First DC, Now Portland - Trump Testing How He Can Turn U.S. Into Fascist State If Re-Elected

"So the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to deploy secret police on the streets of an American city to stop uh...graffiti... and some light property damage?  And as part of that mission they apparently need to abduct people? "  - Chris Hayes, last night on 'All In'

"Trump and Chad Wolf are weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with Right wing media."  - Sen. Ron Wyden (last night on 'All In')

"In a flash, 9/11 turned cocky. self-satisfied Americans into a mob of scared school girls. We went screaming to "Daddy" demanding to be kept safe from "terrorists." Spare us the details, we said, and 'just get it done', we demanded." - Steve Pizzo

We've already seen over a month ago how Trump turned D.C. streets near Lafayette Square into a war zone with his goons tear gassing and pummeling peaceful protesters so he could snatch a photo op with bible in hand, e.g.

• Trump's Invocation of the Insurrection Act Ought T...

But that was just a prelude to what we're seeing 6 weeks later in Portland.  Watching the scenes of innocent protesters in that Oregon city being shot and hurled into unmarked cars by Trump's Gestapo forces on 'All In' last night was unsettling to say the least.  It is also clear, as one NY Times columnist surmised, that the (wannabe) Fuhrer is using Portland as a "bellwether" to see how much he can get away with.  My own surmise is that - if it works and there's no challenge or pushback - he will summon all his feral (federal) power to impose a fascist state if he gets re-elected.  Disbelieve this at your own peril, especially if you are remotely considering not voting in November.  This pestilence must be routed and it must be an absolute blowout win - not even close.

Let's recall that not long ago Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to send personnel to protect monuments, statues and federal property during continuing protests against racism and police brutality, the Department of Homeland Security formed “rapid deployment teams.” Those are made up of officers from Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard and Immigration and Customs Enforcement who back up the Federal Protective Service, which is already responsible for protecting federal property.

Videos showing federal agents using tear gas on protesters and complaints that federal agents lacking insignia are pulling people from the streets have raised questions over the legal authority that homeland security officials have to crack down on citizens. In Portland, federal agents have acted against the expressed opposition of the local authorities.

However, officials in Washington said they had clear authority. Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.

But the question remains: Why did they find it necessary to exercise that authority by resort to using unmarked vehicles with armed forces decked out in generic camo uniforms with no insignia?  As Chris Hayes observed last night, this is what "secret police" do  in Banana Republics and other authoritarian states.  Garrett Graff, a historian who studies the Department of Homeland Security’s history and development  pointed out that:  "So broad an interpretation of that authority seems to undermine all the other careful checks and balances on D.H.S.’s power because the officers’ power is effectively limitless and all encompassing.” 

Well, that is the basis of a fascist state, no?  One that removes checks and balances to state power, leaving citizens' rights at the fascists' mercy.  Recall what Winston Smith's authoritarian captor told him in '1984', the Orwell novel.  That the future is "a human face being stomped on by a boot".   That stomping "boot" was Oceania's symbol for its fascist state and one which Trump seeks to emulate if he can get re-elected.  That is why he must be stopped.

Impossible! You say?  Local officials in Portland never consented.  Think again. Under the broad scope of laws and provisions under the Patriot Act the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was committed, even just tagging a building with graffiti. This according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has also sent agents to cities across the United States.  According to Vincent, quoted in the New York Times:


"Homeland security’s authority is so extraordinarily broad that they can find federal laws that they are authorized to enforce across the spectrum.  This is so long as it has some national security, public safety, human trafficking, criminal street gang conspiracy aspect,” 

Again, you can thank our "courageous" lawmakers in their rush to pass legislation after 9/11 that most never properly read.  (With the notable exception of Sen.Russ Feingold, who  was so appalled by the authority granted he said there was no way he could vote  for it.)  But thanks to  the other Senators - mainly cowards - this is what we are saddled with now. And it only took the ascension of one narcissist degenerate with authoritarian ambitions to put us on the cusp of a fascist USA.  Jann Carson, the interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon said:  

"What is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the United States. Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping. The actions of the militarized federal officers are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered.”

Well, I hate to break it to you, but all  that ought to have been challenged when the Patriot law was up for vote by congress.  Now,  as they say, the "horses have already escaped from the barn".  Good luck getting them all back in.  Among the worst sections of the Patriot Act is Sec. 215, described thusly by Jim Sensenbrenner in the Summer  2014 issue of the ACLU's STAND magazine:

"Section 215 was intended to give the government the ability to secure 'any tangible thing' connected to specific terrorism investigations. As is now common knowledge, the Bush and Obama administrations took the limited power Congress intended and went rogue. If we had known during any subsequent re-authorizations what we now know about Section 215's blatant misinterpretation, Congress would have allowed it to sunset."

Read it and consider how its powers have metastasized .  In effect, the surveillance powers of Sec. 215 have since been combined with the "continuity of government" provisions of the Patriot Act by which - under the G.W. Bush regime- political dissent could be equated with treason.   The definition of 'terrorist' was expanded by congress in 2001 to 'domestic terrorist' and "terrorist activity" to include:

"…activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that or a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

This has since been directed by Trump's AG Bill Barr to focus almost entirely on Left wing protesters, such as Antifa.  Bottom line,  combined with dubious executive orders, Trump has all the tools he needs or desires to convert the U.S. into a proto-fascist state,  especially given all his GOP enablers, if he is re-elected. Recall that in a WaPo piece ('Trump Tests Role He's Long Admired: Strong Man', May 31)  we were warned that Trump may just be "tuning up" his autocratic, authoritarian ways for a 2nd term - assuming not enough people cast ballots to get rid of his toxic ass.  We learned he is especially fond of Philippine strong man Rodrigo Duterte's methods, i.e.

