First Amendement: Public has the right to peaceably assemble; no laws can stop this

More excuses. Didn't we get rid of those excuses in 1776? Why is the government allowed to require a permit?

"requiring a permit" is a law that restricts the right of the people to assemble.

What's the story?

Read more . . .

Quips and quotes

Will those whispers about abuse echo louder? Overhead. Shhh...we hope these don't really mean anything.

Navy Junior Enlisted Club Entrance

"Personnel with hangovers may not enter. By order of the Captain."

Scrawled to the side, visible only with a black-light, "moderate intoxication -- no problem."

WMD

Powell: "Proof? Who needs proof. We have photos."

Military readiness

Rumsfeld: "Of course they're ready. They dare not admit otherwise."

If "in compliance" was the standard reported by the DoD Office of Inspector General, why did so much fail on 9-11?"

Media: Mr Secretary, how can the "ability to oversee government contracts" be rated high? The prevalance of fraud suggests the auditors didn't catch the failed management.

Rumsfeld: "We've got a losing war on terror to distrac...uh, fight."

DoJ Inspector General

Special Agent in Charge: "Don't ask us about the standards to evaluate our resonse to an unpredicatable enemey. The standards are solid. The enemy is not.

It is surprsing that the inspectors have to be coached on the standards. How can they evaluate others?

HSS Domestic Vote Rigging Committee

Ashkroft, speaking for HSS: "We expect an excuse to justify tyranny; and we expect the enemy to cooperate with our plan. If the enemy does not appear, we will invent one."

Read more . . .

Earnings: Nation's newspapers face margin's squeeze

Editors like to blame the internet.

The real problem lies with the newsrooms. They're not responsive.

What the newspapers could do.Signs the Media is in trouble

Have you dared read a newspaper lately? Take a look at the number of web-links they list in an article. Ask yourself, "Why are they using paper and wasting space to list things that could be listed elsewhere?

The idea behind computers was that this would be a far more efficient use of resources, we'd use less paper, and information would be made more accessible electronically. Some book publishers have saved paper by letting authors list the notes on-line. White House lawyers know nobody reads the fine print.

Discussion

Listing many web-links in a single article is unnecessarily repetitive. As opposed to necessary repetitions in advertising.

The links could easily be placed on a single web-page for future reference.

Your arsenal to fight the media-analcyst non-sense

Here is a list of likely arguments you will here from the analcysts. Analysts have already been given the guidance. Their goal is to distract attention from the initial forecasts.

Other uses: "The space could be used for advertising, but the media wants to serve the public."

Don't be fooled. The media's number one loyalty in America is to the corporate machine, advertisers, and the people who pay the bills. The reader is simply the consumer, to be tricked to buy information and make them believe they cannot live without something they were otherwise not aware existed.

Because the advertising space is sold in advance, they have alot of "empty space" to fill every day. Other than the press releases they have no other content to hold the ads together.

This is another way of saying, "There are not enough buyers of advertising space to justify the excessive supply of white space, but the editors are not making enough money to create content.

The easiest way to hide the "we don't have enough content to fill up the white space"-problem is to simply list information that could otherwise be listed elsewhere.

Discrimination: "The readers need to know what the links are so they can look them up. If you don't provide the links to non-web-users, you're discriminating against those who cannot access a computer"

This argument is a diversion from "whether the editors have enough content" to the illusory argument about fairness.

Those links that they have to look up, can only be looked up if there is a computer. If they have a computer, they can look up a single web page far easier than they could read a newspaper.

The problem is that the editors have no other content; and cannot afford to hire reporters to write stories. They're in so much trouble, they can't even afford quality copy from blind writing pools.

Fairness: "It's not fair to those who can't access the web to be denied the links."

Uh, "if they can't access the web, then whether they have the link or not is irrelevant. They have an access issue, not a content-issue.

Read more . . .

DC Wire: decrypted messages from the nation's capital

New Judicial Council committees. You'll have time to attend these.New committee announcements [^Clickhere ]

1 New Committee	Purpose	Milestone/Announcement
Sub-committee on Domestic Security and Court Mis-Administration Through Chaos	Somewhat loosely organized, semi-formalized sub-par committee to create checklists to spew forth frivolous warnings without evidence"	Memorize: "We are making great progress." Memorize that statement, and repeat it endlessly to the media. They know something, but are not sharing. Stall. Do not respond in writing to public inquiries until after the report has been signed.
DoJ's Committee to Mess with America's Mind	Share chocolate chip cookie recipes	Tonight's speaker to compare/contrast natural sugar to processed sugar. Free soda provided. Bring your own straws.
Domestic Security	Committee to update checklists to spew forth non-sense	Meet in Room 4-B; will discuss final draft of plan to make civilians jump through hoops; techniques to prepare civilians to confidently, but mindlessly, face flaming pit of doom; special guest speaker from Office of Special Plans -- topic "Hiding crimes: Muffled screams and evidence destruction"
DoD	Committee to Overthrow Last Vestiges of Domestic Freedom	Volleyball practice 7:30, POAC; Court adjacent to Admiral LoveChild's office; bring fresh socks
Subcommittee on American Judicial Arrogance	Unofficial but endorsed secret committee that everyone denies exists but all blindly obey	Even if you can't get away with it, do the opposite of what the rules say; the leadership appreciates your assistance in hiding facts from the auditors, media, and investigators. If you are caught, blame the "retired one" for the confusion. Distract, delay, but do not divulge
Committee to hide court administrators from inquiries	Still searching for a permanent chairman	Previous committee leadership has not stopped vomiting after reviewing record of deception, betrayal, and bad policies. Eat more chalk.
Domestic Security	Committee to Establish Slogans Which Mean Nothing	We remain substantially over-rated, and loathed; making great progress is messing with America's collective conscious. Staff has been unable to meet for two months. Making fine progress.
Court Staff	Committee to Hide Ineffectual Oversight and Inquiry by Judicial Officers, Legilsative Staff, and Malleable Auditors	Auditors fooled; whistleblowers smeared. Good job! Bring the "shameful-ones" out of the dungeon. Let them linger a few days before releasing them to the sunlight. Oxygen is not mandatory for these miscreants.
DoJ	Committee to Silence All Messengers of Worthwhile information	Slogan approved, "If we could make bomb-making as fun as making brownies, that's a cable show; possible daytime award." Write nomination package.
DoJ's CIFA	"We put more energy into promoting bad ideas than fighting for principles"	Slogan Approved; John A. will pesonally contact media-lackeys to begin mindless repetition. Global conquest imminent.

Read more . . .

Two Classes: Government Employees and Citizens

Bullies in government. What can be done? The evidence is mounting. We have to classes emerging, two sets of standards, and unequal treatment.

Selling vs Ordering: Civilian and military role reversals

Military personnel are asked to understand; when they cannot be convinced, they are let to wander at night leaderless. We should not wonder why there is a discipline problem in the army.

At the other end of the spectrum, the civiliann population is not longer asked to participate. Civilians are now ordered, without explanation, to put up with the non-sense. No plausible explanations. No attempts to convince like the military is offered. Flat out arrogance.

The civilians are now faced with threats to buy-into that which is not supportable. No discussion of real payoffs, no benfeits. Just threats.

Warnings: Heads up for some, others simply surprised

Government personnnel are offered plenty of warning though the rumor mill. Yet, the civilians, out of the blue, are told, without warning "this is the way it is."

Surprising how little notice the public was given in re the Patriot Act. This document affected the constitution. It had been in work for years.

Yet a similar plan also "in the work for years" had been leaked to the military. Long before they were affected by the plans to bring home troops from Germany, the troops heard well in advance something was coming.

Why does the government afford its own employees special notice; while leaving those they have been charged to service in the dark?

Private cause for action

The public has no right to openly sue over Patriot Act abuses; these lawsuits must be sealed. The population has no idea the scope and scale of the other charges being brought against the government.

Yet, miltiary personnel can sue the government over the stop-loss.

