Military-Industrial Complex

Oh Shit!!!

Let's explain how the mass torture weapon deployment rollout program works in the global scientific dictatorship. First the weapons are used on brown people in the field by the military, then on military prisoners, then on domestic prisoners. Then on protesters, then on random people. This is all part of a psychological conditioning process, intended in part to induce traumatic conditions in protesters & others. The good news is that when they bring this microwave cannon to the 2012 Democratic & Republican conventions, it can be defeated by tinfoil.

Here was the 60 Minutes segment earlier - *surprise* now it's in prisons. Your insane federal grant programs at work.

Pentagon Tests High-Frequency Ray-Gun On Mock Anti-War Protesters @ Yahoo! Video

L.A. jail tests 'intolerable heat' beam on brawling inmates – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs. Great comment that "When space age death rays are outlawed only outlaws will have space age death rays" on this thread. Also something like a microwave generator w. battery pack could probably work at close ranges.

Officials at a Los Angeles County jail plan to test out an invisible heat-beam weapon originally developed by the military as a way to subdue brawling inmates by making them feel "intolerable heat."

The technology, called an Assault Intervention Device, is a non lethal-weapon developed by Raytheon Company. It originally was scaled down for use at the jail.

The device "emits a focused beam of wave energy that travels at the speed of light and produces an intolerable heating sensation that causes targeted individuals to flee. The sensation immediately ceases when the targeted individual moves away from the beam," according to Raytheon's website.

Deputies have tested the device, which is controlled by a jail officer using a joystick.

"We believe that technology can help solve problems facing the corrections community, including addressing issues of inmate violence," Sheriff Lee Baca said during a news conference. "The Assault Intervention Device appears uniquely suited to address some of the more difficult inmate violence issues without the drawbacks of tools currently available to us."

"This device will allow us to quickly intervene without having to enter the area and without incapacitating or injuring either combatant," Baca added.

Officials say they hope the device can help quell inmate assaults and reduce prison violence. Its use will be monitored by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice and Pennsylvania State University.

The device was installed and is being tested at Pitchess Detention Center at the L.A. County jail in Castaic, California.

That jail was the site of a 200-inmate brawl this weekend in which inmates threw rocks and debris at officers, who were attempting to stop them from entering a restricted area, according to CNN affiliate KTLA.

KTLA reported the brawl lasted for an hour before tear gas and non-lethal weapons were used. CNN is awaiting comment on whether the new Assault Intervention Device was employed during the brawl.

Raytheon Company: Features: Active Denial System //

Active Denial is a revolutionary non-lethal protection system that employs millimeter wave technology to repel individuals without causing injury. The system provides a zone of protection that saves lives, protects assets and minimizes collateral damage. Active Denial emits a focused beam of wave energy that travels at the speed of light and produces an intolerable heating sensation that causes targeted individuals to flee. The sensation immediately ceases when the targeted individual moves away from the beam.

Raytheon has produced and delivered three Active Denial Systems to the U.S. Air Force customer. Raytheon has also built one Silent Guardian™ system that is roughly 1/3 the size and power of the other Active Denial Systems.

Active Denial and Silent Guardian are part of a family of Directed Energy solutions produced by Raytheon. Those solutions include the Vigilant Eagle Airport Protection System, Laser Area Defense System and Direct Infrared Counter Measure Systems.

Active Denial System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: The Active Denial System (ADS) is a less-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military.[1]It is a strong millimeter-wave transmitter primarily used for crowd control (the "goodbye effect"[2]). Some ADS such as HPEM ADS are also used to disable vehicles.[3] Informally, the weapon is also called heat ray.[4] Raytheon is currently marketing a reduced-range version of this technology.[5] The ADS was deployed in 2010 with the United States military in Afghanistan, but was withdrawn without seeing combat.

Pentagon nixes ray gun weapon in Iraq - Democratic Underground // Battlefield Laser Weapons Are Becoming A Reality For Pentagon Planners! - Science and Technology -Research, computers, social science, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, mathematics, AI - Page 2 - City-Data Forum//

Augh to hell with this...

There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of déjà vu. This case, if any, deserves the comprehensive, mature and diverse consideration that an en banc panel can provide. We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania.
--Kozinski Chief LOLcat of the 9th Circuit

Via Chief Judge of 9th Circuit: “1984 here at last,” especially for poor. | Dailycensored.com -

So frequently these authoritarians schemes get one greenlight after another. This dissent nails down a wide variety of problems, from GPS spying to the distinct pattern of only appointing rich people with rich friends to the judiciary. This is a really nice dissent from Chief Judge Kozinski, who is regarded apparently as a bomb-throwing libertarian.

I'll post it in full, because we gotta pay some respect when one of these cats actually earns his paycheck.

