material is accompanied by a certification by the head of the agency making the request, usually the FBI. A final certification comes from the attorney general.
"That the attorney general had to personally sign on the dotted line that they had reviewed it and thought it was appropriate," Lamberth said, provided "the political accountability."
In a FISA court hearing, according to Lamberth, a Justice Department lawyer presents the application, usually 40 or 50 pages, and the investigative agent is put under oath. "I have the agent before me," Lamberth said. "I can question the agent. I can get into the nitty-gritty of exactly what we're doing and why."
During the Clinton administration, Lamberth said, members of the court learned that false affidavits had been filed. "Our judges thought of a real easy solution. We'll just bar that agent from ever appearing in our courtroom. So it didn't really matter if it was negligent or it was intentional. . . . And he's one of their top counterintelligence agents."
Louis J. Freeh, then director of the FBI, "came over and begged me to rescind the order, everything under the sun that could be done about that order," Lamberth said. "We never rescinded it. We enforced it. And we sent a message to the FBI: You've got to tell the truth."
2007-06-22
Special Operations Prepared for Domestic Missions
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Special Operations Prepared for Domestic Missions
The U.S. Northern Command, the military command responsible for "homeland defense," has asked the Pentagon if it can establish its own special operations command for domestic missions. The request, reported in the Washington Examiner, would establish a permanent sub-command for responses to incidents of domestic terrorism as well as other occasions where special operators may be necessary on American soil.
The establishment of a domestic special operations mission, and the preparation of contingency plans to employ commandos in the United States, would upend decades of tradition. Military actions within the United States are the responsibility of state militias (the National Guard), and federal law enforcement is a function of the FBI.
Employing special operations for domestic missions sounds very ominous, and NORTHCOM's request earlier this year should receive the closest possible Pentagon and congressional scrutiny. There's only one problem: NORTHCOM is already doing what it has requested permission to do.
When NORTHCOM was established after 9/11 to be the military counterpart to the Department of Homeland Security, within its headquarters staff it established a Compartmented Planning and Operations Cell (CPOC) responsible for planning and directing a set of "compartmented" and "sensitive" operations on U.S., Canadian and Mexican soil. In other words, these are the very special operations that NORTHCOM is now formally asking the Pentagon to beef up into a public and acknowledged sub-command.
NORTHCOM's compartmented and sensitive operations fall under the Joint Chiefs of Staff "Focal Point" program, a separate communications and planning network used to hide special operations undertaken by the Joint Special Operations Command, headquartered in North Carolina, and by CIA and other domestic compartmented activities.
Since 2003, the CPOC has had a small core of permanent members drawn from the operations, intelligence and planning directorates. In an emergency, the staff can be expanded. According to NORTHCOM documents, CPOC is involved in planning for a number of domestic missions, including:
-- Non-conventional assisted recovery
-- Integrated survey programs
-- Information operations/"special technical operations"
-- "Special activities"
What are all of these programs? CPOC's basic missions include responding to incidents of weapons of mass destruction, support for continuity of government, protection of the president, response to domestic terrorism and insurrection and (presumably) domestic intelligence collection. ("Special activities" is a euphemism for covert operations.)
A number of operations plans have been associated with these domestic operations:
-- CONPLAN 0300 is the basic contingency plan for combating domestic terrorism (and may have been folded into newer such plans now under the control of U.S. Special Operations Command).
-- "Power Geyser" is the contingency plan for incidents of weapons of mass destruction in the Washington area. This includes both recovery of a stolen nuclear weapon or disabling of an improvised weapon or dirty bomb.
-- USNORTHCOM Antiterrorism Operations Order 05-01 deals with domestic counterterrorism and domestic intelligence against groups intent on attacking military interests.
With all this going on, for NORTHCOM to ask permission now seems beside the point. Still, it's always better to ask. Isn't it?
Special Operations Prepared for Domestic Missions
The U.S. Northern Command, the military command responsible for "homeland defense," has asked the Pentagon if it can establish its own special operations command for domestic missions. The request, reported in the Washington Examiner, would establish a permanent sub-command for responses to incidents of domestic terrorism as well as other occasions where special operators may be necessary on American soil.
The establishment of a domestic special operations mission, and the preparation of contingency plans to employ commandos in the United States, would upend decades of tradition. Military actions within the United States are the responsibility of state militias (the National Guard), and federal law enforcement is a function of the FBI.
Employing special operations for domestic missions sounds very ominous, and NORTHCOM's request earlier this year should receive the closest possible Pentagon and congressional scrutiny. There's only one problem: NORTHCOM is already doing what it has requested permission to do.
When NORTHCOM was established after 9/11 to be the military counterpart to the Department of Homeland Security, within its headquarters staff it established a Compartmented Planning and Operations Cell (CPOC) responsible for planning and directing a set of "compartmented" and "sensitive" operations on U.S., Canadian and Mexican soil. In other words, these are the very special operations that NORTHCOM is now formally asking the Pentagon to beef up into a public and acknowledged sub-command.
NORTHCOM's compartmented and sensitive operations fall under the Joint Chiefs of Staff "Focal Point" program, a separate communications and planning network used to hide special operations undertaken by the Joint Special Operations Command, headquartered in North Carolina, and by CIA and other domestic compartmented activities.
Since 2003, the CPOC has had a small core of permanent members drawn from the operations, intelligence and planning directorates. In an emergency, the staff can be expanded. According to NORTHCOM documents, CPOC is involved in planning for a number of domestic missions, including:
-- Non-conventional assisted recovery
-- Integrated survey programs
-- Information operations/"special technical operations"
-- "Special activities"
What are all of these programs? CPOC's basic missions include responding to incidents of weapons of mass destruction, support for continuity of government, protection of the president, response to domestic terrorism and insurrection and (presumably) domestic intelligence collection. ("Special activities" is a euphemism for covert operations.)