Why is there a double standard on whether lawsuits can be openly brought against the government?

We give government employees what we deny citizens.

Table^here

1 Indicators	Government approach to military leadership and discipline problems	Government approach to civilians
Adverse results	Suicide [Cause for alarm]	Death, torture, abuse [Celebrated]
Problem element	NCO failures [Part of solution]	Shift problem to complainer [Blame]
Leadership Command	Non-sense to avoid responsibility [Abu Ghraib]	Any excuse to intrude [Question]
Persuasion	Explaining, selling to troops	Threats to the public
Feedback	Reminders to inspectors to enforce standards [Compentency]	Ignore feedback from public that "problem not solved" [Rebuff]

Read more . . .

Media censorship: Investigative reporter reveals DoJ threats to hide US government malfeasance

The first Amendment isn't just an Amendment.

It's a tool to be used, not simply talked about. Surprising how quickly the media gives up their freedom to "get along."Kristina Borjesson reports first hand how FBI agents put pressure on corporate media to stonewall independent investigations into the alleged missile shootdown of flight TWA 800.

Borjesson is no stranger to controversy, asking tough questions which nobody wanted to answer.

Kristina reports that it's not just government threats of "cutting off access to valuable leaks" that is the problem. It's the outright self-censorship within the media that is a larger stonewall to reliable information.

To ensure the consumers continue reviewing advertising, corporations pressure publishers to keep the stories non-controversial. Borjesson complains that this means the really hot stories exposing the darkest malfeasance in government never see the light of day.

When asked why the media cares about access to unreliable government sources, Borjesson stated that the sources are not always unreliable, and that the media needs to keep their sources open.

Unfortunately, this misses the point. The media isn't there to "generate sources" but to find the truth. Any source that dares threaten the media with "I won't give you future goodies if you talk about this really bad stuff," is blackmailing not just the reporter, but the public.

Those who are "in the know" of malfeasance have a higher duty than merely "whether the media can access them."

This is analogous to "threatening possible future harm" in exchange for putting up with unacceptable treatment today. The instant any reporter acquiesces to any threats from any source, the abuse has already had its effect.

Rather, government cannot rely on media silence over contentious issues. Borjesson takes the first step in revealing what keeps a "free media" from freely reporting the truth.

Read more . . .

Iran: Pre-invasion planning well underway

How far will America go? New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick confrims existce of secret agenda outlining Bush Administration pre-planning for Iran invasion.

Council for National Policy had hoped to keep agenda about Iran secret. Iran is allegedly developing nuclear weapons, prompting a coordinated US-Israeli operation.

The Council for National Policy is a religious-based organization lobbying for increased Bush Administration pressure on Iran. It remains unclear whether, like the Office of Special Plans, CNP has a sister-office in Irsrael.

Recent FBI investigations into Israeli spying in the Pentagon allege communication between the White House and Israel to coordinate public press releases.

National Security Advisor Rice and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitze were part of the pre-Iraq invasion media blitz. OSP was the agency which produced the false information used to manipulate Congress into voting for war.

The Council for National Policy hopes to influence national policy. They are a well-known organization inside the White House, yet hope to keep their existence, name, and agenda out of the spotlight.

It remains unclear the role CNP had on the Iraqi coalition provisional authority in shutting down dissenting media outlets and views in Iraq. CNP wants their religious agendas on others, but then claims that Islamic religious agendas must be silenced.

CNP shows the danger of allowing any government to be based on theology.

Read more . . .

NM Public Access Channel shows corporate boycotts cannot silence truth

How a regular person made a big difference. So can you! Kyle Johnson, Communications Director of Interhemispheric Resource Center, continues to broadcast live on a New Mexcio public access channel, despite failed corporate efforts to silence him through boycotts. Johnson shows that corporate America cannot silence the truth.

After New Mexico's KNFT failed to supprort his cutting edge radio coverage on KNFT's Radio Free Silver, Johson set up his own communicty access show.

Local business owners had threatened to boycott his one hour show. When that failed to persuade the owners to shut Kyle down, a group of businessess includeing banks, car dealerhsip, pizza outlets, and ATV distributors threatened to cancel their entire $10,000 advertising budget from both KNFT's AM and FM outlets.

Undeterred, Kyle is on his own community access channel. He's also the force and energy behing Citizen Avocates for Fiarness and Equality {CAFE], which covers a wide variety of issues.

Kyle mused that Silver City was the Cite of the Salt of the Earth Movie, where towns people stand up to the controlling capitalists. Kyle Johnson shows that anyone can fight back against intimidation and still get the message out.

Read more . . .

NYPD Captain: On bullhorn, supporting the protestors against Bush

Captain speaks out against Bush by supporting the protestors.

Read more . . .

DoJ: Quid custodiet ipsos custodes

A tale of how far they'll go, even after you say stop. Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?

FBI agents had advance warning of 9-11

They knew something was about to happen, but chose to disregard the information because "the buildings were not supposed to fall down."

"FBI members have reported that they knew in advance that there were to be attacks in Lower Manhattan, and on the days concerned." from Left Out: A Blog by Chuck Zlatkin Thursday May 27th at 12:27 PM

The DoJ cover story does not add up

FBI claims they were not "sitting on their hands" but actually working to find Bin Ladin. Small problem, Bin Ladin was well within US control, but no effort was made to detain him.

"There were obstructions of investigations by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. We claimed that we were searching for Osama Bin Laden, that he was criminal number one, and yet we have learned that he stayed in an American hospital in Dubai, was treated by an American surgeon and visited by a member of the CIA." -- froom Left Out:
A Blog by Chuck Zlatkin Thursday May 27th at 12:27 PM

There is no merit to the argument that the FBI was searching for Bin Ladin. Had he been truly "under surveillance" or "a subject of the FBI investigation" the FBi would have found him.

The FBI did not find him. Bin Ladin was under US control. This was not a communication problem. The FBI and others were well aware of what was about to transpire on 9-11.

FBI uses media as a tool

The FBI-media love-fest is proven: DoJ has the media's fax number pre-programmed into the fax machine. This isn't oversight by the media, but DoJ simply using the media as a mouth piece for more propoganda.

Having a fax-machine pre-programmed is evidence that DoJ and the FBi are in regular contact with the media. Why is the media afraid of "losing access" to the entity which provides unreliable information?

Redacted quotes indicating government admits it has a weak foundation in suppressing domestic dissent

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."

Google citations of this quote from this letter.

DoJ conducts secret trials about secret evidence using secret evidence

Absurdity isn't the word. It's called a violation of civil liberties. This government simply condones repeating the abuses of the British Monarchy.

Danger of unchecked power in re National Security Letters.

DoJ engages in intimidation and abuse to cover-up Misconduct prior to 9-11

Redacting public memos, Senator statements about DoJ threats to DoJ employees.

Suppressed report on DoJ employee misconduct

FBI agents routinely commit abuses; here's a report showing the spectrum of misconduct that mid-level agents routinely engage, cover-up, and suppress evidence.

The DoJ office of proffesional responsibility [OPR] routinely does white washes, and the agents provide misleading information, and threaten the public that provides the information through anonymous sources.

Senate Judiciary Committee Staff compromised

Senator Hatch's [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman] oversight of DoJ is abysmal. DoJ knows they will face no meaningful sanctions or public consequences for misconduct.

Senate Judiciary Staff has demonstrated they cannot effectively or adequately oversee DoJ. Hatch's staff members on the Senate Judiciary Committee are spending time accessing confidential Democratic Party Memos, not asking probing questions of DoJ.

The Senate Judiciary Staff cannot be expected to enforce the standards that they themselves are unable to obey: Protecting confidential information; ensuring compliance with procedures; ensuring conduct is beyond reproach.

MAOP: The FBI's guide to misconduct

How to obtain a copy of the FBI manual on procedures -- what they should be doing, but use as a guide-book to ignore.