"Duterte is already planning to sign legislation to allow his government to classify some political opponents as terrorists, this mere days after Trump claimed he would designate a group of protesters as 'Antifa terrorists'

And let's bear in mind  under Duterte's regime, using squads of violent police vigilantes and hired thugs,  over 8,000 have already been killed or dispatched in other ways, i.e. to remote labor camps.  Make no mistake that having shattered nearly every norm of law and accountability Trump will yearn to do the same if he gets re-elected on account of American voter complacency.   It will literally be "Trump Unchained". 

Those who foolishly doubt such an extreme could manifest:

need to read Robert Payne's 'The Life and Death Of Adolf Hitler' to see how easily a democratic nation (Weimar Germany) can be converted into a fascist state once the machinery of democracy has been used to install the autocrat to achieve it.  As a minority faction of our citizens did in 2016 with Trump.  Incredibly, a similarly deluded (and myopic) segment could again try to shoehorn this scum into office if they truly believe Trump will deliver economic benefits for them.  

But far more terrifying is that Der Fuhrer may be getting warmed up - not for a post re-election fascist state- but a "Reichstag fire" pretext to declare martial law and postpone  elections.  Meanwhile, deploying his storm troopers in cities across the U.S. even as the virus slaughters thousands more of our countrymen.   If Dotard's poll numbers continue to sink don't think this maneuver is off the table. 


See Also:

“Pre-Fascist” No Longer: Armed Trumpist Takeover of US Cities Begins

And:

Dave Lindorff

Watching Constitutionally Protected Freedoms Die in Oregon

And:
Relax! I know I grabbed you off the street, but I’m just a criminal, not a federal agent

And:

• "Liberal Fascism" ? It's An Oxymoron. Trump I...

Prof. Timothy Snyder Warns Of Potential Trump Fascist Coup Attempt In 1 Year

Trump bloviating idiocy in another interview on Monday. Even his aides have been appalled at his nonsense including praising Philippine strongman Duterte.

In a post from two years ago I'd criticized Yale Prof. Timothy Snyder for his book, 'The Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning', e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/10/exposing-holocaust-revisionism-of.html

I took issue with his particular hypothesis of how the holocaust was engendered and cited the works of German journalist Konrad Heiden to show the strong eugenic basis, and pure bloodthirsty motives driven by the Volkisch movement.

However, in his new work he's come through with a timely warning on Donald Trump and an approaching fascist takeover of the country, According to Snyder, in an interview with salon.com: 

"The whole point of my new book, 'On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,' is that we have a century of wisdom and very smart people who confronted situations like our own — but usually more demanding — and that wisdom can be condensed. What my book does is it goes across the arc of regime change, from the beginning to the end, and it provides things ranging from simpler to harder that people can literally do every day."

This is timely, because in that interview Snyder warns we may only have a year before Trump, emboldened by his crazy followers and also the limits of gaining approval from the general population, will try another route. That is, foment a fascist coup using a 9/11  -style incident which may or may not be planned.  Given the extensive parts of the Patriot Act that remain in force, Trump could enact everything from martial law to instant arrest of any protesters - based on any and all forms of protest, from environmental to political. (Those interested in what basis Trump could use need to Google "continuity of government" ASAP.)

Let's also be clear sustaining outrage against Trump and his incessant yapping, tweeting, and BS is not for the faint of heart. The inclination of too many is to turn attention to other matters because as Janice put it, "Your head feels as if it will explode from the sheer volume of crap you're hearing and seeing every day. Of course, she follows the Rachel Maddow show each and every day and her histrionics and rapid, hysterical speech would be enough to have anyone on emotional overdose.  (Truth be told I can only take a little of Maddow at a time, but that's me.)

When pressed on this "outrage deficit"  score by the salon interviewer, Snyder noted that a part of this has to do with  attention span.  In his words:

"It’s not so much a lack of outrage; people are in fact outraged. But in order for a scandal to have political logic, the outrage has to be followed by the research. It has to be followed by the investigation. It has to be followed by an official finding"

And this is not happening because the GOP is in charge of both Houses of congress and they are not too interested in prosecuting Trump on any dereliction. Why would they? He represents their gravy train, their primary vehicle to ram through programs and destroy others (e.g. repeal of Obamacare) - as in aspirations that had given them wet dreams the past 7 years.

So there is never any 'reward' - emotional or psychological - when one even learns of some new aspect of investigation (as Janice constantly learns from Maddow) because it never seems to be followed up. True, former AG sally Yates is to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on 8th May, but what will come of it? Anything? I'm not holding my breath but Janice believes something will finally "break loose" and Trump will be toppled. Don't hold your breath!

Salon's interviewer went on to ask Prof. Snyder:

In your book you discuss the idea that Donald Trump will have his own version of Hitler’s Reichstag fire to expand his power and take full control of the government by declaring a state of emergency. How do you think that would play out?

And he replied:

"Let me make just two points. The first is that I think it’s pretty much inevitable that they will try. The reason I think that is that the conventional ways of being popular are not working out for them. The conventional way to be popular or to be legitimate in this country is to have some policies, to grow your popularity ratings and to win some elections. I don’t think 2018 is looking very good for the Republicans along those conventional lines — not just because the president is historically unpopular. It’s also because neither the White House nor Congress have any policies which the majority of the public like.

This means they could be seduced by the notion of getting into a new rhythm of politics, one that does not depend upon popular policies and electoral cycles. Whether it works or not depends upon whether when something terrible happens to this country, we are aware that the main significance of it is whether or not we are going to be more or less free citizens in the future.

My gut feeling is that Trump and his administration will try and that it won’t work. Not so much because we are so great but because we have a little bit of time to prepare. I also think that there are enough people and enough agencies of the government who have also thought about this and would not necessarily go along."

The above ought to be required reading for every citizen alarmed about Trump's recent moves and concerned over the future path of the nation.  Above all, no citizen should become complacent or reach a saturation point that dismisses further Trump warning signs. Even if you watch 'Rachel Maddow'.  At this point the next interview question perhaps has the most import:

What can citizens do? What would your call to action be?

