Newsflash: Criminal Aliens apparently to be removed from US

I realize that this blog has strayed from technical stuff to politics, but unlike politics, most technology seems to achieve what it sets out to do.

So now, get this: apparently the homeland secretary wants criminal aliens out of the US.

As a law-abiding, legal alien, I am surprised to learn that this is not the case already. But then, they don't kick illegal aliens out, either. Why am I following this rabbit-warren of rules again?

On the other hand, there are these crazy rumors where you're held until the day after your visa expires and then escorted out of the country if they can't find any real crime to charge you with. I suspect you'd need to be extremely belligerent for anyone to bother.

Saturday Funnies #2: Not funny - FBI uses link clicks to entrap

From the CNET story:

Well, the suspect's lawyers have not used the entrapment defense, since you pretty much need to be forcibly coerced into doing something by law enforcement for that to work.

Even a challenge to the warrant, based on the IP lease information from the ISP, to the house that had an open access point, didn't fly. Nice - so someone with a WEP cracker (10 minutes) can download porn, click on the wrong link, from my connection and I get searched?

I mean - I am sure I could find "suspicious material" on everyone's computer. We're all guilty of something, after all. Heck, a link to here, with its link to cryptome.org is probably enough to get you sent to a secret prison somewhere. Maybe this post contains a secret link to make sure a kiddie porn picture is downloaded to your browsers cache from an FBI computer. You guilty sex offender, you.

Considering how many people click "OK" without reading the sentence above it, how viable is this really?

Don't get me wrong - those links were clearly labeled as child porn with all sorts of disgusting descriptions, so there is cause to be suspicious, but when you see what the convictions are really for (two images in a thumbs.db file) it's a bit of a stretch.

How 9/11 Changed Me

As I mull over the moments that I had at a backup site to the stock exchange, hastily evacuated out of fear that the attackers would also hit financial backup sites of the USA, coming home to see the smoke from the Pentagon from my balcony, and accommodating those were stuck in the district after a complete lock-down, I find it interesting on how the news networks harp on and on about patriotic this and patriotic that. NBC had a poll saying that over 60% of people responding felt that government was not doing enough to combat terror.

My point exactly. You may as well say that we haven't sacrificed enough of our freedoms for our security.

How stupid, ignorant, and dangerous. Turning this country into a police state is what the terrorists wanted, and they have succeeded. Ask some honest questions:

• How many terrorists were apprehended under the "Patriot" act? Convicted, even under "judge, this man is guilty for reasons we cannot tell you, so please issue the verdict" kangaroo courts?
  
  None.
  
  
• How many terrorists were stopped under laws that existed prior to 9/11, convicted in open courts, under the rule of law we so love to espouse?
  
  More than zero. Less than five.
  
  
• How many cameras did it take in the UK to stop determined terrorists? How many wiretap laws?
  
  Not enough.
  
  

We, the people, have handed victory to the terrorists and emboldened our enemies, because we will not stand for our rights.

Take our guns. Check, new assault weapons bans in progress will ensure terrorists and predators are better armed than we are (see the events in England as a reminder).

Take our right to self defense (c.f. California's escalation in equal measure statute vs. Castle statute of Virginia). In progress - California, Maryland, and the northeastern states leading the way. Therefore, we're absolved of personal responsibility, but so are the cops, as proven in court in DC that they have no responsibility to protect you.

Take our right to a fair trial. Check. Secret letters in secret courts are not enough here - clearly we need more national security letters.

Take our right to due process of any measure. Check. Like Australia, we gladly allow guilt by association on secret facts, as long as it isn't us.

Oh wait, I violated a presidential order, as open discourse can be construed as "undermining Iraq reconstruction efforts." F*** free speech.

My friend's bagpipe playing a sorrowful Piobaireachd in memoriam from noon until midnight, on the hour that day was for the people. And the loss of our freedom to come.

Yes, I feel safer already. Don't you?

Terror, Freedom, Sheeple, and the Will to Lose

Just when you thought it's not going to get any worse:

• Airline passenger data is being shared between the EU and the USA. Well, only one way - the USA gets the data.
  
• Any name can appear on a "terror watch list" with no due process, and no process to get that name off
• More and more cameras record crime and terrorism - have they ever stopped something?
• Renewal of the warrantless wire tap measures in the US Government, bypassing the secret FISA court system (which, by the way, has a 24 hour turnaround time and has never turned down a request)

All for your security?

Let me tell you, the terrorists are winning.

Why? Because they want to oppress us. They do no care who does - if we do it to ourselves, then fine.

It is the fear of the conservatives, and the liberal nanny-staters that is allowing western governments unprecedented powers with no checks or balances. The evolution of technology has made this even simpler for the governments to go on fishing expeditions.

And you thought it was all about shooting them in the "other front" in the War on Terror.

So in fear, we have thrown out the rule of law, and its basic tenet: You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable does not mean some bureaucrat thinks you're guilty. I means that people must be convinced by being presented with facts that you are.