FBI Phony Fax: DoJ has time for parties, but no time to fight crime

FBI claims it "doesn't have time" to find Bin Ladin, follow-up on the Phoenix Memo, and that its agents are "so busy" conducting investigations huntin down terrorists.

Don't be fooled. Look at what they do have time to create: A phony fax. The memo is a going away present for another agent--they draft these types of gag gifts to show their appreciation for another's work.

In truth, the FBI has enough time to put together going away parties. What DoJ and the FBI do not have, is the energy to stand up to reasonable public pressure and oversight.

Rather than respond to reasonable questions about their consitsent failure to comply with MAOP, FBI agents will harass, threaten, and attempt to intimidate the public into silence. FBI and DoJ personnel have a problem. They failed to act. They have a leadership problem. They were given plenty of advance notices. Despite all that has occurred, there have been no meaningful reforms or sanctions. Rather, DoJ is simply engaging in more abuse and misconduct to divert attention from its own failures and attempting to put the spot light on those who dare speak out.

DoJ accusations against Scott Ritter didn't make the WMD appear. Netier will DoJ accusations make the war crimes in Iraq go away.

CIFA: How DoJ got their hands bloody in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib

FBI agents were cycled through Guantanamo in the Counter-Intelligence Field Activity [CIFA] program. FBI agents know. There is much pressure to avoid detection. Even the US Solicitor General lied before the Supreme Court when he said we do not commit those kinds of abuses, so there is no need for oversight. Just days later, the photos from Abu Ghraib came out.

FBI agents are a threat to our constitution and our way of life. They have blood on their hands and will do anything to silence the messenger. They have already killed. They will do it again.

Read more . . .

Government: Not much changes on holidays

On holidays, government still doesn't get much useful accomplished.

Read more . . .

The Wizard's Shock and Awe

Shock: Feigned surprise that the White House-sanctioned abuses in Abu Ghraib were photographed, thereby creating admissible evidence to bring war crimes allegations against the President.

Awe: Blindly voting for a war despite no evidence.

Read more . . .

9-11: The failures in the USAF have gone unpunished

FAA and USAF conversation [Fictionalized]

Uh, we're under attack.

What should we do?

Uh, I don't know. everyone's at lunch.

At nine? That's an early lunch.

OK. An early brunch.

Should we scamble?

Gosh, I don't know. Let me think. Duh.

They're getting closer....

Report: "Excluding the adverse outcomes, we complied with all standards"

Read more . . .

TWA 800: The government cover-up helped contribute to 9-11 and the bogus WMD claims

Noticing the patterns in ineffectual government. Knowing what continues to go wrong, and what you can do to mitigate the risks. TWA 800:

The failure to find and publicize the real problems contributed to 9-11 and the unlawful war in Iraq

Fighting gravity doesn't make it go away, nor cause miraculous levitation.

The legacy of TWA 800 friendly-fire incident was "no consequences on DoD."

---

The government pressure on the media during the TWA 800 shoot-down proved the media could be manipulated to accept the malfeasance in re 9-11 and the unlawful war in Iraq

A house of cards is not made more sturdy by outlawing the wind.

What broke down during TWA800 and how those systemic problems got us into 9-11 and facilitated a war based on illusory evidence

That which is not understood or repaired shall simply require an ever grater disaster to focus the needed attention. That which is not fixed will simply continue to fester and spread like a cancer.

Accountability	No consequences for the following types of misconduct: Lying, providing false information, reporting conclusions not supported by facts Integrity issues Fear of consequences for speaking out Systemic rewards for silence Able to harass the public and other investigators into silence No effective outside mechanism to arrive with credible information at odds with the official story
Responsiveness	Govt failure to ensure lessons learned cross-flowed Policy-driven fact finding Government perceived advantages to inaction
Force management	No visible consequences for failure Inadequate provisions to ensure that disastrous results and conditions were effectively identified and mitigated well before the risks occurred Operational procedures were reviewed only in light of the isolated problem; broader approach and review did not occur due to lack of visibility, ineffective cross-flow, and no visible sign or signal to the public that the system was effectively responding
Challenging government propaganda	Inadequate systems in place to get straight answers to questions raised related to issues contrary to the US government position Ineffective forces within the Judicial branch to compel Congress and the Executive to arrive at conclusions based on facts, not fiction No effective fact-finding mechanism that adequately brought forth opposing opinions in a public forum and required a disinterested body to independently deliberate over the merits of the theories, facts, evidence, and systemic problems. There was no rigorous approach, nor effective counterweight to the executive to arrive at a different result. If we recall back to the days of the Magna Carta, the King essentially had no choice; today's executive has the choice of suppressing information. This is not related to national security, but to ensuring that the executive has continued ineffective oversight, lack of accountability, and no meaningful problem-resolution.
Botched investigations	Investigators were more concerned with their jobs, than finding the truth Fact finding failed to identify, address the problem related to command and control, interoperability, adequately flight control, adequacy of the range officials in ensuring that potential civilian targets were out of range They may have been able to fix the interoperability problems within the TWA800 shoot down; but there was no broader look at "what problems with oversight" are we failing to address by not knowing what really happened. It is likely that the abysmal problems with Congress' ineffectual ability to adequately oversee the Executive Branch would have come to light and been addressed far earlier had TWA800 and other disasters had adequate public vetting. Fact finders were convinced that there would be rewards We saw during Sibel Edmonds, that the "fact finders" would not be bought, and that they would speak out about DoJ abuses Fact finders could be convinced to be quiet; if they did not keep quiet they were smeared. We saw Scott Ritter speak out about the WMD errors; despite the smears, his concerns have borne out.
Credibility of fact finding	Policy-driven fact finding Fact finders were not independent. US government believed later that it could control the fact finders in Iraq and prior to 9-11. Rather than deal with problems prior to 9-11, the repeated audit reports were simply ignored. In re WMD, the government learned the incorrect lesson from TWA800 that if the "right" policy were pursued, the public would continue to support the objectives, regardless the facts. We see that the plummeting public support for the war in Iraq shows that even flawed policies cannot sustain themselves when there are serious questions about the legacy of the action, the results, and how effective the leadership was in taking us in the "right direction."
Translating physical evidence into facts	Failure to understand that focusing on the story, without regard to the physical evidence does not solve the problem Physical evidence does not lie; and the failure to find the true story ensured that the underlying problems creating that physical evidence went unremedied Physical evidence contrary to the official story was buried, hidden, removed without adequate tracking, comparison, or tabulation by independent or impartial observers Conclusions discredited when contrary to government position Eye-witness testimony discredited when contrary to the preferred explanation Government agents actively harassed, intimidated and dissuaded witnesses from discussing observations contrary to the official story. We saw this in the American Airlines shoot down over NYC after 9-11; and also the FBI harassment of the witnesses who saw Arabs getting flight training at Pensacola Florida. [Ref: MadCow Productions] Where physical evidence identified an inconvenient theory or conclusion, that information and conclusions [not the evidence] was discredited Failure to understand that focusing on the story, without regard to the physical evidence does not solve the problem Physical evidence does not lie; and the failure to find the true story ensured that the underlying problems creating that physical evidence went unremedied Government was able to control access to the TWA800 site; the government learned the wrong lesson that it could explain itself out of fiction by simply asserting a truth. This wishful thinking could not be sustained in re the Iraq "WMD". The US government could not control who got was in Iraq, nor could the US government credibly create something that did not exist. It was far too difficult to import prohibited material back into Iraq to create a ruse-WMD "find" that it was for the government to make inconvenient TWA evidence disappear; or provide false evidence in re TWA. Premium placed on conclusions supporting sponsored-theory, regardless physical evidence; insufficient forces capable of physically proving the truth. The government got into trouble when there was no physical evidence to be obtained; it is impossible to create something that is not there in an area where the US cannot control.
Failure to have independent investigations	Conclusions and facts not palatable Lack of control of independent investigators No provision made to allow for an outside investigator Once the truth was known, the demand for change and accountability would be far higher and greater than tolerable; too many people would lose their jobs Damage control: Greater government interest in controlling the message than finding the truth Mistaken belief that the agreed-to story could be justified, that the naysayers could be discredited Mistaken belief that the underlying problems need not be understood Mistaken belief that it was easier not to discuss the real problem Mistaken belief that the issue would pass with time and would be overshadowed by other issues Mistaken belief that the contrary evidence could be controlled Mistaken belief that it was easier to discredit messengers and rewrite history than actually solve the real problem Mistaken belief that it was easier not to discuss the real problem
Media independence	Government pressure on corporate managers Advertisers pressure on media to avoid mentioning friendly-fire Media more concerned with access to unreliable government in the future than in finding facts and being willing to fire their source today Media more concerned with access to sources and advertising revenue than obtaining immediate and accurate information Mistaken belief there existed no alternative media outlets Short-term focus on ratings without long-term consideration to public confidence in American media
Information access	Valid outside conclusions at odds with government story rebuffed with outlandish claims Independent analysts had their conclusions ignored, while their personal reputations were called into question based on information unrelated to the falsified data