A number of operations plans have been associated with these domestic operations:
-- CONPLAN 0300 is the basic contingency plan for combating domestic terrorism (and may have been folded into newer such plans now under the control of U.S. Special Operations Command).
-- "Power Geyser" is the contingency plan for incidents of weapons of mass destruction in the Washington area. This includes both recovery of a stolen nuclear weapon or disabling of an improvised weapon or dirty bomb.
-- USNORTHCOM Antiterrorism Operations Order 05-01 deals with domestic counterterrorism and domestic intelligence against groups intent on attacking military interests.
With all this going on, for NORTHCOM to ask permission now seems beside the point. Still, it's always better to ask. Isn't it?
Detective to be tried on molest charges
RIVERSIDE - A Pomona police detective will stand trial on charges he molested and tried to rape his adopted daughter.
At a preliminary hearing Thursday in Riverside Superior Court, Judge Judson W. Morris Jr. found there was sufficient evidence to try Donald Sevesind on three counts of lewd acts upon a teenager and one count of attempted rape.
Sevesind, 49, of Riverside, is a 25-year veteran of the Pomona Police Department, specializing in burglary investigations. He has been on administrative leave since his arrest.
Prosecutors say between summer 2005 and April 2006, the detective entered his then-15-year-old daughter's room and molested her.
Under cross-examination from defense attorney Virginia Blumenthal, sheriff's Detective Joel Morales said the girl, referred to as Jane Doe, asked her father to give her a back rub.
He said she fell asleep, only to wake up and find her shirt around her neck, her bra removed and her underwear down to her knees. He said she pretended to be asleep as her father caressed her breasts and genital area.
"She said she was scared and in disbelief," Morales said.
About a month later, she told detectives she woke to find her clothing rearranged
Advertisement
and her father fondling her for the second time. Again she said she pretended to be asleep, as she said she did when she woke to find her father fondling her a third time in October.
On April 25, 2006, Morales said, the girl told detectives she woke to find her blankets pulled down to the end of the bed and her clothing rearranged. But this time, she said her father was wearing only a T-shirt and was straddling her.
She said when he attempted to rape her she pulled away. Morales said she told detectives he tried to pull her back, then left the room.
Two days later, after reluctantly reporting the alleged incidents to a school counselor, she was taken to the sheriff's Jurupa Valley station by Riverside County Child Protective Services and questioned.
Morales said detectives videotaped her interview, and taped two calls they had her make to her father asking him about the incidents. Morales said he told her they would talk about it later.
Sevesind was arrested early the next day.
Blumenthal argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to bring Sevesind to trial, but Morris was unconvinced.
"I have to respectfully disagree," he said. "This is a pretty solid attempted rape."
Sevesind showed no emotion during the hearing. He remains out of jail on $100,000 bail, and is scheduled to be arraigned
July 11.
If convicted, he faces up to six years in state prison.
Staff writer Mark Petix can be reached by e-mail at mark.petix
At a preliminary hearing Thursday in Riverside Superior Court, Judge Judson W. Morris Jr. found there was sufficient evidence to try Donald Sevesind on three counts of lewd acts upon a teenager and one count of attempted rape.
Sevesind, 49, of Riverside, is a 25-year veteran of the Pomona Police Department, specializing in burglary investigations. He has been on administrative leave since his arrest.
Prosecutors say between summer 2005 and April 2006, the detective entered his then-15-year-old daughter's room and molested her.
Under cross-examination from defense attorney Virginia Blumenthal, sheriff's Detective Joel Morales said the girl, referred to as Jane Doe, asked her father to give her a back rub.
He said she fell asleep, only to wake up and find her shirt around her neck, her bra removed and her underwear down to her knees. He said she pretended to be asleep as her father caressed her breasts and genital area.
"She said she was scared and in disbelief," Morales said.
About a month later, she told detectives she woke to find her clothing rearranged
Advertisement
and her father fondling her for the second time. Again she said she pretended to be asleep, as she said she did when she woke to find her father fondling her a third time in October.
On April 25, 2006, Morales said, the girl told detectives she woke to find her blankets pulled down to the end of the bed and her clothing rearranged. But this time, she said her father was wearing only a T-shirt and was straddling her.
She said when he attempted to rape her she pulled away. Morales said she told detectives he tried to pull her back, then left the room.
Two days later, after reluctantly reporting the alleged incidents to a school counselor, she was taken to the sheriff's Jurupa Valley station by Riverside County Child Protective Services and questioned.
Morales said detectives videotaped her interview, and taped two calls they had her make to her father asking him about the incidents. Morales said he told her they would talk about it later.
Sevesind was arrested early the next day.
Blumenthal argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to bring Sevesind to trial, but Morris was unconvinced.
"I have to respectfully disagree," he said. "This is a pretty solid attempted rape."
Sevesind showed no emotion during the hearing. He remains out of jail on $100,000 bail, and is scheduled to be arraigned
July 11.
If convicted, he faces up to six years in state prison.
Staff writer Mark Petix can be reached by e-mail at mark.petix
2007-06-19
Intelligence services have evidence of US-orchestrated destabilization plan
Intelligence services have evidence of US-orchestrated destabilization plan
Prensa Latina: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that the intelligence services have evidence on the existence of a US-orchestrated plan aimed at destabilizing the country, and called it a "slow fuse."
In a phone call to "Venezolana de Television," Chavez pointed out the intention is to pave the way for a large-scale conflict, and allow for international condemnations.
"They have tried to attract some military sectors but, fortunately, the Armed Force is well consolidated," he said.
