The American Bear

› The decomposition of American democracy | Tom Carter

This flew in under the radar - the DoD put a new rule into effect on May 13th of this year, seemingly in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. No matter (cuz terror). A summary:

… Pursuant to military regulations already in place, the military is authorized to deploy itself within the US to suppress “civil disturbances” and “provide for the restoration of law and order in a specific State or locality.” The regulations define a civil disturbance as “[g]roup acts of violence and disorder prejudicial to public law and order.”

These regulations state that the military may be deployed within the US where “[d]uly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection…” In other words, the military expressly asserts the power to intervene with force and violence to put down what it has determined to be an unacceptable “civil disturbance,” including over the opposition of civilian federal, state or local agencies. The regulations even authorize military action in response to “large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” where “prior authorization by the President is impossible.”

“Civil disturbance” is intentionally vague, of course - no need to clarify whether that protest you’re planning is included. Better not to protest anything at all, right?

› Couple Refuses To Allow Police To Enter Home Without Warrant . . . Police Kick Down Door and Taser Couple | Jonathan Turley

› Google’s Spymasters Are Now Worried About Your Secrets

A recent article in The Wall Street Journal by Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, “The Dark Side of the Digital Revolution,” makes for very scary reading. It is not so much because of what he and co-author Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, have to say about how dictators can use new information technology to suppress dissent; we know those guys are evil. What is truly frightening is that the techniques of the totalitarian state are the same ones pioneered by so-called democracies where commercial companies, like Google, have made a hash of the individual’s constitutionally guaranteed right to be secure in his or her private space.

The dictators, mired in more technologically primitive societies, didn’t develop the fearsome new implements of control of the National Security State. Google and other leaders in this field of massively mined and shared information did. As the authors concede and expand on in their new book:

“Despite the expense, everything a regime would need to build an incredibly intimidating digital police state—including software that facilitates data mining and real-time monitoring of citizens—is commercially available right now. … Companies that sell data-mining software, surveillance cameras and other products will flaunt their work with one government to attract new business. It’s the digital analog to arms sales. …”

The Google execs have inadvertently let us in on the world that they inhabit, where the data mining of individual preferences—for such interests as sex and politics—can be cross filed and tabulated by supercomputers to be exploited for commercial gain. The drive for ever more detailed information on individual behavior is on with a vengeance in the profit-driven world of data mining, as anyone who observes the ads that mysteriously pop up during Internet browsing sessions well knows. But that invasive technology is now undergoing a massive revolutionary upgrade provided by the collection of vast numbers of biometric markers.

“Don’t think the data being collected by autocracies is limited to Facebook posts or Twitter comments,” Schmidt and Cohen warn. “The most important data they will collect in the future is biometric information, which can be used to identify individuals through their unique physical and biological attributes. Fingerprints, photographs and DNA testing are all familiar biometric data types today. … With cloud computing, it takes just seconds to compare millions of faces. … By indexing our biometric signatures, some governments will try to track our every move and word, both physically and digitally.” [++]

› The Marathon Bombings and the Lockdown of Boston: Was it really a Vindication of the Surveillance State? | Falguni Sheth and Robert Prasch

The past decade has seen Presidents, politicians — conservatives and liberals alike — champion pre-emptive policing laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA, NDAA 2012 and 2013, to TSA security practices and searches, to “See Something, Say Something” practices—all in service to fighting the War on Terror. As a cable-news talking head cooed Friday morning: “There are cameras and social media everywhere. There is nowhere to hide!” That statement seemed indisputable: store cameras, street cameras, private cellphone cameras and videos could be integrated to give an astonishingly wide record of the tens of thousands of people who were at last Monday’s event. Yet, the most important truth of that day seemed to be lost in the gush of self-congratulation: the explosion of the bombs confirmed that a massive extension of the surveillance-state did NOT protect people in Boston.

… [T]here was nearly no element of the recently reinforced surveillance state that contributed to the capture or killing these two suspects. As an example, let’s assume every detail of the attack is the same except that it occurred in 1977 (to pick a random date prior to our ubiquitous Counter-Terrorism surveillance state; remember how we used to have “bad guys” before September 11?). If the “bad guys” had put together such a plan in 1977, would events have unfolded any differently? Would there have been a lot of photography at the finish line of such a prominent public event? Yes, although in the pre-digital age, it would have taken a little longer to gather and sort through the pictures. Hence, this aspect of this past week’s outcome can’t be ascribed to the massive expenditures and “federalization” of “homeland security,” but rather to a change in consumer electronics.