---

The systemic government flaws and culture [of covering-up malfesance in government which surfaced during the TWA 800 shoot down] continued during 9-11 and the preparation for war in Iraq

---

9-11 was an excuse to divert needed public outrage on malfeasance in government to external excuses

Covering up TWA 800 meant the population did not have the information needed to advocate for change.

Confidence based on deception is a house of cards.

Read more . . .

DoJ Propaganda: The other side of the story

DoJ said there were rabid anarchists running around. There was speculation that the information was fabricated. Here's one response. DoJ fabricated lies.

Read more . . .

RNC: The Propaganda of Berlin revisited

RNC show on a scale of what we saw in Berlin.

BBC coverage.

Images from the floor -- far less than what TotalShow has delivered in the past:

Broader capability.

Wider array of colors and details.

Far more inspiring.

More of a show

Read more . . .

NYC: Bike against Bush

Videos and technical details.

Cleveland coverage.

Read more . . .

Youth militarization: Draft, military access to youth

Draft: No child left behind at school

Recruiters have a special item in the "No child left behind" Act. Thanks for the education, George!

More on youth militarization, at the age of 14.

What you should know before enlisting; activist tool kit.

Read more . . .

Bush VP: McCain?

Rumblings that Cheney's going to step aside. Might explain the apparent love-fest between Bush and McCain.

Notice those ads with McCain; Gannon called for a change in June, as did DeLong citing Froomkin

Levin called it in March 2004; but the denial should have confirmed...something.

Read more . . .

NYPD Have bad intel: Officers go to wrong location to protest Bloomberg

How bad is their intelligence gathering? So bad, that they don't know where the Mayor is.

Read more . . .

NYC: 29th and 9th Indident

Incident

This was unfolding quickly; but an update appears to paint a rather different picture: Far fewer arrests. Photos prior to the police engagement; and nite shots of the barricated; and a video

Location

Incident is just south of the Fashion Disctrict; north of Chelsea near Chelsea Park just South-west of Madison Square Garden, or "Garden"; note that 99 10th Ave is a DEA forescis center. Approximate location; Hotels are well north of the arrests.

Other notes

First reports [never confirmed] of police equipment were similar to what was used in Miami. There is a common pattern: Hype the threat, underprepare, then overreact.

Cameras are located not in high crime areas, but where high property values have expensive insurance costs.

Police detain longer than 24 hours. Times Square images; gurrilla network video parody. Revenge killing by a cop. Civil rights asserted during Bush's unwinnable war on terror.

NYC Indymedia site: Updates on the RNC protests.

Read more . . .

New Tactic to avoid public oversight: Government employees file anonymous "security concern" reports

A game plan for accountability in government. What you can do. Summary

Government employees need to face meaningful sanctions for providing false, misleading, or incorrect information to the public that unreasonably exposes a public official to unnecessary attention. Further, government officials need to be subject to the threat of meaningful sanctions when they provide false and misleading "security alerts" to law enforcement.

Footnote

   Solution

Discussion

Government employees have learned they too can play politics in the post 9-11 World. Not only do they engage in the normal office politics, but they know they can lie to law enforcement about "suspicious people."

Here's the scenario. Government employees regularly botch problems. Rather than solve problems, they create more problems.

In those rare cases where the public actually figures out the ruse and has evidence of their ploys, government employees do not like to be challenged.

Rather than admit wrong doing, or a failure to comply with their standards, government employees will give deliberately wrong information to the public on "who supervisors are" to send people into a maze.

Small problem. When government employees give "incorrect information about who to talk to", and that "identified person" is a "protected person".

Rather than solve the problem, the government employee will provide false, and materially misleading information about "who the supervisors are" in order to waste time, send people on a wild goose chase, and avoid identifying the "actual supervisor."

Small problem. The government employee [who provides the incorrect information] suddenly is faced with a dilemma when that pseudo-supervisor appears, and the public engages in a discussion.

The "gate keeper" now has a problem. They've failed to perform their duty of "gate keeping." And they've now got a real problem on their hands: Someone "that knows something" is talking to the ~last~ person they want to know about the issue.

Here's their solution. They call into the security department with a convoluted tale, whining, "We've got a security problem."

Here's the deal. If the "gatekeeper" doesn't give the "wrong information" to begin with, there would be no "problem".

The issue becomes: How many of these "bogus security alerts" are needed to ensure that this misconduct is corrected?

It's all fair and good to "play the bureaucracy game" and "send people to the wrong department"; the real problem is when this incorrect information then is actually relied upon, and the public is then subjected to unreasonable scrutiny and inquiry.

Again, the issue is that the public officials and staff are not adequately responding. Rather than admit they have a problem, they state that the problem is "minor" or "not an issue." This is not satisfactory.

Moreover, government officials cannot hide behind the "we work for the government" when their collective actions, misleading statements, and diversion tactics end up being an unreasonable basis for security to be alerted and dispatched. This is not an efficient use of resources.

In short, government employees who are failing to perform cannot be rewarded by shifting the attention to the public. Moreover, it is inappropriate that government employees provide misleading information to law enforcement and security services in order to shift attention from the government employee to the public.

This conduct does little to inspire confidence in the notion of a "responsive government." Rather, the more that government employees are allowed to get away with shifting attention from their malfeasance by using this diversionary ruse, the more the public is likely to be harmed.

The public suffers when we are provided poor service and excuses for malfeasance. The greater crime is to reward government workers who fail to perform their duty by giving them easy access to law enforcement and security; the public has a hard enough time getting law enforcement to respond to simple problems. Government employees should not have an easier time than the public in launching law enforcement on a diversionary campaign.

¹Solution

Government employees need to face sanctions for:

Providing false and misleading information to the public that leads a protected government official to be exposed to inappropriate contact by the public, or causes security services or protective services to be dispatched without due cause;

Providing false and misleading information to law enforcement or security services in order to distract attention from concerns with allegations of government malfeasance;

Providing false and misleading information to any supervisor in order to perpetuate a ruse to avoid consequences for failing to perform statutorily-required or promised duties to the public; and/or

Providing false and misleading information to any law enforcement officer with the object of shifting attention from public concerns with alleged government malfeasance with the hope of {a} using law enforcement to intimidate the public; and/or {b} squelch public pressure on government to perform statutorily-required or promised duties to the public.

Read more . . .

DoJ: New tactics in the strategy against citizens challenging failed government -- blame the public for acting in a "suspicious manner"

What you can learn about law enforcement misconduct and abuse. Prepare now, don't be surprised. Summary

The AP ran a story outlining standards for law enforcement to detain, question, and threaten handcuffing and detention anyone who dares question government policies. This standard is overly broad, and designed to shift attention from government failings to those who dare remind the government of its ineffectiveness.