The President indicated that an extreme right-wing ploy orchestrated by the US, to try to weaken the country and overthrow him, lays behind the recent student protests.
US contacts with students are unlikely to be direct, but evidence corroborates there is a covert strategy to incite violence, Chavez commented.
It is not a new ploy, but a change of strategy, stated the President.
Prensa Latina: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has announced that the intelligence services have evidence on the existence of a US-orchestrated plan aimed at destabilizing the country, and called it a "slow fuse."
In a phone call to "Venezolana de Television," Chavez pointed out the intention is to pave the way for a large-scale conflict, and allow for international condemnations.
"They have tried to attract some military sectors but, fortunately, the Armed Force is well consolidated," he said.
The President indicated that an extreme right-wing ploy orchestrated by the US, to try to weaken the country and overthrow him, lays behind the recent student protests.
US contacts with students are unlikely to be direct, but evidence corroborates there is a covert strategy to incite violence, Chavez commented.
It is not a new ploy, but a change of strategy, stated the President.
2007-06-14
Incremental Civilian Disarmament: Strip-Tease of the Liberties
A gun in the wrong hands: Chuck Schumer, seen here compensating for some hidden shortcoming (but not for all of his obvious ones).
“When the NRA and I agree on legislation,” oozed the incarnate glob of viscous evil known as Senator Chuck Schumer, “you know that it's going to get through, become law, and do some good.”
Schumer was referring to the measure passed in the House yesterday (June 13) -- by an unrecorded voice vote! -- that will expand the scope and funding of a national database used in background checks of prospective gun buyers.
The Quisling outfit called the National Rifle Association, ever eager to see that patently unconstitutional gun laws are faithfully enforced, supported the measure. Gun Owners of America, the only national gun rights group worthy of that description, did not. As GOA's Erich Pratt told the New York Times, this system is designed to force “law-abiding people ... to prove their innocence to a bureaucrat before they exercise their constitutional rights” to purchase and own a firearm.
The putative purpose of the measure is to prevent deranged people and other “mental defectives” like the Virginia Tech mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho from buying firearms. But this law, like every other gun law, will give criminals of that sort an additional competitive advantage over the law-abiding.
This, Schumer would insist, falls under the heading of doing “good.”
One must keep in mind that from Schumer's perspective, which differs from that of the Khmer Rouge only in relatively trivial matters of detail, doing “good” involves denuding individuals of their privacy and the means to resist the government.
To understand more fully Schumer's passion to reduce Americans to servitude, it's useful to picture him not as a Senator, freshly groomed and swaddled in an expensive, well-tailored suit, but rather as a grimy, unshaven patron of a malodorous strip club, his beady eyes fixed with unblinking, predatory lust on the hapless Chinese immigrant girl forced to perform for his amusement (her career as an “exotic dancer” being written into the contract with the Snakehead that brought her to the U.S.).
As the dancer, trembling from the effort to suppress her disgust, discards each layer of clothing, Schumer (the version in our example) becomes more agitated, his illicit appetites growing more insistent. He will not relent until that unfortunate girl is deprived of any modesty or decency, fully exposed to his inspection and subject to his whims.
In this respect, Schumer is not significantly different from most representatives of our political class, irrespective of the political brand name under which they conduct their assault on our liberties. In dealing with Americans who insist on defending their rights, Schumer emits a dense musk of unfiltered malice; his arrogance is palpable, as is his desire to reduce Americans to helotry. During the 1995 congressional hearings into the Waco Holocaust, Schumer gave the impression that he was disappointed that the federal mass murder at Mt. Carmel was a one-off event, rather than the opening shots of a campaign to annihilate gun owners nation-wide.
Schumer's demeanor and tactics in that hearing left me with the strong impression that he was somehow the product of a genetic experiment combining the salient traits of Soviet gulag master Lazar Kaganovich with those of the equally repellent Roland Freisler, the histrionic Communist-turned National Socialist who presided over Nazi Germany's “People's Court”:
Schumer's ideological ancestor Lazar Kaganovich, the "Wolf of the Kremlin" (left) and Nazi Judge Roland Freisler (below, right), whose demeanor and comportment uncannily matched those of New York's senior Senator.
The purpose of the Second Amendment, as I've pointed out before, is not merely to protect a clearly articulated individual right to armed self-defense, although this is certainly one of its important function. Its central purpose, I believe, is to make it clear that in the republic the Founders created (how I wish it were still in operation), the government did not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
The people who wrote that Amendment, we should never forget, were pretty much the same group that took part in history's noblest act of sedition by signing a document setting out some of the conditions under which it was proper and necessary to “alter or abolish” the government that ruled them. The right to keep and bear arms must be viewed in that context: When the time comes for an oppressive government to be confronted and, if necessary, abolished, the people must be armed.
(A quick digression: Why is sedition – a word directly related to “separation” or “secession” -- considered a crime? It seems to me that when a government attempts to criminalize sedition, becoming a seditionist is the moral duty of every citizen.)
On the other hand, the reason why the Regime is intent on collecting as much information as it can on law-abiding gun owners is to make gun confiscation possible. This is theoretical only as it applies to the Regime's actions domestically: As I've documented elsewhere, the Regime has eagerly conducted gun confiscation programs as part of “peacekeeping” missions in Haiti, Somalia, and elsewhere. We shouldn't forget the effort to disarm victims of Hurricane Katrina.
And those who don't think that our rulers are capable of systematically destroying their disarmed victims really should acquaint themselves with the Federal Government's treatment of American Indians during the 19th Century. Once again, we're not discussing this issue in an abstract, theoretical realm.
Schumer and his loathsome ilk seek to strip us of all of our rights. They would love to denude us in a single paroxysm of violence, of course, but from their perspective a forced strip-tease works just as well. The outcome would be the same in either case.