Would the two brothers have been flushed out by the police response to a nearby and unrelated robbery that led to the tragic shooting of a MIT police officer, the carjacking and ensuing chase that ended with the shootout in Watertown? It is hard to credit this sequence of events, which were initiated by a mere coincidence, to the success of the modern surveillance state. Would the initial shootout in Watertown, the escape of one of the brothers, and the eventual spotting of blood on the side of a boat and the calling in of that observation have unfolded in more or less the same way in 1977? Probably.

Where is the added value? In what way have the massive expenditures, intrusive surveillance practices, and stripping away of our liberties been vindicated by the events of this past week? In fact, no one can truthfully say “Aha! This is where these new practices have made a difference! Thank goodness George W. Bush and Barack Obama have so little regard for the American Constitution or everything would have really gone badly at that particular point in these events.”

What we witnessed was a tragic — but sadly – too familiar sequence of events. In a nation of over 340 million, we have a few demented or damaged souls with real or imagined grievances that cause them to wish to harm people whom they do not know. We also have good, brave, and competent local and state police forces that are able and willing to solve these crimes. It was true back in 1977—and long before–and remains true today.

So what in fact did change? We now have a “War on Terror” that permeates every public news event and action. The immediate leap to the familiar “Terrorists In Our Midst” narrative is facilitated and amplified by a bovine mainstream media amped up by endless alerts issued by a Department of Homeland Security and two Presidential Administrations about insane foreigners here, there, and everywhere. In other words, what’s changed is the presence of a fear-mongering narrative of the War on Terror, along with the billions in expenditures that are used to justify it, that reframe a centuries old story about crime.

The events of the past week in Boston do not vindicate the rise of the Homeland Security bureaucracy and certainly do not vindicate the stripping of our liberties, the shutting down of a major city, or the instantiation of a police state. But they certainly affirm the future as it was perceived by George Orwell. [++]

› Walmart security guard shoots 'shoplifting' mother dead in parking lot as she tries to escape with two young children

sinidentidades:

A 27-year-old mother of two has been fatally shot by an off-duty sheriff’s deputy after he suspected her of shoplifting at a Houston Walmart.

Harris County Sheriff’s deputies have said that victim Shelly Frey, Tisa Andrews and Yolanda Craig  were stealing when they were confronted by Louis Campbell a 26-year veteran of the force who works as a security guard at the store.

According to Campbell the women ran to their car and when he rushed to open the door, they accelerated away - at which point he fired the deadly shot into the car which hit Frey in the neck.

Security at the store on the 14000 block of the North Freeway had noticed the three women ‘stuffing items inside their purses’ and notified Campbell, who was working an extra job that evening.

Investigators with Harris County said the three women even attempted to pay for some small items to act as a cover for the shoplifted ones.

After chasing Frey and the other two women to their car, Campbell opened the door and commanded Frey to get out. But she refused, officials said.

Andrews began to drive away while the deputy was standing between the open door and the driver’s seat.

‘She threw it in reverse and tried to run over the deputy,’ said Harris County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Deputy Thomas Gilliland.

‘He confronted the suspects at exit of the store before they left. One female wouldn’t stop, struck the deputy with her purse, ran off.’

‘I think it knocked him off balance and, in fear of his life and being ran over, he discharged his weapon at that point.’

‘Why couldn’t you just shoot the tire, shoot the window?’ said her mother Sharon Wilkerson. ‘Was it that serious?’

She added that even if her daughter had committed a crime, she did not deserve to die and she worries now for her two young grandchildren.

‘How do I tell these children she’s not coming back,’ said Sharon.

‘To me, it should never (have) happened. I wish the officer didn’t shoot her. I wish he shot her tires just to slow her down. That’s a mother you know. And now they have to figure out what to do with the kids,’ said Angel Gaines, a neighbor.

Kesha Sapp, a woman who knew Frey, agreed.