Whereupon Prof. Snyder answers:

"The thing that matters the most is to realize that in moments like this your actions really do matter. It is ironic but in an authoritarian regime-change situation, the individual matters more than [in] a democracy. In an authoritarian regime change, at the beginning the individual has a special kind of power because the authoritarian regime depends on a certain kind of consent. Which means that if you are conscious of the moment that you are in, you can find the ways not to express your consent and you can also find the little ways to be a barrier. If enough people do that, it really can make a difference — but again only at the beginning.

The last lesson in “On Tyranny” is to be as courageous as you can. Do you actually care enough about freedom that you would take risks? Do individuals actually care about freedom? Think that through. I think if enough of us take the little risks at the beginning, which aren’t really that significant, this will prevent us from having to take bigger risks down the line.

We are still at a stage where protest is not illegal. We’re still at a stage where protest is not lethal. Those are the two big thresholds. We are still on the good side of both of those thresholds and so now is the time you want to pack in as much as you can because you could actually divert things. Once you get into a world where protest is illegal, then the things that I recommend like corporeal politics, getting out on the streets — they have to happen but they are much riskier. It’s a much different kind of decision."

In other words, when the Trump goons start shooting and killing protesters like his hero Duterte is doing, it's time to buckle up and realize the war is on. Call it the "Second American Revolution".

Will Obama Pardon Edward Snowden? Not Bloody Likely!

Neoliberal security fetishists are unlikely to want Edward Snowden pardoned, despite the fact he's performed a public service in exposing surveillance overreach.

Today, with the opening of Oliver Stone's biopic film  'SNOWDEN', props and kudos must go out to The New York Times for its bold editorial calling for Obama to issue an executive pardon.  As the Times puts it, embodying the hopes and desires of civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, Amnesty International and Humans Rights Watch:
------

“Edward J. Snowden, the American who has probably left the biggest mark on public policy debates during the Obama years, is today an outlaw. Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who disclosed to journalists secret documents detailing the United States’ mass surveillance programs, faces potential espionage charges, even though the president has acknowledged the important public debate his revelations provoked.

Mr. Snowden’s whistle-blowing prompted reactions across the government.  Courts found the government wrong to use Section 215 of the Patriot Act to justify mass phone data collection. Congress replaced that law with the USA Freedom Act, improving transparency about government surveillance and limiting government power to collect certain records. The president appointed an independent review board, which produced important reform recommendations.

That’s just in the American government. Newspapers that published Mr. Snowden’s revelations won the Pulitzer Prize. The United Nations issued resolutions on protecting digital privacy and created a mandate to promote the right to privacy. Many technology companies, facing outrage at their apparent complicity in mass surveillance, began providing end-to-end encryption by default. Three years on, the news media still refer to Mr. Snowden and his revelations."
--------------------

This should be a veritable no brainer given it's one case, laced by so much controversy, that it literally calls out for a presidential pardon.  But as the Times also went on to document,  the grievances and retribution mindset of the Neoliberal security statists live on, and they have the memory of a metaphorical elephant.  In Snowden's case, these hard heads (including the two current presidential candidates) focus not on the man's public service but the importance of prosecuting him. Hillary Clinton, who played fast and loose with her emails - putting them on 19 different devices  - had the audacity to say Snowden "needed to face the music". This despite the fact the FBI and Justice Dept. let her off with a slap on the wrist. As for Trump,  this is a guy who - despite receiving a confidential briefing 2 weeks ago -blabbed its content to the frickin media.  All this, even - as the Times observed how  Eric Holder struck  a more measured tone in May, upon leaving office as Mr. Obama’s attorney general. He even acknowledged Snowden had performed a "public service'.

What about Barack Obama? Can he strike a similar tone to Mr. Holder's?  Alas, the man who eight years ago defined "hope and change" has now devolved (evolved?)  to become basically a keeper of the Neoliberal state establishment - and is unlikely to be so gracious.  Meanwhile on Wednesday Snowden thanked supporters who launched a campaign for his pardon and affirmed that for the sake of democracy, future whistleblowers must not be silenced.

Again, this ought to be a no-brainer but to the Neoliberal state and its gate keepers, information keepers, it bears the mark of a treasonous contempt.  The "contempt"  of a genuine citizen who demands transparency from his government and doesn't seek to keep its people in the dark- or to use various rationalizations to spy and catalog their every move. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/between-skeleton-key-and-cog-how-close.html


Speaking by video link from Moscow, where he has been in exile since 2013, Snowden said that while the Founding Fathers created checks and balances to guard against government abuses, “whistleblowers, acting in the public interest, often at great risk to themselves, are another check on those abuses of power, especially through their collaboration with journalists.”


Snowden addresses supporters at video conference.

He said whistleblowing “is democracy’s safeguard of last resort, the one on which we rely when all other checks and balances have failed and the public has no idea what’s going on behind closed doors.”

The 33-year-old addressed a New York City news conference where advocates from the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International announced an online petition drive to urge President Barack Obama to pardon Snowden before he leaves office. The supporters called Snowden a hero for exposing the extent of government surveillance by giving thousands of classified documents to journalists. The documents disclosed the extent of unconstitutional mass surveillance conducted without adherence to the 4th amendment's demand for individual warrants.

Meanwhile, Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi has insisted:

"It is important to remember Mr. Snowden is not a whistleblower. He is accused of leaking classified information, and his actions have inflicted serious harm on our national security."

But, truly, if a citizen - even under contract with the NSA-  reveals the government has committed serious constitutional violations (in this case of the Fourth Amendment) clearly that must be whistle blowing and the violation itself must trump in importance the means used to expose it. Indeed, our Constitution's Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Clearly showing that only individual warrants are acceptable and one cannot have mass warrants issued out of laziness, disrespect for the Constitution or mere expedience and efficiency provided by technology. Moreover, Snowden was ultimately vindicated when a  300-page report     was released last year by a commission appointed by Obama himself .