“When the NRA and I agree on legislation,” oozed the incarnate glob of viscous evil known as Senator Chuck Schumer, “you know that it's going to get through, become law, and do some good.”
Schumer was referring to the measure passed in the House yesterday (June 13) -- by an unrecorded voice vote! -- that will expand the scope and funding of a national database used in background checks of prospective gun buyers.
The Quisling outfit called the National Rifle Association, ever eager to see that patently unconstitutional gun laws are faithfully enforced, supported the measure. Gun Owners of America, the only national gun rights group worthy of that description, did not. As GOA's Erich Pratt told the New York Times, this system is designed to force “law-abiding people ... to prove their innocence to a bureaucrat before they exercise their constitutional rights” to purchase and own a firearm.
The putative purpose of the measure is to prevent deranged people and other “mental defectives” like the Virginia Tech mass murderer Seung-Hui Cho from buying firearms. But this law, like every other gun law, will give criminals of that sort an additional competitive advantage over the law-abiding.
This, Schumer would insist, falls under the heading of doing “good.”
One must keep in mind that from Schumer's perspective, which differs from that of the Khmer Rouge only in relatively trivial matters of detail, doing “good” involves denuding individuals of their privacy and the means to resist the government.
To understand more fully Schumer's passion to reduce Americans to servitude, it's useful to picture him not as a Senator, freshly groomed and swaddled in an expensive, well-tailored suit, but rather as a grimy, unshaven patron of a malodorous strip club, his beady eyes fixed with unblinking, predatory lust on the hapless Chinese immigrant girl forced to perform for his amusement (her career as an “exotic dancer” being written into the contract with the Snakehead that brought her to the U.S.).
As the dancer, trembling from the effort to suppress her disgust, discards each layer of clothing, Schumer (the version in our example) becomes more agitated, his illicit appetites growing more insistent. He will not relent until that unfortunate girl is deprived of any modesty or decency, fully exposed to his inspection and subject to his whims.
In this respect, Schumer is not significantly different from most representatives of our political class, irrespective of the political brand name under which they conduct their assault on our liberties. In dealing with Americans who insist on defending their rights, Schumer emits a dense musk of unfiltered malice; his arrogance is palpable, as is his desire to reduce Americans to helotry. During the 1995 congressional hearings into the Waco Holocaust, Schumer gave the impression that he was disappointed that the federal mass murder at Mt. Carmel was a one-off event, rather than the opening shots of a campaign to annihilate gun owners nation-wide.
Schumer's demeanor and tactics in that hearing left me with the strong impression that he was somehow the product of a genetic experiment combining the salient traits of Soviet gulag master Lazar Kaganovich with those of the equally repellent Roland Freisler, the histrionic Communist-turned National Socialist who presided over Nazi Germany's “People's Court”:
Schumer's ideological ancestor Lazar Kaganovich, the "Wolf of the Kremlin" (left) and Nazi Judge Roland Freisler (below, right), whose demeanor and comportment uncannily matched those of New York's senior Senator.
The purpose of the Second Amendment, as I've pointed out before, is not merely to protect a clearly articulated individual right to armed self-defense, although this is certainly one of its important function. Its central purpose, I believe, is to make it clear that in the republic the Founders created (how I wish it were still in operation), the government did not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
The people who wrote that Amendment, we should never forget, were pretty much the same group that took part in history's noblest act of sedition by signing a document setting out some of the conditions under which it was proper and necessary to “alter or abolish” the government that ruled them. The right to keep and bear arms must be viewed in that context: When the time comes for an oppressive government to be confronted and, if necessary, abolished, the people must be armed.
(A quick digression: Why is sedition – a word directly related to “separation” or “secession” -- considered a crime? It seems to me that when a government attempts to criminalize sedition, becoming a seditionist is the moral duty of every citizen.)
On the other hand, the reason why the Regime is intent on collecting as much information as it can on law-abiding gun owners is to make gun confiscation possible. This is theoretical only as it applies to the Regime's actions domestically: As I've documented elsewhere, the Regime has eagerly conducted gun confiscation programs as part of “peacekeeping” missions in Haiti, Somalia, and elsewhere. We shouldn't forget the effort to disarm victims of Hurricane Katrina.
And those who don't think that our rulers are capable of systematically destroying their disarmed victims really should acquaint themselves with the Federal Government's treatment of American Indians during the 19th Century. Once again, we're not discussing this issue in an abstract, theoretical realm.
Schumer and his loathsome ilk seek to strip us of all of our rights. They would love to denude us in a single paroxysm of violence, of course, but from their perspective a forced strip-tease works just as well. The outcome would be the same in either case.
2007-06-13
Lewis campaign filed incomplete funds report
By BEN GOAD
Washington Bureau
Rep. Jerry Lewis' campaign committee failed to properly report more than $276,000 in stock earnings to the Federal Election Commission last year, campaign finance records show.
Campaign officials for Lewis, R-Redlands, filed a response to the election commission calling the discrepancy an oversight and saying they would amend their reports to fix the error.
Jim Specht, a spokesman for Lewis, said he is confident the amended report would resolve the issue. Days before November's election, Lewis cashed out a decades-old mutual fund account containing more than $500,000, Specht said.
Lewis, who had contributed heavily to individual Republican candidates in tight races, agreed to give $335,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee at the 11th hour.
The rest of the cash from the mutual-fund account was put back into the Lewis campaign fund.
In the end, Democrats won control of both the House and Senate and Lewis was hit with more than $108,190 in capital gains taxes stemming from the transaction.
The Lewis campaign paid those taxes, records show. But the $276,614.66 that the mutual fund account had earned over the years was not reflected on campaign-finance disclosure forms filed with the election commission in December.