Escalating tensions between management, employees, and the public

Professionalism. Workers under stress have no basis to vent their frustration on the public. Management needs to remind employees not to take their frustrations [about a higher stress load] out on the public. The public needs to be provided correct, accurate, and useful information, not led on a maze that "justifies" alerting security.

Accountability. It is not appropriate for government workers to call security "simply because the public has dared challenge the ineffective government service." It is time that problems are solved correctly, not later covered up by shifting attention from the government to the public that reasonably demands public service at management's advertised levels.

Resource-requirements mismatch. Government may have to work longer hours to achieve the same results, but that is no basis to mistreat the public. We pay alot of money to get these people trained; if they can't perform, then we need to recognize that the current personnel are insufficient to meet what's been advertised as the "reasonable expectation of what government is going to do." The problem lies with mnagement, not the public or the employees. This is a leadership problem within government.

Inadequate skills-requirements mix. Ineffective training and employee attention simply compounds the problem. Today is clear that the "ineffective government employee" is a symptom of ineffective training, inadequate resources, poor ability, and not a sign of productivity but inefficiency.

Excuses do little to solve the problem It is not appropriate for government to endorse shifting attention from government failings onto the public that reasonably expects professionalism, responsiveness, and service. The current approach is not evidence of "higher productivity" but simply evidence that "the inefficiency problem is addressed by shifting attention from the inefficiency to the customer."

Public confidence waning. Management may ask that the public "understand" the workload; yet there is no reciprocity when the public asks the government to "understand" our concerns. We're told to put up with the greater intrusions, abuse, misconduct, and arrogance without comment. Yet, the public has little reason to be sympathetic when senior management within the SES is so arrogant and out of touch. The public is not interested in excuses, just solutions. Solve the problem, don't give lectures or excuses.

Escalation The natural consequences of the above problems are greater attention on government; we find governments' "solution" is to shift attention back on the public-client. When a poorly-served client appears to voice a complaint that has otherwise been rebuffed, rather than address the service problem, government is more inclined to notify security. It is interesting that the public is commanded to act in a "particular manner," but the government is quick to circle the wagons to protect its own from public accountability and avoid acting in an equally civil manner. The current FBI memo simply fuels the problem of ineffectiveness.

Purpose. We discuss the government's heavy-handed tactics to to keep the customers in check.

The AP release

FBI and Homeland Security issued an absurd standard as the basis to detain and characterize people as being "suspicious".

Aug 2004

"These include unusual interest in security measures or access points of buildings; suspects possibly disguised as "panhandlers, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors"; discreet use of video cameras in areas not visited by tourists; and individuals seen observing security drills or procedures." Ref

Aug 2005

"Homeless people easily blend into urban landscapes." Somerville, Mass: Someone stopped had a passport "of interest."REf

We saw in Abu Ghraib what happens under this government. They move without regard to international law; they justify misconduct against those under their care. The risk is that the disadvantaged through no fault of their own, are going to be targeted as suspects, and exposed to abuse.

The Nazis did the same in the Ghettos. Calling those who were unable to fend for themselves as a disease. The risk is that the same is happening in the United States. The above public release needs to be seen for what it is: A march step closer to committing greater abuses to those who dare challenge this government; or against those who are reminders of the failings of this government.

Change the argument from "inadequate government" to the person who is complaining

The ultimate sign of government failings occur when public employees shift the debate. Rather than deal with the unresponsive system, this government shifts attention to those who speak out.

Government workers will find it easy under the new FBI directive to justify more inaction. Rather than respond to reasonable requests to provide the service, government workers can now say freely, "your problem is you disagree with the abysmal government service".

Then when challenged on these statements, they accuse the public of "not understanding" and "making up stories" or are crazy; these baseless accusations are simply diversions.

More troubling is that these baseless charges become fabricated "evidence" to further intimidate the public. To be characterized as "uncooperative" and "unreasonable" is information law enforcement and threat management units [TMU] need to put someone under "special attention".

The intimidation policy is codified at the Federal Level. Rather than resolve the service-problems within the government sector, the United States government Senior Executive Service has a new strategy--they blame the public for pointing out problems.

One method is to shift attention from the failings in government, and "report to security" anyone who dares comment on the ineffective government service.

Rather than admit that they have failed, government workers hide behind their lawyers, risk managers, auditors, and chime, "We have no problems." Indeed, those who keep out the sunlight cannot be seen.

The public is routinely harassed by law enforcement. In those cases where the public dares approach an official building, one cannot escape an interaction with law enforcement.

The government needs to be clearer on what it defines as an "unusual interest in security measures". Does this mean that the public is simply commenting on the badges that the security personnel are wearing; or that the public is daring to read the professional standards so that when they file a complaint against law enforcement that they have a reasonable basis to have their complaint adjudicated?

The government is ambiguous in this regard and the standard permits anyone who dares complain about law enforcement or ask questions about the unprofessional conduct as being "suspicious." Once again, the government is using their ineffectiveness as the basis to accuse the public of misconduct. This is unreasonable.

Divert attention from the economic problems

The American economy continues to stagnate; almost 12.5% of the nation is classified as being in poverty, earning less than $9,000 per year.

Where do people go when they have no jobs? They provide services to those who have money.

Government workers have incomes. Yet, this government's approach to the 'economic problem" is to deny reality, and keep the poor away from those who are working in government.

The economic turnaround has been an illusion. Yet, the government perpetuates the myth that this is a recovery.

We should not be surprised why those with money [government workers] are faced with more people trying to earn an honest living [those who do not have money].

Those who do not have money are likely to be "panhandlers, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors"; thus it is not reasonable to assume "panhandlers, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors" are suspects.

Again, the government's failed economic policies are not getting the attention they need. Rather than hold the arrogant SES accountable for the failed economy, they shift attention to those who are hoping to make a living.

It is not reasonable to define anyone who "panhandlers, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors" as being a suspect. Such a standard is broad, vague, and ambiguous.

The real solution is to provide good jobs; and in those cases where government workers do not feel comfortable being around "panhandlers, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors" they might create some credible programs to put them to work.

However, this Senior Executive Service would rather not be reminded of its failed economic programs; and would rather shift the blame onto the public by calling those who are "panhandlers, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors" as suspects.

This doesn't solve the economic problem. The FBI announcement is an absurd justification to dare hide the symptoms of a failed economic strategy.

Silence the messenger: Label all reasonable public inquiry as suspicious

The public approaches government facilities when the need help, or need to complain about ineffective treatment. The government's approach to problem solving is abysmal. Government workers in America are notoriously incompetent. Simple problems are not solved, raising doubts about their ability to handle more complex issues.

When the public has to appear to complain about issues, they have to enter doors. Generally, when someone enters a building, they ask, "Where is the entrance." Yet, the public is tired of the hassles. The public simply wants to know, "How do I get into this place I do not want to be, and get out without any hassle?"

When one calls ahead to a new building that they have never visited, they normally ask, "Where is the door," and "how do I get there" and "how close is it to parking." Such questions may come as a surprise to those in government who can enter and exit without problems.

It is unreasonable to suggest that anyone asking questions about the facility parking, or where the front door has an "unusual interest ... access points of buildings

Today's FBI announcement calls anyone who "wants to enter a building" as a threat that should be reported. Thus it remains unclear "why an interest in doors" is the basis to conclude someone is suspicious.

The double standard is noteworthy. Law enforcement is allowed to comment on private matters; yet the government wants to public to remain silent on issues that are in public view or government matters.

If the public is "suspicious" for "noticing", then so too should law enforcement be "suspicious" when they act in a manner that fails to meet their freely chosen professional standards.

It is not appropriate that government reserve to itself the special priviledge of "public inquiry" that it denies to citizens; nor is it appropriate for government to only permit its officers to inquire into unusual situations, and compel the public to remains silent under penalty of detention.

The government needs to better define what it means as an "unusual interest in ... access points of buildings". Yet, rather than respond, the government says, "If we told you we're going to tell you how to be a terrorist."