It won't happen to you? Think again.

Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor accused by Australia as a "collaborator" in the UK terror plots, had charges against him dropped by the police for lack of evidence. What happens? Work visa revoked, medical license revoked. No court hearing. Reason given: "character grounds" (link), because someone involved was his second cousin. No due process.

Don't have an islamic name? Think that will save you? Some poor 7-year old boy named Michael Martin is on the no-fly list, and can't get off. (Washington Post) Pronounced guilty by the state, again with no due process.

Who is the original Michael Martin the state thinks we need to be protected from? The atheist philosopher who debates the existence of God? Sounds good to me - off to Guantanamo with him. (Goooogle)

Ever seen a psychiatrist or psychologist? Ever had a prescription for anti-depressants? HR 2640 will make everyone who ever had any sort of treatment suspect. No, not deemed "mentally defective by a judge" per the BATF form (whatever that means), but simply flagged as a "May not own" in the NICS database. Depressed? You just gave up your right to an effective form of self defense, not to mention a great time sporting. Veteran? Immediately suspect, although veterans have a clause and a process to get removed from the list - go beg in front of a desk jockey, I wish you luck. No due process.

Why are we doing this? Is it really too much Bourne Supremacy or 24 where they always only get the call of the bad guy?

The sheer idiocy of it.

And in the meantime, the democrats in Congress do what they do best: have hearings. Clearly, the assault weapons ban needs to be re-instated too - look and how many AR-15's and AK-47's have been used in crimes in the recent years (within US borders! Not Sudan!)

State of the 5th Amendment

Scary stuff happening to the Rule of Law around here:

First point is a Presidential Order issued on July 17, 2007, that effectively suspends/repeals the 5th Amendment ("nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;") for any person who "poses a significant risk of" undermining the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. Also see story on Slashdot, and an article minimizing the language on the Guardian UK's web site.

Wait, so Democrats can have their property be frozen (i.e. seized)? Can my property be seized, for posting this article? Check that wording, and get back to me. It sounds very ripe for abuse.

While we're on the subject of due process, bill HR 2640, just passed back to the House from the Senate is also an assault on this. The bill was introduced in response to the VA Tech shootings, and seeks to "strengthen the NICS system." The NICS (National Instant (Background) Check System) is the database state police departments use when processing a firearms purchase, and contains records of all convictions, pending charges, and other court judgments against a person.

In this case it deals with firearms, so many readers won't care. Some pro-gun organizations have stated that the language therein is subject to mis-interpretation, allowing an attorney general to effectively prohibit an individual from possessing or acquiring a firearm without due process. The NRA's lobbying group at this time states that this is not the case, but that the bill will likely have some other controls attached to it by the time it passes the second reading in the house. Apparently the NRA is backing some clarifying language, of course opposed by gun-control groups.

A possible amendment could be that seeking counseling or psychiatric treatment could allow you to be placed on the "blocked list". Most mental health professionals are pretty opposed to firearms ownership, so probably mentioning the word gun would cause this. Treatment for PTSD would be a prime example, which would be ironic: you serve your country in a war abroad, see things nobody should have to see, come back, and you're no longer allowed to have firearms. See a blog entry on the Washington Post, the Huffington Post.

Scary stuff.

AKP Wins in Turkey, and What that means

What? Not something about SunRocket? Stop navel-gazing, read this, and think:

Turkey is a secular democratic state, a NATO ally, but whose primarily muslim population seems to cause a great deal of fear and misunderstanding among Americans. It has troops in Afghanistan, sent AWACS planes to the USA after 9/11, and allowed America to station medium-range ballistic missiles on its territory in the 60's triggering the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a reward, they are greeted with American vitriol and lumped in with Arabs.

The vote result (live in English here) shows the pro-islamic AK party in the lead, and possibly in a position to rule without having to form a coalition. Remember, unlike the US two-party system, a British-style parliamentary system can have many parties, and the executive branch is drawn from the leaders of the legislative majority. Should no majority exist, two parties may negotiate a coalition to control the majority. This leads to degrees of compromise not possible in the US political system, where discussions tend to be binary and divisive.

What does a pro-Islam party majority mean for the USA?

• The vote by the Turks for a party that is considered by some a threat to Turkey's separation of church and state is a response to the fear of the Turks of US Unilateralism.
• This is similar to, but obviously not as severe as, the Hamas election wins in Palestine.
• Some Turks already expect a US reaction to mirror the one in Palestine: "Democracy is great as long as you agree with us."
  
• It can be seen, along with comments last week on the Turkey-Iran gas deal, as a rejection of US influence in the region.
• It can be seen as skepticism to the commitment of the US and EU involvement on the War on Terror.
  