The very issuance of that report by an Obama-appointed commission, I would argue, shows unimpeachably the whistle blower status of Snowden.

As for Raimondi's claim of "harm to our national security", I would argue that emerged not with the Snowden disclosures but with the egregious use of the Stuxnet computer worm over a year earlier to create havoc with Iran's centrifuges - used in its nuclear program.  Sean McGurk - former head of cyber defense at The Department of Homeland Security, in charge of protecting critical infrastructure in the U.S.  interviewed on a March 4, 2012 '60 Minutes' pointedly remarked:

"You can download the actual source code of Stuxnet now and you can repurpose it and repackage it and then, you know, point it back towards wherever it came from."

And that has undoubtedly been done, as evidenced in the recent DNC hacks as well as others, e.g. of Colin Powell, attributed to "Russians" - but in any case with the aid of a repurposed and redirected Stuxnet code.

Edward Snowden was not responsible for wreaking any of the havoc later caused by Stuxnet's repurposing, and hence is not culpable for any measurable national security harm. The only "harm" was to programs (e.g. PRISM, MUSCULAR, XKeyscore) that never should have been implemented to  begin with, given they trampled on 4th amendment rights.

These facts also should be processed by the misnamed House Intelligence Committee - dominated by fascist Reeptard lackeys-  which sent a strong letter to Obama insisting he not pardon Snowden. But they approved wholeheartedly when Bush Jr. let Luis Posada Carriles have safe haven in Miami ten years ago. Recall Posada Carriles, eg.

was the Venezuelan terrorist who - along with Orlando Bosch - engineered the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 just off Barbados' SW coast on October 6, 1976, killing all 73 innocents aboard, in the worst plane terror act before 9/11.

Posada is still wanted by VZ authorities for his role, as he was ten years ago, when Bush Jr. let him live freely in Miami's "Little Havana"  as the Reepo House Reeptards cheered. So, I'd say they've lost all credibility over any security matters now.

Speaking more cogently after the Snowden video conference was ACLU Executive Directot Anthony Romero, in whose words:

“Cases like Edward Snowden’s are precisely why the presidential pardon power exists, There is widespread consensus that Edward Snowden’s actions catalyzed an unprecedented debate about the proper limits of government surveillance, and his actions resulted in widespread reforms both in law and in technology that protect Americans and individuals across the globe.”

If George Bush Sr. could pardon a terrorist like Orlando Bosch, responsible for planning the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976 - killing all 73 on board- then certainly the least Obama could do is commute the sentence of a man who followed his conscience and constitutional law with respect for the highest moral imperatives.  The question then becomes  whether Obama has the cojones to do it and transcend his fear of wingnut narratives, e.g.  "extending his apology  terror tour" .  He'd also have to dismiss the concerns of dim-witted advisors whispering in his ear about being seen as "weak on national security".  In addition, what would Hillary and her campaign  think if he did it? This,  given she wants Snowden to "face the music" - never mind she won't for her own security failures with her personal email server.

Those imperatives have also made nations and peoples more aware of their rights and the threat of surveillance in violating them. As Naureen Shah, Amnesty International's Director of Human Rights for the U.S. put it:

"I think it's no exaggeration to say this man has changed the world"

Indeed, and for the time being - more people are freer in their web surfing, emailing, Google searching  than they had been before Snowden.  TO lend your voice in support, go to:

www.pardonsnowden.org


See also:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/would-obama-pardon-edward-snowden/500105/

Reform the 'Patriot Act'? Of course!

Now that the federal appeals court ruling has come down that the main NSA surveillance program - based on the Patriot Act  - has been illegal, what should be the reaction of our congress critters? Well, total reform! But instead we see the usual lunatics on the Right saying it must be sustained. Mitch McConnell, not known for being the sharpest knife in the drawer, actually said that had the current  dragnet, mass surveillance program existed back in Sept. 2001 the attacks never would have occurred.

Of course, this is out and out blatant balderdash. But, as usual the 'pukes play on Americans' short term memories of events to exploit new fears. The facts? There was a surfeit of data available at the time that - had the Bushies paid the slightest attention - could have thwarted the attacks.

Nowhere do reepos like Marco Rubio or McConnell mention how FBI agent Coleen Rowley  and her Minneapolis FBI field office  nabbed "20th hijacker" Zaccharias Moussaou  just before 9/11- and detained him.  The Minneapolis FBI office immediately sought a criminal warrant to search his belongings  but were prevented from doing so. Management at the FBI dealing with the request threw up numerous obstacles to the agents, and even withheld information from them, including the now-infamous Phoenix Memo written by an agent in Arizona warning of terrorists training in flight schools for a possible upcoming attack. The request was denied and agents were prevented from searching Moussaoui's laptop, which contained information that would have tipped the FBI off to the 9/11 plot.

So the information was right there, suspect at hand and a critical search in the offing, but it was ignored!  Bush himself stands accused of the most blatant carelessness in not responding proactively  to the President's Daily Briefs (PDBs)  that came his way that August. If one goes to the official 9/11 Commission Report he will find the following, under the section: ‘The System was Blinking Red’

Page 254:

"Each PDB (President's Daily Brief) consists of a series of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics; CIA staff decides which subjects are the most important on any given day. There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. "

On page 255:

"In the spring of 2001, the level of reporting on terrorist threats and planned attacks increased dramatically to its highest level since the millennium alert. At the end of March, the intelligence community disseminated a terrorist threat advisory, indicating a heightened threat of Sunni extremist terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities, personnel, and other interests."

And further (ibid.):

"On March 23, in connection with discussions about possibly reopening Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, Clarke warned National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that domestic or foreign terrorists might use a truck bomb—their “weapon of choice”—on Pennsylvania Avenue. That would result, he said, in the destruction of the West Wing and parts of the residence. He also told her that he thought there were terrorist cells within the United States, including al Qaeda."