When the public is harassed by law enforcement or security; or treated inappropriately or not provided adequate service, they have to mention security when filing their complaint

Despite clear requirements by DoJ to take civil rights complaints, DoJ personnel are encouraged to send the public on a wild goose chase to "talk to someone else" at the local level. Such an approach does little to inspire confidence in America's ability to solve problems.

The arrogant FBI approach is to blame the public. Clear violations of civil rights occur, yet the public is commanded to "keep quiet", "don't talk about it" and "if you say anything about the abuses committed by security, you're a terrorist."

Once again, the government provides a vague standard; rather than clarify the standard, it leaves it up to the public to navigate its way through the definition. This is not leadership, but arrogance.

If you travel and take a camera, you are a suspect

Of course visitors go to "out of the way places, not visited by other tourists" to film. The only picture worth taking is one that "someone else hasn't taken."

Law enforcement also says it has the right to photograph the public; "just engaging the private right to film." Yet, why is this right denied to the public; or why is the "use of photographic equipment in new places" the basis to accuse someone of being a terrorist? No reason.

This standard of "discreet use of video cameras in areas not visited by tourists is absurd. It merely acknowledges that the government has been abusing those who dare take pictures in isolated areas; and that the public "in order to engage in photography" has been forced to hide their cameras so that they can get their pictures.

Once again, we have another vague standard. Anyone who dares use a camera in a manner that "non-photographers [many people] do not understand" is the basis to detain, call in the law enforcement, and demand an explanation.

There is no reasonable basis for this arbitrary standard. Photograhy should be an enjoyable hobby, or a worthwhile profession. Not something that is forced to be hidden.

Deny the public the right to enjoy what is in plain view

Law enforcement regularly takes objects that are hidden in computers on the false notion that it is in "plain view." The courts have a dim view on witch hunts. Yet, the "plain view" doctrine is what law enforcement uses to justify their warrantless searches into motor vehicles.

Law enforcement argues before the courts "we can see it in plain view, so it is admissible." Strange, that this "plain view" standard doesn't also give the right of the public to simply, "enjoy what is in plain view."

Yet, the DoJ release would have us believe that the "plain view priviledge" is one that only belongs to law enforcement; and anyone in the public "who dares observe what is in plain view" is a suspect.

The DoJ release says that people are suspicious when, individuals [are] seen observing security drills or procedures. If law enforcement doesn't want these procedures observed, then law enforcement needs to create barricades and physically restrict the public from observing what is otherwise in plain view.

The basis for credible 42 USC 1983 claims is video evidence. The public has the right to video police misconduct, just as law enforcement has the right to video police stops on the open highways.

The government needs to explain why it affords itself the special priviledge of "plain view" access to evidence, but denies this right to the public. The public is not "suspicious" merely because it observes something in plain view; nor does the government have "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" when the public is seen observing that which is in plain view.

It is not the job of the public to "turn their eyes" or "pretend they do not see abuses." Rather, law enforcement management needs to ensure that their officers are trained before they enter the public arena and can be observed engaging in gross and reckless misconduct. If law enforcement wants to ensure its "training" is not observed by the public who might become adversarial witnesses in a 42 USC 1983 claims, law enforcement management has the responsibility to train their personnel before they interact with the public.

To suggest that the public is "engaging in suspicious behavior" by observing police training misses the point. Police are regularly trained on the job. The real problem is that the Field Training Officers [FTOs] provide misleading information to the public to explain away police misconduct. Rather than admit a new recruit stopped someone without reasonable suspicious, FTOs will encourage the recruits to create a plausible story that sounds believable. FTO's are also known to train new recruits to tell the public an incident "insn't a crime" so as to avoid taking the information.

Law enforcement management needs to admit that the problem isn't "public observing police," but that poorly trained FTOs are observable when they provide false and misleading information to new recruits and the public. Rather than expose their botched training to 42 USC 1983 claims, law enforcement wants to create another barrier to effective public monitoring of regularly police misconduct that we saw depicted on the images at Abu Ghraib.

Law enforcement lies all the time. DoJ doesn't want law enforcement misconduct caught on tape as that creates more work for DoJ OPR to perform, and prosecutors are forced to bring convictions against those they would rather blindly support.


Conclusion

The FBI release is merely another tool this failed American leadership is using to avoid oversight and consequences for ineffective policies, public misconduct, and government malfeasance. Rather than admit they have a problem in-house, this government's approach is to shift attention to the public and create barriers to accountability.

The AP story issued today creates an arbitrary standard. The standard creates an unreasonable presumption of guilt for engaging in innocent, lawful behavior.

The greater crime is that government workers are using these nebulous standards to shift attention from its own failings to those who dare challenge the malfeasance.

The government is simply creating a new excuse to justify shifting attention from their failed workforce, and put the pressure back on the public. Such an approach does not solve problems.

A similar approach was used during the 1700s. This approach failed. Government attention on those who speak out doesn't solve the problem; it merely allows the problem to fester.

Today's American government is committing the same error as the British Monarch did in 1776: It hopes to intimidate those who dare speak out against government ineffectiveness, or asking reasonable questions, or engage in lawful behavior so as to shift attention from the government's failed policies and put the attention on those in the least powerful position to stand up to this government arrogance.

The public cannot be reasonable defined as being "suspicious" for simply going about lawful activity. Characterizing someone "suspicious" opens the door to government questions, intrusion, intimidation, and further harassment. We need not repeat the abuses of the British Monarch.

Recommendation

The release needs to be redacted. The standards are not appropriate. The Inspector Generals for DoJ, the VA, and state auditors need to be tasked to identify to what extent these policies are a chilling effect on public complaints about ineffective government programs.

Questions

State Auditors

State auditors have a requirement to collect non-financial information in order to conduct performance audits. How many public complaints have state auditors rebuffed?

Public workers should have avenues to report misconduct in government. How many whistle-blowers have been denied the ability to provide information anonymously?

State auditors have anonymous call lines. What testing is done to ensure that the state auditors are actually taking the information they are required to take?

State auditors have a statutory requirement to take non-financial information in order to do performance audits. Also, non-financial information is required to conduct adequate SAS99 risk assessments prior to audit engagements. Without an adequate communication system to intake these non-financial indicators, there is a reasonable question about the basis for the adequacy of the audit scope. What methods, if any, are used to ensure that the anonymous tip lines to the state auditors are adequately intaking this non-financial information needed for SAS99 audit reviews?

Government effectiveness

Public accountability means the ability for the public to provide anonymously information that is investigated. The public is required to follow the laws; so too should state auditors be required to follow statutes which require public auditors to intake non-financial information for performance audits.

Why are auditors advertising to legislators that they are in full compliance with these statutes, yet in practice the auditors rebuff non-financial information;

what methods are used to ensure that those who wish to remain anonymous are able to provide this non-financial information for management attention?

Public statutes provide mechanism for the public to provide complaints when service does not meet performance standards. The public needs to have simple methods to have problems resolved.

In those cases where the public is not satisfied with the response, what mechanism is used to ensure the problem is corrected;

to what extent are public employees using the "suspicious behavior" as a means to distract attention from ineffective government service standard?

Government effectiveness is measured in terms of providing reliable information. Government workers should provide accurate information on who the employees' supervisors are; and who they can talk to to get assistance when they are not satisfied with the service they have received.

To what extent have government workers given incorrect information to the public so that the public is led down the very maze that makes them "act in a suspicious manner";

to what extent are public employees deliberately providing high walls to the public to overcome, only to complain that the public is "acting in a suspicious manner" when the public dares approach the public officials that the public has been told "they need to talk to";

to what extent are government workers deliberately giving the public "wrong information about how to handle a problem" only to use the "public's belief of that approach" as the basis to characterize the public as acting in a suspicious manner?

Economic programs

The FBI-Domestic Security news release states that they had no specific information. What was the basis to characterize "those who are panhandlers, shoe shiners, food or flower vendors" as being suspicious?