******

VIA Laws, Life, and Legal Matters - Court Cases and Legal Information at Leagle.com - All Federal and State Appeals Court Cases in One Search

See also: Judges Divided Over Growing GPS Surveillance - NYTimes.com

U.S. v. PINEDA-MORENO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN PINEDA-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-30385.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed August 12, 2010.

Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, and Charles R. Wolle, Senior District Judge.[1 ]

Order; Dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski, Dissent by Judge Reinhardt.

The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

ORDER

Judges O'Scannlain and N.R. Smith have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Wolle has so recommended.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

Chief Judge KOZINSKI, with whom Judges REINHARDT, WARDLAW, PAEZ and BERZON join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth Amendment accords to the home itself, United States v.Lemus, 596 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc); United Statesv. Black, 482 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc), our court now proceeds to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the home's curtilage and in public. The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last.

The facts are disturbingly simple: Police snuck onto Pineda-Moreno's property in the dead of night and attached a GPS tracking device to the underside of his car. The device continuously recorded the car's location, allowing police to monitor all of Pineda-Moreno's movements without the need for visual surveillance. The panel holds that none of this implicates the Fourth Amendment, even though the government concedes that the car was in the curtilage of Pineda-Moreno's home at the time the police attached the tracking device. The panel twice errs in very significant and dangerous ways.

1. The opinion assumes that Pineda-Moreno's driveway was part of his home's curtilage, yet concludes that Pineda-Moreno had no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Curtilage is a quaint word most people are not familiar with; even among judges and lawyers, the word is seldom well understood. Yet, it stands for a very important concept because it rounds out the constitutional protections accorded an individual when he is at home.

Curtilage comes to us by way of Middle English and traces its roots to the Old French courtillage, roughly meaning court or little yard. In modern times it has come to mean those portions of a homeowner's property so closely associated with the home as to be considered part of it. The walkway leading from the street to the house is probably part of the curtilage, and the stairs from the walkway to the porch almost certainly are, as is the porch where grandma sits and rocks most afternoons and watches strangers pass by. The attached garage on the side of the house is part of the curtilage, and so is the detached shed where dad keeps his shop equipment and mom her gardening tools—so long as it's not too far from the house itself. The front lawn is part of the curtilage, and the driveway and the backyard—if it's not too big, and is properly separated from the open fields beyond the house.

Whether some portion of property—the porch, the stairs, the shed, the yard, the chicken coop—is part of the curtilage is sometimes a disputed question. But once it is determined that something is part of the curtilage, it's entitled to precisely the same Fourth Amendment protections as the home itself. How do we know? Because the Supreme Court has said so repeatedly.

In Oliver v. United States, the Court said as follows:

[O]nly the curtilage . . . warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home. At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the "sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life," and therefore has been considered part of home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, courts have extended Fourth Amendment protection to the curtilage.

466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984) (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)) (emphasis added). Three years later, the Court reiterated the same view in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987):

[In Oliver] we recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects the curtilage of a house and that the extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself.

(Emphasis added). See also Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 231 (1986) (citing Oliver, 466 U.S. at 170). There's no disputing that the Court considers the curtilage to stand on the same footing as the home itself for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

While it can be unclear whether a particular portion of the homeowner's property is part of the curtilage, there's no doubt here because the government concedes that Pineda-Moreno's driveway is a part of his curtilage, and the panel expressly assumes that it is. United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2010). Having made that assumption, Oliver and Dunn require the panel to "treat[ ] [it] as the home itself." Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300. Instead, the panel holds that Pineda-Moreno was required to separately establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage. That— according to Oliver and Dunn—is like requiring the homeowner to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bedroom. We are often reminded that we must follow Supreme Court precedent, see, e.g., Winn v. Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org., 586 F.3d 649, 658-59 (9th Cir. 2009) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc), but the panel here forgets this advice.

The panel does cite California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), but that case undermines its position. Ciraolo held that a homeowner has no reasonable expectation of visual privacy in his property as to activities that might be seen from a low-flying airplane. The activity there in question— cultivation of marijuana—took place in the homeowner's yard, so the Court could have limited its discussion to the curtilage. Instead, Ciraolo quoted a passage from Katz v.United States, 389 US. 347, 361 (1967), to the effect that "a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the `plain view' of outsiders are not `protected' because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited." Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at 215 (quoting Katz,389 U.S. at 361). This passage applies equally to a person's yard as his porch and his bedroom window: If what you do in your home is visible to the public, you have no reasonable expectation that it will remain private. Ciraolo citesOliver and follows its analysis by treating the curtilage and the home as exactly the same for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The panel's rationale for concluding that Pineda-Moreno had no reasonable expectation of privacy is even more worrisome than its disregard of Supreme Court precedent: According to the panel, Pineda-Moreno's driveway was open to the public in that strangers wishing to reach the door of his trailer "to deliver the newspaper or to visit someone would have to go through the driveway to get to the house." Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d at 1215. But there are many parts of a person's property that are accessible to strangers for limited purposes: the mailman is entitled to open the gate and deposit mail in the front door slot; the gas man may come into the yard, go into the basement or look under the house to read the meter; the gardener goes all over the property, climbs trees, opens sheds, turns on the sprinkler and taps into the electrical outlets; the pool man, the cable guy, the telephone repair man, the garbage collector, the newspaper delivery boy (we should be so lucky) come onto the property to deliver their wares, perform maintenance or make repairs. This doesn't mean that we invite neighbors to use the pool, strangers to camp out on the lawn or police to snoop in the garage. See United States v. Hedrick, 922 F.2d 396, 400, 402 (7th Cir. 1991) (Cudahy, J., dissenting).