Officials from Williams & Jensen, the Washington, D.C., law firm that handles Lewis' campaign finances, did not return calls seeking comment.
The discrepancy was discovered this spring, when federal election officials received Lewis' regular financial disclosure report and saw an unaccounted for increase in funds. On May 22, they sent the Lewis campaign a letter requiring an explanation.
Every year, the Federal Election Commission sends thousands of requests for information to members of Congress based on apparent finance mistakes or irregularities.
Thus, the discrepancy and subsequent correspondence are not unusual, said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a no
Washington Bureau
Rep. Jerry Lewis' campaign committee failed to properly report more than $276,000 in stock earnings to the Federal Election Commission last year, campaign finance records show.
Campaign officials for Lewis, R-Redlands, filed a response to the election commission calling the discrepancy an oversight and saying they would amend their reports to fix the error.
Jim Specht, a spokesman for Lewis, said he is confident the amended report would resolve the issue. Days before November's election, Lewis cashed out a decades-old mutual fund account containing more than $500,000, Specht said.
Lewis, who had contributed heavily to individual Republican candidates in tight races, agreed to give $335,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee at the 11th hour.
The rest of the cash from the mutual-fund account was put back into the Lewis campaign fund.
In the end, Democrats won control of both the House and Senate and Lewis was hit with more than $108,190 in capital gains taxes stemming from the transaction.
The Lewis campaign paid those taxes, records show. But the $276,614.66 that the mutual fund account had earned over the years was not reflected on campaign-finance disclosure forms filed with the election commission in December.
Officials from Williams & Jensen, the Washington, D.C., law firm that handles Lewis' campaign finances, did not return calls seeking comment.
The discrepancy was discovered this spring, when federal election officials received Lewis' regular financial disclosure report and saw an unaccounted for increase in funds. On May 22, they sent the Lewis campaign a letter requiring an explanation.
Every year, the Federal Election Commission sends thousands of requests for information to members of Congress based on apparent finance mistakes or irregularities.
Thus, the discrepancy and subsequent correspondence are not unusual, said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a no
Webb in damage-control mode
Webb in damage-control mode
Defense attacks expert's testimony
By Rod Leveque, Staff Writer
SAN BERNARDINO - Attorneys for the former sheriff's deputy on trial for shooting an unarmed man at the end of a car chase worked Tuesday to soften the testimony of a police-tactics expert who earlier told jurors the shooting appeared inappropriate and unprovoked.
The witness, Joe Callanan, had testified for prosecutors that the deputy, Ivory J. Webb Jr., abandoned proper procedures and appeared to be out of control when he shot and wounded an off-duty Air Force enlisted man in Chino on Jan. 29, 2006.
But during cross-examination Tuesday, Webb's lawyers portrayed Callanan as a Monday-morning quarterback of sorts, who - unlike Webb - had the luxuries of hindsight and unlimited time in forming his opinions.
"You didn't have two drunks trying to divert your attention, did you?" defense attorney William Hadden asked him.
"No," Callanan said.
"Didn't have to worry about anyone taking your gun?" Hadden asked.
"That's true," Callanan said.
Webb is on trial charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm in connection with the shooting of Elio Carrion, who was the passenger in a Corvette that led the deputy on a high-speed chase.
The chase ended when the driver, Luis Escobedo, crashed into a wall on Francis Street in Chino. A tape of the shooting made by a resident shows Webb shoot Carrion as Carrion appears to comply with Webb's orders to get up.
Webb's lawyers have argued the shooting was legally justifiable.
They say Carrion did not comply with the deputy's orders to shut up, reached a hand toward Webb's gun, and also reached a hand into his own jacket, as though going for a weapon.
Carrion and Escobedo were legally drunk at the time of the shooting.
Callanan is a retired Los Angeles County sheriff's lieutenant and an expert on police tactics pertaining to the use of deadly force.
Prosecutors called him to testify on Monday to render his opinions on whether Webb's actions were consistent with how other reasonable and objective police officers would have behaved in similar circumstances. He remained on the stand Tuesday as well.
Under the questioning of Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope, Callanan gave a blistering critique of Webb's actions, slamming the former deputy for everything from his decision to give chase to his demeanor after the shooting.
"I would not see a reasonable officer or an experienced officer shoot under these conditions," he testified Tuesday before the start of his cross-examination.
Hadden barely began his questioning of Callanan before the trial was adjourned for the day.
However, he wasted little time in attacking Callanan's conclusions.
Callanan conceded that he has not personally been involved in a police pursuit or shooting since he retired in 1989.
He also admitted he formed his opinions in the comfort and safety of his office, while Webb had to make life-or-death decisions on a dark street and in the uncertainty and chaos following a high-speed car chase.
Cross-examination of Callanan will continue Thursday, when Webb's trial resumes in San Bernardino Superior Court.
Webb no longer works for the Sheriff's Department. He faces as much as 18 years in prison if convicted.
Carrion survived the shooting and has since returned to the Air Force.
Staff writer Rod Leveque can be reached by e-mail at r_leveque@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-9325.
Following the Webb case
Jan. 29, 2006: Air Force Senior Airman Elio Carrion is shot three times by a sheriff's deputy after a high-speed chase that ends on Francis Street in Chino. The incident is captured on videotape by a nearby resident. The driver, Luis Escobedo, is arrested and booked at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on suspicion of felony evading. Carrion is hospitalized at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton. The deputy, Ivory J. Webb Jr., is placed on paid administrative leave.
Jan. 31: Escobedo is released without being charged. The FBI launches an investigation into possible violations of Carrion's civil rights at the request of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Sheriff's Department also requests the FBI's assistance to produce an enhanced copy of the videotape.