‘What that look like with him shooting with the darn kids in the car? There were kids in the car with them. Why is he shooting at the car? Come on now, that makes him look bad. That don’t even look right,’ said Sapp.

Both Andrews and Craig, the two other women allegedly involved, have been charged with shoplifting.

Tragically, Frey wasn’t even supposed to be at a Walmart that evening.

Earlier in the year she pleaded guilty to stealing shirts and a package of meat from another Walmart and as part of her plea arrangement she agreed to never enter Walmart stores again.

Deputy Campbell is on three days paid leave as is standard protocol. He’s been with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office for 26 years. 

The Harris County Sheriff’s Homicide Unit, Office of the Inspector General and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office will investigate this incident. The case will be turned over to a grand jury.

I know that the media is going to spin this like she is some kind of “delinquent mother” or something to downplay this tragedy. What I see is a mom trying to care for her kids as best she can. It’s quite clear that she may have been having a hard time given one of her children’s medical condition and having to rebuild what was lost post-Katrina, and for a woman of color, that’s especially not easy. And that charge for stealing shirts and meat, yeah, that is enough evidence to show that she was stealing out of necessity, for survival. The officer was clearly in the wrong for even opening fire. Of course, he will likely be absolved for what he’s done while she will be painted as some kind of monster of a mother for resorting to stealing when all she was trying to do was what was necessary to support her children.

(via randomactsofchaos)

› Domestic drones and their unique dangers | Glenn Greenwald

[…] What is most often ignored by drone proponents, or those who scoff at anti-drone activism, are the unique features of drones: the way they enable more warfare, more aggression, and more surveillance. Drones make war more likely precisely because they entail so little risk to the war-making country. Similarly, while the propensity of drones to kill innocent people receives the bulk of media attention, the way in which drones psychologically terrorize the population - simply by constantly hovering over them: unseen but heard - is usually ignored, because it’s not happening in the US, so few people care (see this AP report from yesterday on how the increasing use of drone attacks in Afghanistan is truly terrorizing local villagers). It remains to be seen how Americans will react to drones constantly hovering over their homes and their childrens’ schools, though by that point, their presence will be so institutionalized that it will be likely be too late to stop.

Notably, this may be one area where an actual bipartisan/trans-partisan alliance can meaningfully emerge, as most advocates working on these issues with whom I’ve spoken say that libertarian-minded GOP state legislators have been as responsive as more left-wing Democratic ones in working to impose some limits. One bill now pending in Congress would prohibit the use of surveillance drones on US soil in the absence of a specific search warrant, and has bipartisan support.

Only the most authoritarian among us will be incapable of understanding the multiple dangers posed by a domestic drone regime (particularly when their party is in control of the government and they are incapable of perceiving threats from increased state police power). But the proliferation of domestic drones affords a real opportunity to forge an enduring coalition in defense of core privacy and other rights that transcends partisan allegiance, by working toward meaningful limits on their use. Making people aware of exactly what these unique threats are from a domestic drone regime is the key first step in constructing that coalition.

› DOJ Emails Show Feds Were Less Than "Explicit" With Judges On Cell Phone Tracking Tool | ACLU

A Justice Department document obtained by the ACLU of Northern California shows that federal investigators were routinely using a sophisticated cell phone tracking tool known as a “stingray,” but hiding that fact from federal magistrate judges when asking for permission to do so.

Stingrays and similar devices essentially impersonate cell phone towers, allowing them to pinpoint the precise location of targeted cell phones (even inside people’s homes) and intercept conversations. They also sweep up the data of innocent people who happen to be nearby. By withholding information about this technology from courts in applications for electronic surveillance orders, the federal government is essentially seeking to write its own search warrants. [++]

› Albany police: SWAT used poor black neighborhood for training because it’s ‘realistic’

iwakeupmad:

“The folks in this neighborhood might not have the financial means, but are entitled to the same respect,” Bryan observed. “Whoever made the decision to do this was asleep at the switch.”

One resident who asked not to be named recalled the ordeal to the Times Union.

“We wake up to the sound the next morning of literally small bombs,” she said. “All you could hear was ‘pop, pop, pop’ of an assault rifle, police screaming ‘clear!’ I really thought I was in the middle of a war zone — and I have a four-year-old.”