The panel authorizes police to do not only what invited strangers could, but also uninvited children—in this case crawl under the car to retrieve a ball and tinker with the undercarriage. But there's no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They'll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat and micturate on the azaleas. To say that the police may do on your property what urchins might do spells the end of Fourth Amendment protections for most people's curtilage.

The very rich will still be able to protect their privacy with the aid of electric gates, tall fences, security booths, remote cameras, motion sensors and roving patrols, but the vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling. Open driveways, unenclosed porches, basement doors left unlocked, back doors left ajar, yard gates left unlatched, garage doors that don't quite close, ladders propped up under an open window will all be considered invitations for police to sneak in on the theory that a neighborhood child might, in which case, the homeowner "would have no grounds to complain." Id.

There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist: No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter. Judges, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex, are selected from the class of people who don't live in trailers or urban ghettos. The everyday problems of people who live in poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that's not how we and our friends live. Yet poor people are entitled to privacy, even if they can't afford all the gadgets of the wealthy for ensuring it. Whatever else one may say about Pineda-Moreno, it's perfectly clear that he did not expect— and certainly did not consent—to have strangers prowl his property in the middle of the night and attach electronic tracking devices to the underside of his car. No one does.

When you glide your BMW into your underground garage or behind an electric gate, you don't need to worry that somebody might attach a tracking device to it while you sleep. But the Constitution doesn't prefer the rich over the poor; the man who parks his car next to his trailer is entitled to the same privacy and peace of mind as the man whose urban fortress is guarded by the Bel Air Patrol. The panel's breezy opinion is troubling on a number of grounds, not least among them its unselfconscious cultural elitism.

2. After concluding that entering onto Pineda-Moreno's property and attaching a tracking device to his car required no warrant, probable cause, founded suspicion or by-your-leave from the homeowner, the panel holds that downloading the data from the GPS device, which gave police the precise locus of all of Pineda-Moreno's movements, also was not a search, and so police can do it to anybody, anytime they feel like it. Contra United Statesv. Maynard, No. 08-3030, slip op. at 19 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 6, 2010). Our panel relies on United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), a case from the early 1980s, which involved very different technology.

The Knotts Court refers to the device used there as a "beeper" and describes it as "a radio transmitter, usually battery operated, which emits periodic signals that can be picked up by a radio receiver." Id. at 277. The beeper helped police follow a vehicle by emitting a signal that got stronger the closer the police were to it. The Court considered the beeper to be an aid to following a vehicle through traffic: "The governmental surveillance conducted by means of the beeper in this case amounted principally to the following of an automobile on public streets and highways." Id. at 281. Individuals traveling on streets and highways can be seen by the public, so they have no reasonable expectation that they won't be followed. The beeper helped the police follow the suspect more effectively—the way binoculars enhance the ability to see what is otherwise visible. But the beeper could perform no tracking on its own, nor could it record its location. If no one was close enough to pick up the signal, it was lost forever.

The electronic tracking devices used by the police in this case have little in common with the primitive devices inKnotts. One of the devices here used GPS satellites to pinpoint the car's location on a continuing basis—much like the electronic maps that are now popular in cars. The other type of device was, essentially, a cell phone that tracked the car's movements by its proximity to particular cell towers.

Beepers could help police keep vehicles in view when following them, or find them when they lost sight of them, but they still required at least one officer—and usually many more—to follow the suspect. The modern devices used in Pineda-Moreno's case can record the car's movements without human intervention—quietly, invisibly, with uncanny precision. A small law enforcement team can deploy a dozen, a hundred, a thousand such devices and keep track of their various movements by computer, with far less effort than was previously needed to follow a single vehicle. The devices create a permanent electronic record that can be compared, contrasted and coordinated to deduce all manner of private information about individuals. By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives.

The Supreme Court has recognized that advances in "police technology [can] erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment." Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001). To guard against this, courts "must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward." Id. at 40. Kyllo followed a line of cases going back to United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984), Katz, 389 U.S. at 353, and Silverman v. United States,365 U.S. 505, 512 (1961), which stemmed the erosion of personal privacy wrought by technological advances.