Feb. 3: Carrion's family demands the arrest of Webb. Carrion is released from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.
Feb. 10: The Sheriff's Department concludes its investigation into the officer-involved shooting and turns its reports over to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office.
March 5: The District Attorney's Office, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department interview Carrion.
March 7: District Attorney Michael A. Ramos charges Webb with attempted voluntary manslaughter and Escobedo with felony evading and driving while under the influence. Carrion returns home to his family, but continues outpatient physical therapy.
March 8: Webb and Escobedo are arraigned. Both plead not guilty.
July 12: Carrion's attorney files a claim against San Bernardino County asking for unspecified damages for violating his civil rights.
July 19: Carrion receives the commendation medal for his service in Iraq, at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
Aug. 28: A judge orders Webb to stand trial for attempted voluntary manslaughter.
Sept. 11: At his arraignment, prosecutors add a second charge against Webb - claiming the former sheriff's deputy committed assault with a firearm.
Nov. 3: A trial date of Jan. 5 is set for Webb.
Dec. 27: Carrion files a lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Gary Penrod and Webb.
April 30, 2007: Jury selection begins for Webb's trial in which 400 potential jurors were summoned.
May 29: Opening statements made in Webb's trial.
May 30: Escobedo testifies in the trial.
May 31: Recording of radio traffic from the night of the shooting played in court.
June 4: Carrion testifies that Webb ordered him to get up off the ground, and shot him when he tried to comply.
June 5: Carrion finishes testifying and Jose Luis Valdes takes the stand, saying that he started to tape the incident after he thought he saw Webb kick Carrion.
June 6: Valdes finishes his testimony and his wife, who also witnessed the incident, takes the stand.
Thursday: The first officers who reported to the scene testify Webb told them that Carrion lunged at him.
Monday: An expert in police tactics and training testifies Webb made critical mistakes and didn't follow proper procedures before the shooting.
Tuesday: Webb's attorney cross-examines the expert in police tactics, pointing out that he had the luxuries of hindsight and unlimited time in analyzing Webb's actions.
Defense attacks expert's testimony
By Rod Leveque, Staff Writer
SAN BERNARDINO - Attorneys for the former sheriff's deputy on trial for shooting an unarmed man at the end of a car chase worked Tuesday to soften the testimony of a police-tactics expert who earlier told jurors the shooting appeared inappropriate and unprovoked.
The witness, Joe Callanan, had testified for prosecutors that the deputy, Ivory J. Webb Jr., abandoned proper procedures and appeared to be out of control when he shot and wounded an off-duty Air Force enlisted man in Chino on Jan. 29, 2006.
But during cross-examination Tuesday, Webb's lawyers portrayed Callanan as a Monday-morning quarterback of sorts, who - unlike Webb - had the luxuries of hindsight and unlimited time in forming his opinions.
"You didn't have two drunks trying to divert your attention, did you?" defense attorney William Hadden asked him.
"No," Callanan said.
"Didn't have to worry about anyone taking your gun?" Hadden asked.
"That's true," Callanan said.
Webb is on trial charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm in connection with the shooting of Elio Carrion, who was the passenger in a Corvette that led the deputy on a high-speed chase.
The chase ended when the driver, Luis Escobedo, crashed into a wall on Francis Street in Chino. A tape of the shooting made by a resident shows Webb shoot Carrion as Carrion appears to comply with Webb's orders to get up.
Webb's lawyers have argued the shooting was legally justifiable.
They say Carrion did not comply with the deputy's orders to shut up, reached a hand toward Webb's gun, and also reached a hand into his own jacket, as though going for a weapon.
Carrion and Escobedo were legally drunk at the time of the shooting.
Callanan is a retired Los Angeles County sheriff's lieutenant and an expert on police tactics pertaining to the use of deadly force.
Prosecutors called him to testify on Monday to render his opinions on whether Webb's actions were consistent with how other reasonable and objective police officers would have behaved in similar circumstances. He remained on the stand Tuesday as well.
Under the questioning of Deputy District Attorney Lewis Cope, Callanan gave a blistering critique of Webb's actions, slamming the former deputy for everything from his decision to give chase to his demeanor after the shooting.
"I would not see a reasonable officer or an experienced officer shoot under these conditions," he testified Tuesday before the start of his cross-examination.
Hadden barely began his questioning of Callanan before the trial was adjourned for the day.
However, he wasted little time in attacking Callanan's conclusions.
Callanan conceded that he has not personally been involved in a police pursuit or shooting since he retired in 1989.
He also admitted he formed his opinions in the comfort and safety of his office, while Webb had to make life-or-death decisions on a dark street and in the uncertainty and chaos following a high-speed car chase.
Cross-examination of Callanan will continue Thursday, when Webb's trial resumes in San Bernardino Superior Court.
Webb no longer works for the Sheriff's Department. He faces as much as 18 years in prison if convicted.
Carrion survived the shooting and has since returned to the Air Force.
Staff writer Rod Leveque can be reached by e-mail at r_leveque@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-9325.
Following the Webb case
Jan. 29, 2006: Air Force Senior Airman Elio Carrion is shot three times by a sheriff's deputy after a high-speed chase that ends on Francis Street in Chino. The incident is captured on videotape by a nearby resident. The driver, Luis Escobedo, is arrested and booked at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on suspicion of felony evading. Carrion is hospitalized at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton. The deputy, Ivory J. Webb Jr., is placed on paid administrative leave.
Jan. 31: Escobedo is released without being charged. The FBI launches an investigation into possible violations of Carrion's civil rights at the request of the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Sheriff's Department also requests the FBI's assistance to produce an enhanced copy of the videotape.