The United States just reported a significant rise in American living below the poverty line. To what extent have government employees sought to have themselves insulated from reminders of failed economic policies?

Complaints about law enforcement

Peace Officer Standards and Training [POST] are state-regulated entities designed to ensure public accountability for state-level law enforcement. In order to adequately process a complaint against law enforcement, the public needs to ask many detailed questions about the officer: Where they are assigned; their duties; nature of work identifying information.

Also, during 42 USC 1983 claims, the public has the right and responsibility to oversee the legal profession when brining civil actions against law enforcement. In those situations, the public has to engage in detailed analysis of law enforcement to assess whether the claims and allegations of law enforcement misconduct are actionable.

In some cases, the public is led to believe that the FBI is in the position to investigate law enforcement misconduct. This is only true in cases of criminal matters. Further, the Bush Administration has a policy of not encouraging DoJ to seek court orders against local law enforcement; rather DoJ is encouraged to sign settlement decrees that are not enforceable by the courts.

The public has the right to ask questions about law enforcement when law enforcement is, or appears to be:

[a] engaging in a manner that is not consistent with public policy;
[b} acting in a manner that violate their oath of office;
[c] acts in a manner that violates POST standards;
[d] engaging in a pattern of conduct that raises questions about the nature and purpose of questions; or
[e] raises reasonable questions about the tactics law enforcement uses to intimidate the public.

To what extent have law enforcement used the "heightened security alerts" as another tool to avoid needed oversight and public scrutiny into law enforcement misconduct?

The public has the right to inquire into public matters. How often do government workers notify law enforcement of "suspicious behavior" with full knowledge that the private citizen is merely following up on ineffective government service?

To effectively oversee and manage complex 42 USC 1983 claims, the public has to understand the nature of police work.

To what extent is law enforcement using this DoJ release as a barrier to the public understanding the scope of law enforcement misconduct;

how often are these notices going to be released to create a barrier to the public in their understanding of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable police behavior?

DOJ

How many civil rights complaints does the FBI rebuff on the basis that "local officials" handle that matter?

National Peace Officer Standards and Training [POST]

When was the last time that POST was exposed to a no-notice audit by Interpol?

What is the sampling plan by POST personnel to evaulate in the field their FTOs?

What excuses does POST provide to FTOs to justify "not taking public complaints"?

How frequently do FTOs tell new recruits to "avoid a 42 USC 1983 claim" by making up a ridiculous reason for a stop?

Read more . . .

Public comments by court and government officials actionable

Judge fails to meet the minimum standards of decency. What sends the message to court and government employees that it is acceptable to speak to others in such a manner?

Clear rules, yet many willing to pretend the rules do not apply to them. Why is the public required to obey the law; yet the court employees and government personnel must be reminded that they too are not above the law?

Respect comes from an example, not the bully pulpit of force. Screaming louder does little to inspire confidence in government.

It's time to see better examples, not better charades.

Update: Link on the web; article no longer linkable after 2 weeks -- 17 Oct 2004.

Read more . . .

American Century: Can it survive, much less prevail?

Leadership means standing up and solving problems.

The ones who blame aren't leaders. And they don't solve problems.

Here's some inspiration to learn how to stand up to bullies. The Barbarians fighting the Roman Empire exposed the flaws. There's nothing like an inconvenient messenger.

Today's battle against "the enemy of the week" [whoever that is] is simply exploiting the flaws in the American cultural model. These flaws, despite the catalyst of 9-11 and the government bungling, continue.

The question is not whether the US can win; but whether the US can survive as a viable entity before its self-evident flaws are exploited.

The government's solution is to simply shoot the messengers. Just as we saw in Enron-Andersen how the auditors will get into bed with the corporate governors, so too are the auditors and media getting into bed with government and law enforcement.

Symbiotic relationship

Auditors, law enforcement, media, and government once formed a nice adversaries relationship. Today, they have combined forces.

Auditors routinely state they look into management issues. They have state-level statues mandating performance audits. Yet, they refuse this non-financial information.

Despite clear and specific information about malfeasance given to auditors and law enforcement, cases are not only dismissed, but those reporting the information are targeted for special attention. Not only is the initial information rebuffed, but the auditors and law enforcement are more likely to believe their brethren in government than the whistle blowers.

On top of this is the Bush Administration's policy of requiring DoJ to negotiate [at most] consent decrees, rather than court orders, where there are cases of mal/misfeasance or police corruption. DoJ is reticent to find criminal liability, as we saw in Goose Creek, SC.

The media when it came to the prison scandal was slow to embrace the news. Rather, it was more likely to chime, "Because they had not heard anything, anyone speaking out must be a prisoner, therefore questionable credibility." Small problem: The photos were overwhelming; and the "open court system" proved to be a fiction. Despite many abuses in the jails, the burden of proof was generally so high, prisoners were not given credible platforms to advocate for change. Prisoners are denied the right to have their editorials published in the news papers.

Government and law enforcement

The symbiotic relationship between government and law enforcement goes like this. Government, because it is ineffectual, invokes public outrage; and law enforcement, seeking more budget authority, tells government to give it a call "when they see something suspicious."

Presto chango. Public citizens speak out against government abuse and malfeasance; and government, fearing accountability, calls in the SWAT team to put pressure on those who would otherwise hold the government accountable. At the same time, law enforcement shows up with threats of detention in order to gather intelligence, and "prove" that there are bad guys out there, therefore, government staffers should continue to call law enforcement for assistance.

What does this do to solve the problem of government accountability and responsiveness to the real problems? Absolutely nothing. Which is exactly what the government wants: No accountability, thus no basis for "outsiders" to say, "Government is wrong."

This is the heart of the debate in America today. Will America modernize and embrace real leadership; or will it simply fall into the trap of making those "who dare speak out" the target of attacks.

To date, I see no evidence the post-9-11 world has changed. The government arrogance, abuse, misconduct, cover-ups, and blaming continue. This is the same non-sense that drove the government to do nothing about the previous reports prior to 9-11 about the failed FAA audits.

This time, the stakes are higher. Those out there in the real world know that this government, rather than reform, would rather abuse and mistreat those who dare speak out.

The test is going to be: Can this government modernize, reform, and remedy the inherent flaws of failed leadership, and then move forward to solve the real problems? Of course not. This is what is behind the Pentagon's recent statements: To simply deny problems, shift attention, and make the bad news "good news."

Our enemy knows we have not reformed, and the unremedied defects are the greatest flaw to exploit. Leadership, accountability, and command authority have broken down.

The media, law enforcement, auditors, and feedback mechanisms have holes and prove
ineffectual. Rather than fix what is broken, this government chooses to put great effort and energy into pretending to investigate, modernize, or repair problems. The illusions do not solve the self-evident flaws which others continue to exploit.

America needs to realize the seriousness of the flaws. The system of leadership, checks and balances, and ineffectual analysis which we saw in the Challlenger and Columbia incidents; are the same failed systems which proved to cause disasters in re Sibel Edmonds, 9-11, and the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuse scandals.

Nice Pentagon speeches clearly do not address reality. Rather, the Pentagon is merely doing more of what hasn't worked and is doomed to fail.

The Barbarians at the gates continue to send a message: That things are not right. The country did not listen before or after 9-11; and the fundamental problems behind 9-11 continue unremedied.

The New American Century will prove to be an illusion when the only "solution" is to engage in the abuses of the enemy we once fought during the Cold War. It is absurd we spent that much money to fight the USSR-turned-Russians, only to decide this late in the game that "maybe they had it right" and "secrecy, police states, and arrogance" are the way to go.

The former British and French colonies around the globe fought off abusive colonial masters. Some left freely; others had to be abused. Yet, it was the free flow of ideas in WWII that precipitated the change.

Auditors, law enforcement, government staff workers, and the media are no longer part of the solution, but symptoms of a problem. The Barbarians challenged the Roman Empire; Rome fell. So too is the United States in a tenuous position. It is time to wake up before there is another rude wake-up call. American have yet to understand the scope of their leadership problem and systemic failures.