In Kyllo, the Court held that use of a thermal imager to detect the heat emanating from defendant's home was a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because the then-new technology enabled police to detect what was going on inside the home—activities the homeowner was entitled to consider private. Any other conclusion, the Court noted, "would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology—including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home." Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 35-36 (citing Karo, 468 U.S. at 705). "While the technology used in the present case was relatively crude," the Court continued, "the rule we adopt must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development." Id. at 36. In determining whether the tracking devices used in PinedaMoreno's case violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of personal privacy, we may not shut our eyes to the fact that they are just advance ripples to a tidal wave of technological assaults on our privacy.

If you have a cell phone in your pocket, then the government can watch you. Michael Isikoff, The Snitch in Your Pocket, Newsweek, Mar. 1, 2010, available at http:// www.newsweek.com/id/233916. At the government's request, the phone company will send out a signal to any cell phone connected to its network, and give the police its location. Last year, law enforcement agents pinged users of just one service provider—Sprint—over eight million times. SeeChristopher Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight, Slight Paranoia (Dec. 1, 2009) http://paranoia/dubfire. net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html. The volume of requests grew so large that the 110-member electronic surveillance team couldn't keep up, so Sprint automated the process by developing a web interface that gives agents direct access to users' location data. Id. Other cell phone service providers are not as forthcoming about this practice, so we can only guess how many millions of their customers get pinged by the police every year. See Justin Scheck, Stalkers Exploit Cellphone GPS, Wall St. J., Aug. 5, 2010, at A1, A14 (identifying AT&T and Verizon as providing "law-enforcement[ ] easy access to such data").

Use LoJack or OnStar? Someone's watching you too. E.g., OnStar Stolen Vehicle Assistance, http://www.onstar.com/ us_english/jsp/plans/sva.jsp (last visited July 17, 2010). And it's not just live tracking anymore. Private companies are starting to save location information to build databases that allow for hyper-targeted advertising. E.g., Andrew Heining, What's So Bad About the Google Street View Data Flap?, Christian Sci. Monitor, May 15, 2010, available at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0515/What-s-sobad-about-the-Google-Street-View-data-flap. Companies are amassing huge, ready-made databases of where we've all been. If, as the panel holds, we have no privacy interest in where we go, then the government can mine these databases without a warrant, indeed without any suspicion whatsoever.

By tracking and recording the movements of millions of individuals the government can use computers to detect patterns and develop suspicions. It can also learn a great deal about us because where we go says much about who we are. Are Winston and Julia's cell phones together near a hotel a bit too often? Was Syme's OnStar near an STD clinic? Were Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford at that protest outside the White House? The FBI need no longer deploy agents to infiltrate groups it considers subversive; it can figure out where the groups hold meetings and ask the phone company for a list of cell phones near those locations.

The panel holds that the government can obtain this information without implicating the Fourth Amendment because an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements through public spaces where he might be observed by an actual or hypothetical observer. But that's quite a leap from what the Supreme Court actually held inKnotts, which is that you have no expectation of privacy as against police who are conducting visual surveillance, albeit "augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancements as science and technology afford[s] them." 460 U.S. at 282.

You can preserve your anonymity from prying eyes, even in public, by traveling at night, through heavy traffic, in crowds, by using a circuitous route, disguising your appearance, passing in and out of buildings and being careful not to be followed. But there's no hiding from the all-seeing network of GPS satellites that hover overhead, which never sleep, never blink, never get confused and never lose attention. Nor is there respite from the dense network of cell towers that honeycomb the inhabited United States. Acting together these two technologies alone can provide law enforcement with a swift, efficient, silent, invisible and cheap way of tracking the movements of virtually anyone and everyone they choose. See, e.g., GPS Mini Tracker with Cell Phone Assist Tracker, http://www.spyville.com/passive-gps.html (last visited July 17, 2010). Most targets won't know they need to disguise their movements or turn off their cell phones because they'll have no reason to suspect that Big Brother is watching them.

The Supreme Court in Knotts expressly left open whether "twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country" by means of "dragnet-type law enforcement practices" violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of personal privacy. 460 U.S. at 283-84. When requests for cell phone location information have become so numerous that the telephone company must develop a self-service website so that law enforcement agents can retrieve user data from the comfort of their desks, we can safely say that "such dragnet-type law enforcement practices" are already in use. This is precisely the wrong time for a court covering one-fifth of the country's population to say that the Fourth Amendment has no role to play in mediating the voracious appetites of law enforcement. But see Maynard, slip op. at 19.