Feb. 3: Carrion's family demands the arrest of Webb. Carrion is released from Arrowhead Regional Medical Center.
Feb. 10: The Sheriff's Department concludes its investigation into the officer-involved shooting and turns its reports over to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office.
March 5: The District Attorney's Office, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department interview Carrion.
March 7: District Attorney Michael A. Ramos charges Webb with attempted voluntary manslaughter and Escobedo with felony evading and driving while under the influence. Carrion returns home to his family, but continues outpatient physical therapy.
March 8: Webb and Escobedo are arraigned. Both plead not guilty.
July 12: Carrion's attorney files a claim against San Bernardino County asking for unspecified damages for violating his civil rights.
July 19: Carrion receives the commendation medal for his service in Iraq, at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
Aug. 28: A judge orders Webb to stand trial for attempted voluntary manslaughter.
Sept. 11: At his arraignment, prosecutors add a second charge against Webb - claiming the former sheriff's deputy committed assault with a firearm.
Nov. 3: A trial date of Jan. 5 is set for Webb.
Dec. 27: Carrion files a lawsuit against the Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Gary Penrod and Webb.
April 30, 2007: Jury selection begins for Webb's trial in which 400 potential jurors were summoned.
May 29: Opening statements made in Webb's trial.
May 30: Escobedo testifies in the trial.
May 31: Recording of radio traffic from the night of the shooting played in court.
June 4: Carrion testifies that Webb ordered him to get up off the ground, and shot him when he tried to comply.
June 5: Carrion finishes testifying and Jose Luis Valdes takes the stand, saying that he started to tape the incident after he thought he saw Webb kick Carrion.
June 6: Valdes finishes his testimony and his wife, who also witnessed the incident, takes the stand.
Thursday: The first officers who reported to the scene testify Webb told them that Carrion lunged at him.
Monday: An expert in police tactics and training testifies Webb made critical mistakes and didn't follow proper procedures before the shooting.
Tuesday: Webb's attorney cross-examines the expert in police tactics, pointing out that he had the luxuries of hindsight and unlimited time in analyzing Webb's actions.
2007-06-12
Pentagon Confirms Research To Develop A 'Gay Bomb'
Pentagon officials confirmed Friday that they had considered developing a "gay bomb."
Oddly enough, the U.S. military in 1994 sought to create a hormone bomb that might turn enemy soldiers into rampant homosexuals, leading to an orgiastic gang bang.
Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project in Berkeley, Calif., used the federal Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.
As part of a military effort to create nonlethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely nonlethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."
The documents indicate the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.
"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistibly attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents.
"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soldiers would become gay," Hammond said.
The Pentagon told CBS 5 News that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.
"The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing nonlethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who suggested that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly shelved.
Hammond said the government records he obtained indicate the military was keener on the idea than it is now suggesting.
"The truth of the matter is, it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote nonlethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."
Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the idea of a "gay bomb" both offensive and ridiculous.
"Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff Kors of Equality California.
"So, it's just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And it's absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed." (Stewart Who?, Gay.com U.K.)
Oddly enough, the U.S. military in 1994 sought to create a hormone bomb that might turn enemy soldiers into rampant homosexuals, leading to an orgiastic gang bang.
Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project in Berkeley, Calif., used the federal Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.
As part of a military effort to create nonlethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely nonlethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."
The documents indicate the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.
"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistibly attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviewing the documents.
"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soldiers would become gay," Hammond said.
The Pentagon told CBS 5 News that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.
"The Department of Defense is committed to identifying, researching and developing nonlethal weapons that will support our men and women in uniform," said a DOD spokesperson, who suggested that the "gay bomb" idea was quickly shelved.
Hammond said the government records he obtained indicate the military was keener on the idea than it is now suggesting.
"The truth of the matter is, it would have never come to my attention if it was dismissed at the time it was proposed," he said. "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote nonlethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."
Gay community leaders in California said Friday that they found the idea of a "gay bomb" both offensive and ridiculous.
"Throughout history we have had so many brave men and women who are gay and lesbian serving the military with distinction," said Geoff Kors of Equality California.
"So, it's just offensive that they think by turning people gay that the other military would be incapable of doing their job. And it's absurd because there's so much medical data that shows that sexual orientation is immutable and cannot be changed." (Stewart Who?, Gay.com U.K.)
AT&T 'Spy Room' Documents Released, Confirm Wired News' Earlier Publication
By Ryan Singel, June 12, 2007 | 12:43:22 PMCategories: Spooks Gone Wild, Sunshine and Secrecy, Surveillance
kleinsecretroomsmallAT&T agreed to allow large portions of sealed documents that sit at the heart of an anti-spying case against the telecom giant which alleges the company illegally installed secret surveillance rooms in its internet facilities at the behest of the National Security Agency. The case brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in January 2006 relies on documents provided to the group by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician who took three documents home with him when he retired in 2004.
AT&T acceded to the disclosure only after the EFF threatened to ask a federal appeals court to unseal documents that had been published by Wired News and Frontline, which would have forced the company's lawyers into the embarrassing position of arguing that documents available on the internet for more than a year were secret, according to Cindy Cohn, the EFF's legal director.
Those documents, along with a signed declaration from Klein and an interpretation of the documents by internet expert J. Scott Marcus, were kept mostly under wraps by court order that applied to the parties in the case. However, Wired News was able to independently acquire significant portions of the wiring diagrams, equipment list and task orders, and published them in May 2006. Today's newly released portions of the Hepting documents confirm that the Wired documents are the same as those under seal.
The document release comes as AT&T, the EFF and the government prepare to battle in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August, where the government and AT&T seek to overturn lower court order allowing the case to proceed. The government argues that the case must be thrown out since it involves national security matters, while AT&T says it can't defend itself without spilling classified information. Federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last July that the case could proceed because the president admitted the existence of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of Americans' overseas communications.
"Dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security," Walker wrote.
The interpretation of Klein's documents by Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former advisor to the FCC, are the most interesting documents released today.
"This configuration appears to have the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic," Marcus wrote.
AT&T likely has 15 to 20 of these rooms around the country, shipped data out of the rooms via a separate network to another location and collectively, the rooms were able to keep tabs on some 10% of the nation's purely domestic intenret traffic, according to Marcus.
The obvious and natural design for a massive surveillance system for IPO-based data, and the one most cost-effective to implement, would in my judgment be comprised of the following elements: (1) massive data capture at the locations where the data can be tapped, (2) high speed screening and reduction of the captured data at the point of capture in order to identify data of interest, (3) shipment of the data of interest to one or two central collection points for more detailed analysis, and (4) intensive analysis and cross correlation of the data of interest by very powerful processing engines at the central location or locations. The AT&T documents demonstrate that the equipment that is well suited for the first three of these tasks was deployed to San Francisco, and, with high probability, to other locations. I infer that the fourth element also exists at one or more locations.
Cindy Cohn hopes the new documents will let people see that there case is grounded in fact and that the government's argument that national security is at risk is overblown.
"It really paints them in to a corner how unreasonable their claims of state secrets are," Cohn said. "I'm hoping [the document release] demonstrates we are right and know what we are talking about and that we don’t need much more to win our case. We are much claoser than people think."
AT&T did not respond to questions about the quality of Marcus' analysis. Instead a company spokesman re-issued its long-standing, canned statement: "AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers' privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security."
Wired News, which AT&T called a "scofflaw" for publishing the documents, unsuccessfully attempted to get the documents unsealed.
PDF documents: Klein statement released today. Wiring diagrams released today. Marcus declaration released today. Klein documents published by Wired News last year. EFF argument to appeals court.
Reddit It | Digg This | Add to del.icio.us
kleinsecretroomsmallAT&T agreed to allow large portions of sealed documents that sit at the heart of an anti-spying case against the telecom giant which alleges the company illegally installed secret surveillance rooms in its internet facilities at the behest of the National Security Agency. The case brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in January 2006 relies on documents provided to the group by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician who took three documents home with him when he retired in 2004.
AT&T acceded to the disclosure only after the EFF threatened to ask a federal appeals court to unseal documents that had been published by Wired News and Frontline, which would have forced the company's lawyers into the embarrassing position of arguing that documents available on the internet for more than a year were secret, according to Cindy Cohn, the EFF's legal director.
Those documents, along with a signed declaration from Klein and an interpretation of the documents by internet expert J. Scott Marcus, were kept mostly under wraps by court order that applied to the parties in the case. However, Wired News was able to independently acquire significant portions of the wiring diagrams, equipment list and task orders, and published them in May 2006. Today's newly released portions of the Hepting documents confirm that the Wired documents are the same as those under seal.
The document release comes as AT&T, the EFF and the government prepare to battle in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August, where the government and AT&T seek to overturn lower court order allowing the case to proceed. The government argues that the case must be thrown out since it involves national security matters, while AT&T says it can't defend itself without spilling classified information. Federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last July that the case could proceed because the president admitted the existence of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of Americans' overseas communications.
"Dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security," Walker wrote.
The interpretation of Klein's documents by Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former advisor to the FCC, are the most interesting documents released today.
"This configuration appears to have the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic," Marcus wrote.
AT&T likely has 15 to 20 of these rooms around the country, shipped data out of the rooms via a separate network to another location and collectively, the rooms were able to keep tabs on some 10% of the nation's purely domestic intenret traffic, according to Marcus.
The obvious and natural design for a massive surveillance system for IPO-based data, and the one most cost-effective to implement, would in my judgment be comprised of the following elements: (1) massive data capture at the locations where the data can be tapped, (2) high speed screening and reduction of the captured data at the point of capture in order to identify data of interest, (3) shipment of the data of interest to one or two central collection points for more detailed analysis, and (4) intensive analysis and cross correlation of the data of interest by very powerful processing engines at the central location or locations. The AT&T documents demonstrate that the equipment that is well suited for the first three of these tasks was deployed to San Francisco, and, with high probability, to other locations. I infer that the fourth element also exists at one or more locations.
Cindy Cohn hopes the new documents will let people see that there case is grounded in fact and that the government's argument that national security is at risk is overblown.
"It really paints them in to a corner how unreasonable their claims of state secrets are," Cohn said. "I'm hoping [the document release] demonstrates we are right and know what we are talking about and that we don’t need much more to win our case. We are much claoser than people think."
AT&T did not respond to questions about the quality of Marcus' analysis. Instead a company spokesman re-issued its long-standing, canned statement: "AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers' privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security."
Wired News, which AT&T called a "scofflaw" for publishing the documents, unsuccessfully attempted to get the documents unsealed.
PDF documents: Klein statement released today. Wiring diagrams released today. Marcus declaration released today. Klein documents published by Wired News last year. EFF argument to appeals court.
Reddit It | Digg This | Add to del.icio.us
Classified US Intel Budget Revealed Via Powerpoint
Atario writes "In a holdover from the Cold War when the number really did matter to national security, the size of the US national intelligence budget remains one of the government's most closely guarded secrets. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the highest intelligence agency in the country that oversees all federal intelligence agencies, appears to have inadvertently released the keys to that number in an unclassified PowerPoint presentation now posted on the website of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). By reverse engineering the numbers in an underlying data element embedded in the presentation, it seems that the total budget of the 16 US intelligence agencies in fiscal year 2005 was $60 billion, almost 25% higher than previously believed."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