Further (ibid.):

"In May 2001, the drumbeat of reporting grew louder with reports to top officials that “Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack” and “Bin Ladin network’s plans advancing.” In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York.

Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using “high explosives.”

Of course, the most sensational Daily Brief of all was that dated August 6, 2001 and headed: Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US . Bush received this while at his Crawford, TX retreat. (He took more vacations than any other president in his first year alone.) And how did Bush respond to this? He gave a quick glance then went to clear some ....bush. But what ought to have made his eyeballs pop out was the short paragraph reading (p. 255-56):

"An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [—] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike."

I also found it interesting to read through the communication exchanges as the hijackings became apparent, especially for American Flt. 11. According to the transcripts in the Report (page 20):

FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here.We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to,we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

The reaction of NEADS (National Emergency Air Defense System), i.e. asking “Is this real world or exercise?” is instructional. Evidently, as came out later, no less than five different military “exercises” were planned and underway, including:

‘Operation Vigilant Guardian’ which simulated hijacked planes in the northeast sector-corridor. This definitely contributed to the confused response on the given day, as evidenced after NORAD received a phone call from Boston Center about a hijacking and Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins responded “It must be part of the exercise”.

Thus delaying critical response to the REAL attacks in NYC.

Then there was ‘Operation Northern Vigilance’ – planned months in advance of 9/11 (tracked to when the peak of terror warnings were being issued in May, as reported by the 9/11 Report) and for which jet fighters were removed from the east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada. Thereby, leaving a security hole at the precise date and region which would be most directly affected

As I learned more about these exercises, and the withdrawal of needed air security, the similarity to what transpired in the days before the Kennedy assassination was striking. Researchers learned only in the wake of that executive action that: 1) The Secret Service detail had been changed in the days leading up to the Dallas motorcade, with an inexperienced agent in Kennedy’s car, while the more experienced guy (Cliff Hill) protected LBJ, and 2) The usual Army security detail from Ft. Sam Houston, TX was removed so their presence was nowhere on Dallas’ streets on Nov. 22, 1963. Ordinarily they’d have had building oversight, ensuring no open windows and have had snipers posted themselves as a counter measure.

Were the 9/11 military exercises, planned in advance as a cover or distraction to make effective air defense response more unlikely? The basic answer is we don’t know, although the extent of withdrawn protection makes one suspicious.

Without wading into the morass of 9/11 conspiracy theories  - most of which I deem improbable - the main  point in context here (re: renewing of full Patriot Act) is there was: a) ample surveillance data present at the time to have stopped the attacks if proper response from authorities was forthcoming, and b) there were likely ample military resources to prevent the attacks had these not been displaced to a location where they became useless.

In effect, if a surfeit of data available then didn't stop the  9/11  attacks it is  logical to assert that vacuuming up massive amounts of data now won't make us any safer either. It will merely increase the 'haystack' in which the critical 'needle' must be found. Hence, we don't need the Patriot Act as it stands and it merely serves as an excuse to undermine civil liberties, nothing more.

As Sen. Ron Wyden put it this morning on MSNBC, citing the President's own Advisory Group  - (made up of "very conservative people with strong national security credentials") said on page 104 of their report:

"Collecting all of these phone records from law-abiding Americans with no connection to wrongdoing does not really advance the cause of fighting terror. That information can be obtained by  conventional means."

To his credit, Sen. Wyden made clear that if the fear mongers seek to go with a "short term extension" he plans to filibuster - unless there are reforms to the bulk collection program. Wyden stated he's "tired of extending a bad law".

Let's also recall that one of the original authors of the Patriot Act, Jim Sensenbrenner, has asserted that Section 215 was never intended to go as far as Bush and Obama have driven it. Writing in the Summer, 2014 issue of the ACLU Stand:

"Section 215 was intended to give the government the ability to secure 'any tangible thing' connected to specific terrorism investigations. As is now common knowledge, the Bush and Obama administrations took the limited power Congress intended and went rogue. If we had known during any subsequent re-authorizations what we now know about Section 215's blatant misinterpretation, Congress would have allowed it to sunset.  And if it's not fixed by the 2015 re-authorization, Congress will.

The basic idea behind the American search and seizure law is that you can't investigate unless you can first provide at least some articulable reason to do so. Investigations just can't be arbitrary. The government's definition, on the other hand, is the very definition of arbitrary. "

Let us hope Congress processes that carefully, before taking any reckless action to approve this egregious law's extension or reinstatement.

Militarized Police is NOT America - Another Reason to Scrap the Patriot Act

Rachel Maddow: Showed the background to violent protests in the Vietnam era and tied them to the current militarization of police forces around the country - including in Ferguson, Missouri.


The scenes from two nights ago could well have come out of Kiev during the fierce March protests, but in this case there weren't even good enough reasons to attack the crowd in Ferguson, Missouri as "enemy combatants". Last night for example, we beheld numerous clips (on Rachel Maddow's show) of cop overreach - what with bringing out armored personnel carriers, and cops in 'turtle' suits with assault weapons at the ready.  Is this the America I know? Not a chance! It more resembled images from 1930s Germany. (Recalling clips  of socialists and Jews beaten, shown to me in 1978 by former Hitler Youth, Kurt.)


Kurt preserved his films from the 1930s and 40s along with many others because he never wanted the world to forget. To forget how easily people can be trapped into accepting fascism and its solutions to social problems.

Last night also, Maddow took us back to the Vietnam protests to show how they became violent after Madison police were called in to clear the Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison campus of protestors in October, 1967. Rather than appeal to community policing as they normally did, they allowed the city's storm troops to just enter and crack heads at will. Many people were actually trying to escape the bedlam but these 'Nazis' blocked their paths and cracked their skulls open. Up until that fascist entry, the Vietnam protests had been relatively peaceful and even troops returning were treated with a modicum of respect. But it all changed after Madison, and ultimately led to the Kent State shooting deaths on May 4, 1970.