* * *

I don't think that most people in the United States would agree with the panel that someone who leaves his car parked in his driveway outside the door of his home invites people to crawl under it and attach a device that will track the vehicle's every movement and transmit that information to total strangers. There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of déjà vu. This case, if any, deserves the comprehensive, mature and diverse consideration that an en banc panel can provide. We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

I concur in Chief Judge Kozinski's dissent.

I have served on this court for nearly three decades. I regret that over that time the courts have gradually but deliberately reduced the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the point at which it scarcely resembles the robust guarantor of our constitutional rights we knew when I joined the bench. See Fisher v. City of San Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1089 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Ankeny, 502 F.3d 829, 841 (9th Cir. 2007) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Crapser, 472 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1074 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting);United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 842 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Hudson, 100 F.3d 1409, 1421 (9th Cir. 1996) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); Acton v. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J, 66 F.3d 217, 218 (9th Cir. 1995) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir. 1995) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting);United States v. Alvarez, 899 F.2d 833, 840 (9th Cir. 1990) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Flores, 679 F.2d 173, 178 (9th Cir. 1982) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting).

These decisions have curtailed the "right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures" not only in our homes and surrounding curtilage, but also in our vehicles, computers, telephones, and bodies — all the way down to our bodily fluids and DNA.

Today's decision is but one more step down the gloomy path the current Judiciary has chosen to follow with regard to the liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment. Sadly, I predict that there will be many more such decisions to come.

I dissent.

Well this is grim! The ACIC or Army Counterintelligence Center published in March 2008 a National Security Information Special Report, under the auspices of the Department of Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP). Michael D Horvath of the Cyver Counterintelligence Assessments Branch does not really believe or understand the First Amendment, apparently, and his mind must be a spooky place. It was a HQ Department of Army Production Requirement C764-97-0005 and ACIC Product ID Number is RB08-0617.

This document indicates that the Pentagon is pretty dangerous. But what else is new?

Source: U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008

U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks release: March 15, 2010

keywords: WikiLeaks, U.S. intelligence, U.S. Army, National Ground Intelligence Center, NGIC, classified, SECRET,

NOFORN

restraint: Classified SECRET/NOFORN (US)

title: Wikileaks.org - An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?

date: March 18, 2008

group: United States Army Counterintelligence Center, Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch; Department

of Defence Intelligence Analysis Program

author: Michael D. Horvath

link: http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

pages: 32

Description

By Julian Assange (julian@wikileaks.org)

This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.

“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing

sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize

the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the

insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends “The identification, exposure, termination of employment,

criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage

or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site”.

[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan

was ineffective]. As an odd justificaton for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China,

Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website”.

The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment

expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the

Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of

inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of

intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks.

(U) Wikileaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign

Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?

NGIC-2381-0617-08

Information Cutoff Date: 28 February 2008

Publication Date: 18 March 2008

National Security Information

Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions

Derived from: Multiple sources

Declassify on: Source documents marked 25X1

Date of source: 20060725

This Counterintelligence Analysis Report is published under the auspices of the Department of

Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP).

Prepared by:

Michael D. Horvath

Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch

Army Counterintelligence Center

External Coordination: National Ground Intelligence Center[1]

This product responds to HQ, Department of Army, production requirement C764-97-0005.

ACIC Product Identification Number is RB08-0617.

(U) Purpose

(U) This special report assesses the counterintelligence threat posed to the US Army by the

Wikileaks.org Web site.

SECRET//NOFORN

SECRET//NOFORN

Page 2 of 32

(U) Executive Summary

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force

protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security

(INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US

Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to

DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified

DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by

a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or

organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet. Such information could be of

value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign

insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against

US force, both within the United States and abroad.

(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US

government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot

be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ―leakers‖ or ―whistleblowers‖ of sensitive or

classified DoD documents are former US government employees. These claims are highly

suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or

whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and

providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory

information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect

the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information. On the other hand, one

cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be

inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with

limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.

(U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal

behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, the

former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the

Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or

whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other

information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations. The

developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign

government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic,

oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2]

(S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial

review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons

accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information

posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org

Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,

and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to

convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3]

(U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government

and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other

countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of

information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and

open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs

any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business

information. Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face

legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified

government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false,

slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature. For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the

United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing

of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax

evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against

Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site

was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and

organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows

the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front

organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4]

(S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and

several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have

the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted

they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious

content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to

remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting

of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these

countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5]

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and

whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the

Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of

employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers

could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make

such information public.

(U) Key Judgments

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence,

OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.

(S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide

FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially

actionable information for targeting US forces.

(S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the

US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot

be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees

leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since

Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its

primary goals.

(U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,

misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception

management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to

specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.

(U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and

claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers

or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information,

propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.

(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information

in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.

(U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting

the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification,

exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current

or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this

center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the

Wikileaks.org Web site.