(via randomactsofchaos)

› Cop Testifies At Stop-And-Frisk Trial: “We Were Handcuffing Kids For No Reason”.

theraceproblem:

As the trial over the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy nears the end of its first week, two key cop whistleblowers testified yesterday that their superiors demanded stop-and-frisk quotas, saying they’d both been labeled “rats” when they complained.

Officer Adhyl Polanco, who was initially responsible for calling attention to the quotas via a series of secret recordings made back in 2009, told the court he’d been required to make five stop-and-frisks a month by union delegates and police supervisors. Polanco, who said fellow cops called him a rat after he went public with the recordings, testified officers often felt pressured to make unconstitutional stops in order to meet those quotas. “We were handcuffing kids for no reason,” he said. “I don’t want my kids to get shot by a cop who’s chasing them to write a ‘250.’”

A second officer, Pedro Serrano, also called attention to the quotas on the witness stand, testifying that he was pressured by his supervisors to make at least 20 summonses and one arrest per month, and that a certain number of stop-and-frisks were added to the count. Serrano, a 7-year veteran with the 40th Precinct in the South Bronx, said he was called out for not making any stop-and-frisks in a month where he topped that quota. He complained to Internal Affairs, and found stickers stuck to his stationhouse locker that calling him a rat. “I fear they’re going to set me up and get me fired,” he testified.

But while both Polanco and Serrano criticized the quotas, Polanco said he wasn’t against the practice in full. “It’s a great tool, and we need [stop-and-frisk],” he said. “Because I have no problem harassing criminals.” The trial continues today in federal court, exactly one week after the NYPD made its five-millionth stop-and-frisk since Mayor Bloomberg took office.

(via zeram-deactivated20130410)

› Handcuffing Seven-Year-Olds Won't Make Schools Safer | Chase Madar

[…] Truth be told, we were already well on our way to turning schools into carceral fortresses before the Sandy Hook slaughter even happened. In fact, the great national infrastructure project of the past 20 years may be the “school-to-prison pipeline.” After all, we are the nation that arrested Isamar Gonzalez for being in her high school early to meet with a teacher, then arrested her principal, Mark Federman, when he tried to intervene.

The stats speak as loudly as the anecdotes: of the Chicago School District’s 4,600 arrests in 2011, 86% were for misdemeanors. That school system spends $51.4 million on security guards, but only $3.5 million for college and career coaches. And for every incident that makes the news, there are scores that don’t. Despite a growing body of damning research by civil libertarians of the left and the right, including Annette Fuentes’s excellent book Lockdown High, political opposition to the school-to-prison pipeline has proven feeble or nonexistent. Brooklyn State Senator Eric Adams, who represents one of the most liberal districts in the country, has staked out the civil libertarian outer limit by helpfully suggesting that Velcro handcuffs might be more suitable than metal ones for arresting young children.

The metal detector at the schoolhouse door is threatening to become as iconic an American symbol as baseball or type 2 diabetes. Not that metal detectors in place were capable of preventing the massacre at Red Lake High School in Minnesota in 2005: young Jeffrey Weise just barged right in and shot six people dead; nor could the metal detectors at George Washington High School in Manhattan or Paul Robeson High School in Brooklyn prevent teens from getting stabbed. Yet metal detectors and school police proliferate across the country.

One state, however, truly leads the way. Self-satisfied Yankees have traditionally slandered the state of Mississippi as a jerkwater remnant of the past. As for me, I say Mississippi represents the American future. A new report by advocacy groups shows how the Hospitality State is leading the nation in cruel and draconian school over-policing. Felony assault charges for throwing peanuts on the school bus! Dress codes enforced by handcuffing a child to a railing for hours for the crime of not wearing a belt! Cops escorting a five-year-old home for wearing the wrong color shoes! And constant arrests of kids for “disorderly conduct.”

Yes, the “Mississippi model” of non-union teachers plus “zero tolerance” discipline is the kind of schooling that some of the best and brightest among our education “reformers” have been touting — and what they are increasingly getting. In fairness, Governor Rick Perry’s Texas is struggling with Mississippi for vanguard status, with cutting-edge surveillance of students and 300,000 misdemeanor arrests in 2010 for “crimes” like tossing a paper airplane. And Massachusetts is a strong contender for third place. [++]