At the time I was in the middle of a radio astronomy class at the University of South Florida, when we received word the Admin Bldg. was off limits after it had been firebombed. Kent State and its violence spawned violent protests in hundreds of campuses across the country.

The case of Madison and its fascist reactions, as Maddow pointed out, didn't change until 1970 when it hired a new chief of police, Kenneth Cooper,  who de-militarized the police and began a peaceful and cooperative approach. As opposed to earlier acting like Nazi storm troopers, the city's police now acted as real PEACE officers. In the wake, Madison made up with its citizens and a new era dawned.

In the Ferguson MO case, as Maddow and earlier Chris Hayes also showed, the hyper-fascist militarization could be attributed to a provision of the "Patriot Act" which allows federal grants to purchase surplus  military hardware - including assault weapons, Humvees, small tanks, armored personnel carriers, as well as personal body armor. All could be obtained by local precincts, no matter how small.  Since 9/11, as Chris Hayes noted, $34 BILLION in surplus militarized hardware was dispatched to police, and a half million worth in St. Louis alone.

This is madness, because if cops are untrained and indiscriminate they will be more disposed to use this stuff than not, and hence we saw the armored personnel carriers plying the streets of Ferguson and enraging the protestors two nights ago. Meanwhile, many of the hyper-militarized cops - decked out in their turtle armor - over -reacted.

In one scene from Maddow last night we behold Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery in a restaurant when the turtle suits barged in,  pointed an automatic weapon at him and arrested him. When asked about his ID, Lowery told Maddow that his Washington Post credentials were around his neck and he tried to pack up (including his video recorder) and leave. He said he "just needed a minute", but the armored turtle suits grabbed him by the head and slammed him into the soda machine. According to Lowery: "they grabbed my bag, grabbed my phone and put me in temporary restraints." He was then detained.

Another clip features KSDK reporter Elizabeth Matthews, who related to Maddow:

"They came around to our unit. I was still sitting in the car. I put my hands up because they had their guns drawn at us, going around the corner and trying to figure out who all was there. Obviously, we were media but they still had their guns drawn, yelling that 'we're trying to get you out for your safety', but their guns were drawn."

Hmmmm.....sounds an awful lot like a metaphor for the NSA keeping us "safe" with their surveillance over reach.

In another scene, the turtle suits deliberately targeted a news crew from Al Jazeera America with a tear gas canister. Maddow next shows the turtles (from St. Charles, MO)  disembarking an armored carrier, and calmly begin disassembling the news crews' setup. Obviously, they hated the spot light which showed the fascist behavior.

Maddow, after the clips, declared that what we have seen in Ferguson is "police failure on a huge scale, This is terrible, terrible policing. Terribly conceived and brutally done. The decision to treat this like a military operation is a failure on its own level but the lack of professionalism, the lack of restraint, deliberately going after the media to stop coverage of what they're doing is hard to fathom in its incompetence."

And the scenes attest to that.

Thankfully, as shown by Maddow and by Hayes in earlier news clips, Gov. Jay Nixon took the operations  out of the St. Louis county's cops' hands and turned them over to the Highway Patrol - led by an African -American, Capt. Ronald Johnson. His de-escalation and non-militarized posture (ceasing to treat protestors as enemy combatants)  and methods stand to preserve what peace there is and possibly provide an avenue to mend community relations, though that will be hard.

But we will have to see. In the meantime, we need to press our reps to de-militarize the police around the nation, and that means halting the provision of the Patriot Act which provides military materiel and to precincts nationwide.

Obviously also, in the long term, it means no more unnecessary wars which will leave billions of dollars worth of surplus personnel armored carriers, Humvees, assault weapons, etc. that can be fobbed off on cops -who will then seek to act like military too. (Though interestingly, several military sources affirmed yesterday they'd never have acted the way the Ferguson cops did).

A good sign was the peaceful response of protestors last night, in contrast to 2 nights ago. This was directly due to the less combative pose, with cops no longer in armored turtle suits and no armored carriers plying the streets..

Let's also hope, in the longer term, that law enforcement gets to the bottom of the killing of Michael Brown, the incident which started it all. 

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/57637/local-police-and-much-else-will-be-militarized-as-long-as-federal-government-is

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/will-bunch/57618/theres-a-police-coup-going-on-right-now-in-ferguson-mo

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/57611/in-many-us-communities-cops-are-the-terrorists-police-need-to-be-demilitarized-and-remade-as-peace-of

Stanford Mathematician Calls Out NSA on "Betrayal of Trust"

After having found out in the past week (thanks to a WaPo investigation) that nine of ten ordinary internet account holders were targets of the NSA mass surveillance,  but not the intended surveillance targets,  has justifiably amped up criticism of the super secret agency. Even before this latest incident, voices (including the authors of the Patriot Act). have called out for the NSA to back off and for congress to do something about the overreach.

One of the best recent articles - though not in the mainstream media - appeared in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society (Vol. 61, No. 6, p. 624). Entitled 'The NSA: A Betrayal of Trust - by Keith Devlin of Stanford University - it basically summarized in an articulate and coherent manner why so many of us object to the mass collection called "data mining".  Thus, in his piece, Devlin concentrates on the  indiscriminate  vacuuming up of personal information that Edward Snowden released.

Devlin's own background entailed examining the problem of data mining in depth and whether dragnet surveillance that required  "mass" warrants was really effective and justified. Thus, from early 2002 to 2006, he worked on a Defense Department research project called NIMD (Novel Intelligence from Massive Data, e.g.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Novel_Intelligence_from_Massive_Data

funded by the Advanced Research and Development agency.

Devlin undertook this work under a contract to Veridian Inc. and the project was non-classified (he never sought or had security clearance - but his group was asked not to make public statements about its involvement. He acknowledged at the time he was "happy to go along with it".