(U) Table of Contents

(U) Purpose

(U) Executive Summary

(U) Key Judgments

(U) Background

(U) Discussion

(U) Intelligence Gaps

(U) Conclusions

(U) Point of Contact

(U) References

(U) Appendix A: Glossary

(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis of Leaked Tables of

Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan

(U) Tables

(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216) Table of

Equipment (TOE)

(U) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by Wikileaks.org for

the NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004‖

[NGIC-1127-7138-06] posted on its Web site

(U) Figures

(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser

(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex

Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004‖ As Published in a Wikileaks.org Article.

(U) Background

(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and

technologists from the United States, China, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Its

Web site became operational in early 2007. The advisory board for Wikileaks.org includes

journalists, cryptographers, a ―former US intelligence analyst,‖ and expatriates from Chinese,

Russian, and Tibetan refugee communities. The ACIC does not have any information to

associate or link the ―former US intelligence analyst‖ on the Wikileaks.org advisory board with

the leakage of sensitive or classified DoD documents posted to the Web site.[6]

(U) Wikileaks.org claims to have developed an uncensorable version of the publicly available

Wikipedia interface that is intended for mass leakage of sensitive documents that expose

wrongdoing and for allowing users to comment on the documents posted to the Web site.

Through its Web site, Wikileaks.org encourages large-scale anonymous leaking and posting of

sensitive and confidential government and business documents on the Internet. Wikileaks.org

claims to have received more than 1.2 million documents from dissident communities and

anonymous sources throughout the world. If true, additional articles involving sensitive or

classified DoD will most likely be posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site in the future.[7]

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses its own coded software combined with Wiki, MediaWiki, OpenSSL,

FreeNet, TOR, and PGP to make it difficult for foreign governments, FISS, law enforcement

agencies, and foreign businesses to determine where a leaked document originated from and who

was responsible for leaking the document. The goal of Wikileaks.org is to ensure that leaked

information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations, and individual users because

once a leaked document is placed on the Internet it is extremely difficult to remove the document

entirely.[8]

(S//NF) The obscurification technology[9] used by Wikileaks.org has exploitable vulnerabilities.

Organizations with properly trained cyber technicians, the proper equipment, and the proper

technical software could most likely conduct computer network exploitation (CNE) operations or

use cyber tradecraft to obtain access to Wikileaks.org‘s Web site, information systems, or

networks that may assist in identifying those persons supplying the data and the means by which

they transmitted the data to Wikileaks.org. Forensic analysis of DoD unclassified and classified

networks may reveal the location of the information systems used to download the leaked

documents. The metadata, MD5 hash marks, and other unique identifying information within

digital documents may assist in identifying the parties responsible for leaking the information. In

addition, patterns involving the types of leaked information, classification levels of the leaked

information, development of psychological profiles, and inadvertent attribution of an insider

through poor OPSEC could also assist in the identification of insiders.

(U) Wikileaks.org supports the US Supreme Court ruling regarding the unauthorized release of

the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, which stated that ―only a free and unrestrained press can

effectively expose deception in government.‖ The Wikileaks.org Web site further states the

following:

―We aim for maximum political impact. We believe that transparency in

government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government, and

stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the

world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires

information. Historically that information has been costly—in terms of human life

and human rights. But with technological advances—the Internet, and

cryptography—the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.‖[10]

(U) The OPSEC measures used in the submission of leaked information to Wikileaks using the

Internet are designed to protect the identity and personal security of the persons or entities

sending or posting information to the Web site. Wikileaks.org claims that any attempt at trace

routing of IP addresses, MAC addresses, and other identifying information of a home computer

submissions (as opposed to cyber café submissions) through Wikileaks.org‘s Internet submission

system would require a knowledge of information available only to Wikileaks.org programmers

and to a rights organization serving the electronic community, or would require specialized

ubiquitous traffic analysis of Internet messages and routing systems. Nevertheless, it remains

technically feasible for FISS, law enforcement organizations, and foreign businesses that have

the motivation, intentions, capability, and opportunity to gain online access or physical access to

Wikileaks.org information systems to identify and trace whistleblowers through cyber

investigations, advanced cyber tools, and forensics.[11]

(U) Another method of posting leaked information to the Web site anonymously is for leakers to

use postal mail to send the information to volunteers in various countries who have agreed to

receive encrypted CDs and DVDs from leakers. These volunteers then forward the information

to designated personnel, who then upload the data on the CDs and DVDs to the Wikileaks.org

Web servers. To protect or mask the sender, leakers can take OPSEC measures such as using

Wikileaks.org encryption protocols when writing CDs and DVDs; using gloves while wrapping,

taping, handling, and mailing packages; and not including a return address or including a fake

return address on packages containing leaked information. Such measures are designed to protect

the identity of the leakers and prevent FISS, law enforcement, and postal inspectors from

intercepting the mail and decoding the information on the data storage devices in transit.