The Pentagon is simply hoping to avoid accountability for failed leadership. The Military did not save Caesar from his own failing. So too will America find that an entrenched culture bent on blaming is doomed to fail. America's days are numbered, and the Pentagon simply wants to embrace the illusion that there is no problem. America, your cancerous leadership knows no end to keep you from the truth.

Read more . . .

Pentagon Propaganda Shifts in High Gear to Protect Bush from War Crimes Allegation

How a Pentagon gaffe showed us the President is propped up by alot of sping and hype.

Here's a quick case study on what they do, and what you can do to not get fooled. The Pentagon unleashed the media spin to protect the President. In an interview with BBC, Pentagon spokesmen clearly indicated that they will go to any lengths to protect the President, even misleading the public with irrelevancies.

Grenada

The Pentagon's major flaw is characterizing the Abu Ghraib torture and killings as something that should be expected. The Pentagon erroneously argues that personnel in the military are not familiar with "POW Doctrine" as it was "so long ago."

This argument fails. Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, and Gulf War I example of US forces being put into combat, and having to deal with detainees

Geneva Conventions

The other fiction perpetuated by the Pentagon to avoid war crimes allegations is the fantasy that the "war on terror" is a new war, unlike the Cold War.

If this argument were true [which it isn't], then we are tasked to embrace the fiction that international law only applies when the White House says it does. Such is fiction. The Geneva Conventions apply through Article VI of the US constitution, making all treaties the US has signed the supreme law of the land.

Further, the "change in war name" [from Cold to terror] is unrelated to whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply.

In addition, if we were to embrace the non-sense that "war on terror" is different, thereby "justifying doing something other than what we did during the Cold War," this presupposes that "what we did during the Cold War was in compliance with the Geneva Convention; and that our compliance with detainee rights was still a body of knowledge.

Indeed, it is the "sudden change of events" that is "making everyone so surprised" that the "old body of knowledge" is no longer useful; if this is the case, then "the old body of knowledge related to the Geneva Convention and the Cold War" still exists. The Pentagon has admitted that the "new body of knowledge" is still in its infancy.

The Pentagon has yet to explain how an "old body of knowledge" [that has not gone away, and is only replaced by something new and experimental] could suddenly vanish, yet nothing be left in its wake.

The real answer is that the Geneva Convention remains the law of the land; and the senior leadership knew or should have known that combat operations in Iraq would involve detainees; and they either failed to plan, or planned to torture.

Regardless the planning problems, the end result is that detainees were tortured; the senior leadership knew they had a responsibility to care for the detainees; and the leadership when developing the plan to fight in Iraq was aware, or should have known, the Geneva Convention and failed to adequately ensure the conditions and treatment were consistent with the law of the land.

Bush, through Article VI, could very well be impeached.

War Crimes of 300,000

The other fiction the Pentagon is spewing out is the non-sense that the War in Iraq has "alot of troops" and "the number of abuses relative to those troops is very small" so don't blame us.

That is far too convenient. First, note they are comparing apples and oranges. They use the 300,000 number [for the entire theater] and compare that to the "number of detainees" in an isolated area. One number is for combat; the actual location is a prison. The two are not related.

In fact, if we were to use the Pentagon's 300,000 number, we should be not looking at the abuses in just Abu Ghraib, but also throughout Iraq. Indeed, the Pentagon doesn't want this comparison.

Rather, it chimes in with "there is no evidence" [despite SSgts coming forward and admitting genocide, war crimes, and abuses on the Iraqi population], and the media is singing, "We hear nothing". No surprise given this is the same media that sung praises for the invasion, and now is blaming the public for "not speaking out enough." The media has no credibility.

No useful, reliable intelligence from torture

The other prong of the Pentagon's failed argument to defend Bush from War crimes is to embrace the illusion that "they got good things" from the abuses.

This does two things. The much maligned 9-11 report [meaning, "alot of people didn't like the message which raised questions about Bush] is conveniently "solved" by suggesting "the bad things that happened in Iraq" helped to "contribute" to a good outcome in the 9-11 report.

In short, the Pentagon is taking "a bad situation in Abu Ghraib" and switching the argument form the abuses to the "fruits of that torture" then suggesting "the fruits of the torture" actually made the 9-11 report [that they didn't like] into something positive.

Please, feel free to vomit now.

Stickers here:

Read more . . .

Government: Ineffectual, why are we suprised by the outrage?

Unreliable, Unresponsive

Herculean efforts are required to get anything minor.

Abusive government employees

They are quick to lecture the public "how we should or should not be", but then they command a special privilege as "private citizen" to put themselves beyond public comment or the mirror.

Intrusions to humiliate

The government needs to demonstrate it is going to respond to the questions it commands the public to respond to: Accountability, explanations, justify, explain in detail, repeat.

We do not need to explain ourselves; government needs to justify why we should believe it. Government, not the citizenry, needs to explain itself everday: What is the basis for our continued support, other than blind allegience.

Read more . . .

RNC: Your guide to helping Bush lose the Election

Some thoughts on what could be done to defeat the President. Will they pan out and is there enough time? Summary

The rules of this game: You enter the maze. Your objective: Ensure Bush loses the election.

Contestants

One contestant disguises himself to enter the maze. Disruptions planned to evaluate responses.

Contestant carried away.

Enter Cohen's Maze

HSS at the center of the security assistance.

What is known Video Surveillance; [ archived version: Archive of surveillance site.] Warning on the FBI surveillance of Text messages. Cameras by street; wireless video. JTTF domestic spy-planes and helicopters, and UAV.

Taru

Taru is little understood; but they appear to have surveillance vans which tend to move slow enough for a messenger bike to shadow.

Finding the Cheese: The Guests, the Media, and the message

Scouting the area. Hotels housing the 17-22,000 people. The roof is an interesting place to have a picnic. Making your maps to weave your way through the maze.

How Spiderman did it. Ideas: How others have done it. ANother look at how the scouts work. Press coverage of the building-spiders.

Ideas: Highway posters and art for the Hotels Guests' pleasure

How to make: Cardboard, and other tips.

Freeway blogger

Ideas on highway posters; other posters for the highways. Small signs work wonders. Placement strategies.

I-Box; who really ignored the UN? Pentagon coffins aren't forgotten in this performance art; Troops lied to. Dean would agree.

Advice for your radio-call-ins.

Chinese water torture approch to bringing down corruption.

Nothing is foolproof. More discussion on how they plan to get onto the floor for live-TV disruptions.

Historical comparisons

NYC Maps in 2004; Crude maps won the war against tyranny.

What kind of maps will they make of the RNC convention? Historical map detail. NYC maps.

In 2004, you might get a papercut.

Bush supporters switch sides

The worst case situation is when conservative-Bush-supporters are abused by the police because their innocent behavior is mistaken for something evil. Then it will beging to sink in: There are fascists trying to manipulate the right wing conservatives to "put up with more non-sense."

Compare maps to bogus AlQueda maps

These maps are available anywhere. Not AlQueda, but US citizens planning to exercise their rights. There's a big difference.

Domestic surveillance

Now that you've looked at the websites, let's look at which government agencies have been tracking you on the web. Here's the full Alphabetical listing.

How you enjoy living in a fascist country with high surveillance little tolerance for independent thinking/action to question that which deserves no support or belief?

Updates

Secret Service investigating posting of RNC hotel locations. "Not welcome in New York" is a well-used phrase.

FBI denies interviews:

FBI Assistant Director Cassandra Chandler insisted the government was not interviewing protesters, and that nobody was questioned or monitored "unless we receive intelligence that such individuals or groups may be planning violent and disruptive criminal activity or have knowledge of such activity." Ref

How do they explain the interviews of people prior to the RNC? No answer on that. ACLU speaks out against the intimidation.

Read more . . .