Which brings us to why he's now gone into print. According to Devlin (ibid.):

"The only reason I am putting these words down now is the feeling of intense betrayal I suffered when I learned that my government and the leadership of my intelligence community took the work I and others did over many years with a genuine desire to prevent another 9/11 attack, and subverted it in ways that run totally counter to the founding principles of the United States, that cause huge harm to the U.S. economy, and that moreover almost certainly weaken our ability to defend ourselves"

(Devlin goes on to emphasize that "what my words express below is my considered and informed opinion that I never had, nor do I now have, any information beyond what is publicly available." Which is a justified aside to make, given how Obama & Co. have used the 1917  "Espionage Act" against those revealing anything)

Leaving out all the details I will just touch on several of Devlin's most important points and findings:

- The "significant human part" of the decision chain tends to be totally overlooked when intelligence leaders and politicians talk in glowing terms about the massive data processing of huge trawls of information.

- Data mining systems don't identify and take out terrorist groups, people do. And those people require not only accurate information but sufficient meta-information to have confidence in any decision that make. ('Meta-information' is information concerning the quality of the information -or lack thereof)

- The bigger you make the dataset, the wider the information trawl, the more unlikely it will lead to an effective counter measure. (Thus, not only did NIMD fail to meet its goal, but as the data collection grew the more inaccessible the goal became.)

- The methods and tools developed via NIMD could be of real benefit if used in a highly targeted way.  Hence the real NIMD message: Use of the search and analysis methods should be narrow and deep.

- The best way to identify the high likelihood targets is via HUMINT (human intelligence). This is not only the most effective way known but "it does not require breaking laws and trampling on the U.S. Constitution. You get a court order and proceed lawfully, it's supposed to be the American way."

The last is a point I've echoed in multiple blog posts since July last year, to the point it's damned near a refrain. The point is what the NSA has now done, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-there-no-one-prepared-to-collar-nsa.html

has veered into totally Un-American ways, more emblematic of what the Gestapo used during the brief reign of the Third Reich. The American way, by contrast, respects the rights of citizens enshrined in the founding document - the Constitution and specifically, the Bill of Rights.  It doesn't "go rogue" because technology allows facile snatching of data and personal info. Oh, and it doesn't go ape shit nuts and hyper-fascist because a true patriot called the misbegotten methods used out via file release to selected media.

Devlin's most telling statement echoes those I have also repeatedly made, in regard to the extend to which freedom should be compromised for a temporary security:

"Personally, I would not trade freedom in order to prevent terrorist attacks, even if they were more frequent than the current de facto frequency of every ten years or so. If you do that, the terrorists have won."

Indeed, because the 'bad guys' have manipulated the so-called "protectors" to do to us what they could not: gut our civil liberties and make a mockery of American freedom and rights aspirations. This is exactly why the contest between security and liberty must err on the side of the latter, no matter what. NO matter if ISIS poses a big threat to us, or al Qaeda in Yemen comes back strong, or Iran gets a new bomb...or whatever. All of those threats are insignificant to the preservation of American founding principles.

Once we allow the spooks to gut everything, snatch everything they want with bogus warrants under a bogus FISA law,  we will cease to be the nation founded on the Constitution and the one my ancestor Conrad Brumbaugh fought for. We become instead a fascist mutation.

Devlin leaves his most stinging remark for last:

"As things currently stand, I would not collaborate further with any of the U.S. intelligence services. They have betrayed all of us who were glad to do what we could for the benefit of the free world and have used our work to trample over the Fourth Amendment, to do immense harm to U.S. economic competitiveness, to weaken the Internet on which modern society depends, and to expose us to increased danger from our enemies.

I urge all my fellow citizens to make a similar stand."

 Alas, his final statement requires we stand up as truly free citizens, and reject the 'security blankets' offered us by the security state. "Live free or die" - the motto of one of our states (I believe New Hampshire) - should be our personal motto too!

A Day for All Americans to Be More Aware of Their 4th Amendment Rights- And How They've Been Eroded

Above, Edward Snowden receives his ACLU membership card from Anthony Romero, head of the ACLU

As Americans fire up their grills and barbecue pits today, and quaff gallons of beer, one hopes they also give a thought to what the day is really about. Hint: It's not just about entertainment and eats, but also about history.  What was the War of Independence fought over anyway? Do most people today even know? Did they ever study it or track relatives who participated in it?

Fortunately, I hail from a family that's documented much of the associated history. (Which my wife has excavated via ancestry.com and discussions with cousins, other relatives discovered in her genealogical searches)  My great grandmother, Eliza Brumbaugh Stahl,  also had many occasions to regale grandson, Curtis Jr. (my dad), regarding the exploits of ancestor Conrad Brumbaugh - who fought with the Pennsylvania Regiment in the War of Independence. Like many of the colonists, Conrad was enraged by the Stamp Act of 1765 (which imposed stamp taxes on all publications originating in the colonies) but his greatest ire was reserved for the Writs of Assistance. This was one of the outrages in the 1770s that led directly to the Revolutionary War and involved the use of indiscriminate mass warrants.  The British used the Writs to defy and besmirch any concept of the "personal" and smashed into colonists' homes on any pretext- tearing them apart.

By the 1770s the British use of the Writs of Assistance had become widespread and enraged all those affected. As one academic site explained:

"Most notably, the writs allowed officials to enter and ransack private homes without proving probable cause for suspicion, a traditional prerequisite to a search."

The Writs then provided the 'fuel' for the Revolution but the pamphlet 'Common Sense' -  by Thomas Paine, provided the spark to ignite it.  Make no mistake the pamphlet is an unapologetic polemic and I would recommend that readers unfamiliar with it at least read this key chapter:
http://www.bartleby.com/133/3.html

Try to put yourself back in the shoes of the colonists at the time, and imagine how Paine's words would spur them to action.

Now come forward 238 years and look at today's situation. What do you see? How would Conrad Brumbaugh react if informed of the changes in 4th amendment rights since he shed blood for those rights?  In writing the 4th amendment, the framers were motivated more than anything by the excesses of the Writs of Assistance.  This is why they deliberately singled out the need for authorities to obtain specific or individual warrants - mass warrants were anathema. The framers wanted no repeat of the outrages that launched the Revolution.