Wikileaks.org also claims that it is developing easy-to-use software to encrypt the CDs and

DVDs. Use of such methods also protects facilitators or intermediaries from harm because they

would not know the content of the encrypted submissions.[12]

(U) A Wikileaks.org spokesperson stated in early January 2007 that about 22 persons are

involved in the Open Society Initiative to make governments and corporations more accountable

to the citizens of the world. Wikileaks intends to seek funding from individual persons and

groups such as humanitarian organizations that fund sociopolitical activity intended to promote

democracy and human rights around the world through open access to government and business

information.[13]

(S//NF) Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and

Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site to prevent citizens

or adversaries from accessing sensitive information, embarrassing information, or alleged

propaganda. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia have asserted that they have a right to

remove from the Internet protected government information, disinformation, and propaganda that

is intended to embarrass or make false allegations against their governments. China, Israel, North

Korea, and Russia are assessed to have state-sponsored CNE, computer network attack (CNA),

and cyber forensics capabilities that would most likely allow penetration or disrupt viewing of

the Wikileaks.org Web site. China, Israel, and Russia have used or are suspected of having used

CNA to target terrorist or dissident Web sites that have posted objectionable material intended to

embarrass, harm, or encourage terrorism or opposition to the government.[14]

(U) Discussion

(U//FOUO) An insider could present a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, or

INFOSEC threat to the US Army through deliberate unauthorized release of official DoD

documents and posting of sensitive or classified information to the Internet. Several recent

postings to the Wikileaks.org Web site in November 2007 of sensitive US Army information

marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and in December 2007 of US Army

information classified SECRET//NOFORN highlight the insider threat to DoD. The actual

perpetrators responsible for the unauthorized released of such documents could be subject to

administrative action, nonjudicial punishment, or criminal charges and prosecution if they are

identified.

Next time at the airport:

"resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand".....

But first, Crush the Bloggers with Fake Tweets!!!

"Sent Blog Message to entice M... [?] to respond"

--Randomly found TSA investigator notebook re manipulating Twitter!

"TSA takes any breach in security very seriously. In light of the posting of sensitive security information on the web, TSA sought to identify where the information came from. The investigation is nearing a successful conclusion and the subpoenas are no longer in effect.

"In addition, a TSA investigator accidentally dropped a notebook, his personal property, in a public area. The notebook did not contain any sensitive security information; however, TSA will continue to review the incident."

I can't even believe this shit. These people are nuts - and supposed to keep the planes safe?!?!?!

Did TSA post honeypot tweet to catch security directive leaker, using blogger's account? [BoingBoing]

TSA Agent Who Harassed Blogger Drops His Notebook (and the ball)

Scoop: TSA confirms agent misplaced notebook
*****Also those Terahertz-band scanners would destroy the shit out of your DNA, somehow terahertz radiation in the new airport scanners would literally cause your DNA to "bubble". Of course Chertoff is fear-baiting as a consultant to a company hawking these toxic new scanner machines.

Terahertz Scanner Waves Damage DNA:

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. “Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none,” say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they’ve found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That’s a jaw dropping conclusion.

And it also explains why the evidence has been so hard to garner. Ordinary resonant effects are not powerful enough to do do this kind of damage but nonlinear resonances can. These nonlinear instabilities are much less likely to form which explains why the character of THz genotoxic
effects are probabilistic rather than deterministic, say the team.

Stimulus to Bring Body Scanners to Airports****

FDL: As a special bonus, Dorgan is going after Bernanke!

DORGAN: Well, this is going to be one of the big issues right at the start of this session, is financial reform. And Wall Street’s right back in the same old swamp, doing the same things. And with respect to the Federal Reserve Board, you know for the first time in history they said to the big investment banks, you can come and get direct lending from the Federal Reserve Board. We’re trying to find out from the Fed, who’d you give the money to, how much money did you give? My point is, what did you do with our money? And the Federal Reserve Board says “none of your business.” Well, I tell you what, it is our business, and I’m not going to let the Bernanke nomination to head the Fed for another term go through until he tells, what did he do with our money, the American people’s money? So we’ve got a lot of things to work on here, and as I’ve said before, if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big, in my judgment. Because that’s no-fault capitalism, and we shouldn’t continue with it.

see also more hilarity from the good ol days of 08.

Geithner’s New York Fed Told AIG to Limit Swaps DisclosureTalk about epic - the scans of the letters are amazing. Can you say banner image?!

In this season of thanks, we can always give thanks for leaks and lols. I really hate Secret Treaties. Secret Treaties Suck!!! Especially absurd copyright treaties.

The FDIC Is Broke - The Market Ticker. Oh noes! A coverup is needed immediately says Mishkin!

A hell of a story: Noted FBI provocateur Brandon Darby and a bullshit Grand Jury and some snarky emails. Epic trolling, the Feds being dumb, and a huge amount of taxpayer dollars wasted. "These days will eventually end and will be seen as the modern McCarthy era for the next generation." Amazing!

Climate Email explosion still a LOL: In a nutshell, Project Mayhem spells it out: Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud, or rather, at a minimum a lot of people are being very shady, now caught with hands inthe ol cookie jar. Goldman Sachs 666 notes the skrilla to be made by these guys. Al Gore “laying low” in Canada. Get a sunspot widget @ Widget « Watts Up With That?

The funniest part is the comments in the FORTRAN code, of course!! GO FORTRAN CLIMATE CONSPIRACY. [UPDATE: A great Reddit thread on the code ] CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story « Watts Up With That?

Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over

Debt explosion: even the NYT is worried about government debt. AKA the avalanche.

Facebook spying against beer!! And in LaCrosse no less!! Facebook friend turns into Big Brother

Librarian win: Library is pressed to take gang force report off Web | StarTribune.com - but they won't!! Legislative Reference Library rocks.

MOAR secrecy: New Executive Order Aims to Avoid Declass Deadline | Secrecy News. UK genetic data mining insanity and DNA sampling!! YUCK.

Misc file: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is cool.

Wobblies in Palestine!

A Proposal For Goldman Sachs: Pay Down $21.2 Billion In TLGP Borrowings Using Your $20 Billion+ Bonus Accrual | zero hedge

Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post | Home of the Irate Minority is cooking up the goodz.

Priceless photos of JFK, Bush found under Fort Worth bridge.

Investigative journos' Book looks good: but the page is inside some app. Weird.

Techs: HOW TO: Make Social Media Work for Non-Consumer Brands and Mashable jobs too. ALso 5 Important Tips for Successful Web Meetings.RIP Joost

Murdoch to go away. Nice!!!Murdoch: Take Your Google Ball and Go Home.l After Being Out Foxed On The Web, MySpace May Do An About Face(book) | Nifty: Trefis Makes Understanding Stock Prices Easy.

A random video on Freemasons. If that's your thing.

Unbelievably horrible acid burns against women in Pakistan. This is the most awful thing ever pretty much, very graphic disturbing & kudos for the people involved in documenting it.

Weak: Obama Plans 34K More Troops for Afghanistan -- News from Antiwar.com AND t r u t h o u t | McChrystal Testing the Limits

Minneapolis IRV: Via e-democracy fora: Some pitch saying Instant Runoff (aka Ranked Choice Voting 'cause it sure ain't instant) should get chucked out but others don't buy it. The MN Supreme Court was pretty clear... [Also, Guardian Angels on the Greenway with their weird Masonic iconography?]

Wicked Chicago cops busted but you don't know who they are? Because why should anyone find out? 2 Chicago officers punished after G-20 photo probe - KRDO.com

CHICAGO (AP) - A Chicago police spokesman says two high-ranking officers have been reprimanded after a video surfaced that showed officers posing with a handcuffed suspect at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh.

Police began investigating after video of the September incident began circulating on the Internet. In the video, more than a dozen officers in riot gear pose for a photo with the suspect kneeling in front of them.

Police spokesman Roderick Drew said Tuesday that a department chief and a commander were reprimanded. He declined to identify the officers or say how or why they were punished.

A lawyer for the detained man, a 21-year-old university student, has said his client was wrongly detained while returning to campus from a pizza parlor.

Modestly amusing: My Glenn Beck Pie Toss Flop | Mobile Broadcast News

Student uprisings in California and elsewhere: It was interesting to follow what is happening in CA with a 30%+ hike in costs sparking unrest on many campuses. This essay was pretty good in reflecting on how stylish New York City (white) anarchists must be at all times - and the exclusionary identities therein. Inside the UC Occupations Guerilla Film Screening: Everything Belongs to Everybody : Indybay.

Stuff in Greece got blowed up - a lot is going on there too, see Antiauthoritarian Movement :: Gallery :: Εκρηκτικός μηχανισμός στην ΑΚ
MOAR: Local crazies! Today I came face to face with a Rush Limbaugh fan who had stepped over the edge - Democratic Underground

Cancer is a racket? Hell I don't know but YouTube - G Edward Griffin, World without Cancer part 1 of 6 and Cancer Home Page. Earlier, a popular post on hongpong: Canadian discovers hemp oil cures cancer... hoax or another typical moment in the pharma-industrial-death complex?
Why do greasy Republicans think they are having a revolution? Right wing gatekeeper revolutionary vanguardism is narsty. Patty pat!
CBS is going all stoner: Mom: Marijuana Helps My Son's Autism - The Early Show - CBS News