Yet that is exactly what's transpired! The Writs of Assistance bear perfect analogy to what the NSA is getting away with today using the mass warrants and its PRISM, Xkeyscore and MUSCULAR programs. And who today would be the new Thomas Paine? None other than Edward Snowden! In his recent interview (ACLU Stand, Summer 2014) with Anthony Romero of the ACLU (after being presented with his new ACLU membership card) Snowden was asked what he wanted to come out of all the turmoil and disruption to his life.  Also what he aspired to. He responded:

"My main purpose was simply to allow the average American to understand the policies of his government, that he wasn't asked about. And to allow us, as a civil body, to decide if this was the right thing and the direction we want to continue in.....there's a danger when the government is drafting and implementing policies in the dark, without the input of the voting public. Even the full body of congress wasn't aware of these programs"

Asked then about the relevance of the Fourth amendment today in relation to the past, Snowden answered:

"I think the 21st century Fourth Amendment can actually be the same as the 20th century version, and the 19th century version and the 18th century version because it's written in such clear terms that it doesn't need to be rewritten. It's couched in language like "unreasonable search and seizure", right?  If we have a specific reason - if we have an oath or affirmation that there is probable cause to peel back and intrude upon the civil rights of a target individual. That's the traditional purpose of investigative authorities, whether it's a law enforcement or intelligence investigation.

But the two parts of which we have to keep in the 21st century are not only that unreasonable searches are prohibited - where the NSA can't go in and look at someone's information in the first place unless they have a suspicion for doing so.

It's not reasonable for the NSA to collect every phone call of every American...without  suspicion justifying it."

Co-author of the Patriot Act, Jim Sensenbrenner, supports Snowden's take, pertaining to Sec. 215 enfolded into the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008"  which ratified and expanded the warrantless surveillance program originating under Bush Jr. Sensenbrenner, in the same issue (op. cit. 'I Wrote the Patriot Act - Now Let's Fix It', p. 10) writes:

"Section 215 was intended to give the government the ability to secure "any tangible thing" connected to specific terrorism investigations. As is now common knowledge, the Bush and Obama administrations took the limited power Congress intended and went rogue. If we had known during any subsequent re-authorizations what we now know about Section 215's blatant misinterpretation, Congress would have allowed it to sunset.  And if it's not fixed by the 2015 re-authorization, Congress will.

The basic idea behind the American search and seizure law is that you can't investigate unless you can first provide at least some articulable reason to do so. Investigations just can't be arbitrary. The government's definition, on the other hand, is the very definition of arbitrary. "

Indeed, Snowden's revelations have shown us the extent of the NSA mass surveillance,  the arbitrary use of mass warrants and  discloses a rejection not only of citizens’ fundamental right to privacy but any right to be secure in one’s person, papers, effects.  Conrad Brumbaugh and all of his cohort would be outraged and want to take up arms again if presented with Snowden's findings.  He would assert there's little difference between the current excesses and the British Writs of Assistance.

Incredibly, despite this, the most recent insult is the finding by a recent report — produced by a five-person panel picked by the president  that the Section 702 program was important and "narrowly legal".  This, after the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had more than 100 facts declassified, whereupon board chairman David Medine boasted at a press conference, for its report on NSA’s Internet surveillance program and how it used Section 702 of the "FISA Amendments Act". (Again, which validated the illegal warrantless surveillance of the Bushies)

Before anyone congratulates Medine, let's bear in mind that the PCLOB relied heavily on a report written by NSA’s privacy officer that purported to provide new information; even when NSA released the report in April, however, that report stopped short of reporting all the known details about the 702 program and as such read like a press release. Compounding this 'fox helping the henhouse' meme is the fact that Medine did not say what those newly declassified facts included, but there are a number of footnotes that refer to and describe still-redacted parts of at least one previously released report.   In addition, in recent days, the government has released a transparency report admitting that the government collected 89,138 targets under the Section 702 program, and released a report to Sen. Ron Wyden providing the numbers of “back door searches” various agencies conducted last year.

Anyone paying attention? Americans should be, especially now as the hysteria over the ISIS punks and wannabe jihadists ramps up, and which will likely be used for even more warrantless searches. All done to keep us "safe" of course.

But let's recognize that PCLOB's finding has been limited by the government’s own desire to pretend nothing Snowden released has been released. (Got that?) Given that there’s a copy in the public domain, there’s really little excuse for the government to hide the most current procedures (except, perhaps, to make court challenges to the program more difficult).

"NSA programs narrowly legal?' ROTFL! What discredits the PCLOB report are its claims that both Americans and non-Americans will be protected by a requirement the government tell criminal defendants if it uses Section 702-derived information against them. In fact, the government had never complied with this requirement until last year, simply ignoring that requirement of the law for five years. Worse still, when the ACLU tried to challenge Section 702, DOJ falsely told the Supreme Court it had been "complying with that requirement".  But it still hasn’t corrected that false claim. While true,  the government has started giving a few defendants the required notice, it has not given notice to all known defendants caught using Section 702. In fact, the two people named in its report (and one named in their earlier report) as having been identified using Section 702 never got such notice.

It is public and unclassified information that the government has not complied with a crucial aspect of the law. Not only did PCLOB not consider that non-compliance in its assessment of the program’s legality and constitutionality. But it claimed it had found no instance of deliberate non-compliance. 1984 anyone?  Where is Emmanuel Goldstein and his Newspeak expose when we need him?

It is long past time, given Snowden's revelations, Americans sit up and take notice on how their precious 4th amendment rights have been eaten away, especially on a day dedicated to American Independence.

Are Americans truly independent? Or are they ever more dependent on a metastasizing, national security "Pappy" state to keep them out of harm's way from them nasty jihadists....while their most basic rights become redundant?