• US and British support for the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq in spite of increasing PKK terror attacks in Turkey.
• Austria's disregard for INTERPOL protocol in the capture of a wanted PKK terrorist, instead allowing him to travel on to Iraq.
• Finding of US-made equipment and weapons in the hands of PKK terrorists captured or killed in action.
• Rejection of NATO treaty "Article 5" support against the PKK by NATO members following the suicide bombings in Istanbul and Ankara.
  

In a sentence, the USA can expect what it sees as lack of cooperation from Turkey to continue, based on Turkey's objection to what it sees as a double-standard from EU nations and the USA.

US unilateralists will of course counter with "they did not help us in Iraq," but unilateralism seems to always get hung up not taking into account your allies' political realities, instead requiring blind and unquestioning support from those to be called "friends." This plays into the hands of our enemies quite well, as it's "us or them."

Yet the same unilateralists scoff at Turkey's right to defend itself against a clear and immediate threat across the border in Iraq? How better to undermine your credibility.

Will the Turkish military, charged by the constitution to protect separation of church and state, intervene this time? Time will tell, and this will depend very much on the actions the elected leaders, versus public opinion. After all, the pro-EU reforms the AKP undertook during their last term have brought Turkey a rare period of economic growth and prosperity.

Naysayers will say Turkey is not truly a free state, and I would have to agree there. Insulting "turkishness" is a crime there, so free speech is restricted. However, what happens to people who deny the Holocaust in the USA or Germany?

Naysayers will say Turkey is corrupt and police abuses are rampant. Little evidence exists to support or deny that argument. One can point to allegations of Monsanto Corporation's, big energy, and military contractors' connections to the Vice President's office in the USA, with similar connections in Canada and Germany. DNA evidence causing exposures of miscarriages of justice in "non-corrupt" western states is similar. Again, I'll say this argument exposes the desire to be one-sided in the imposition of "standards."

Naysayers will say that women's rights are in doubt in Turkey. Partially true: While ignorance and tradition abound outside the urban areas, the number of women delegates elected in this election by AKP(!) supporters doubled. One can also argue that women in Turkey were the first of any nation to get a vote to begin with, in 1934 (corrected).

Naysayers will say that Turkey has a history of ethnic cleansing, but fail to account for their own countries' involvement. The Ottoman Turkish state probably killed a million Armenians or so, but accusing modern Turkey is akin to accusing the United States of handing smallpox-infected blankets to American Indians ("It wasn't us! It was the British!"). The Greek invading army into the southwest of Turkey in 1922 carried out similar atrocities on Turks living there. Turkish Cypriots are accused of massacres of Greek Cypriots, and those accusations run both ways. Bottom line: Everyone's ethnicity has has done this in the last 400 years. Study your own history. I say: get over your double standard.

ISRO (International Strategic Relations Organization) surveys (1 (2004), 2 (2005)) indicate:

• Most Turks (~70%) see the USA as a "strategic ally"
• Many Turks (~28%) see the USA as the greatest threat to the Turkish nation
• 37% of Turks have no problem with their children marrying an American (considering how regionally "selective" Turks are, this is remarkable)

One of the interesting parts was that mainland Greeks overwhelmingly see Turkey as their #1 threat. They also overwhelmingly believe that Turkey's Mediterranean coast is "un-liberated" Greek territory. Yikes.

So, what should Turkey do? (Unilateralists: "Submit" is not the answer) My recommendations:

1. Enforce equality legislation on the books now to erode base support amongst ethnic Kurds in the eastern provinces.
2. Continue in its anti-corruption initiatives.
3. Continue implementing positive economic changes to continue to reduce poverty, improve access to education, and minimal public services in its vast rural regions.

What should the USA do to get more Turkish support? (again, unilateralists: "Nothing, or threaten them with nukes." is not helpful).

1. Address Turkey's status as a contributing partner in NATO.
2. Address perceptions of double standards and unilateralism as viewed by the Turkish voting public.

It's really not much, but the vitriol used in the rhetoric used by both sides needs to be toned down. Someone needs to have the guts to be first, and do the right thing.

Or should Turkey really leave NATO and form a defensive pact with Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan? That would be a nightmare.

The Disgrace of the Neocons

What a week.

First AG Gonzales continues to play dumb in public about his role in the firings of federal prosecutors, with new allegations emerging that he bypassed the last acting attorney general, and instead got the signature on the wiretap opinion from then-hospitalized John Ashcroft. These sorts of revelations continue to paint a frightening picture of the advocates of the so-called New World Order.

In other news, anti-corruption Wolfowitz, after arranging a raise for his girlfriend, resigns his position after negotiating a rosy summary by the World Bank board of directors. The grapevine in Washington reports that he ran the World Bank the same way the neocons ran their conquered Iraq: complete isolation in a Green Zone of sorts.

Salon.com reports here on how the administrators of the Iraqi occupation apparently had no clue about how Microsoft Word (tm) works, and how sensitive information exposing their optimism, hubris, and general ignorance was published for the world to see.

The Democrats fare little better, continuing with their push of "failure at any cost" - holding the effort in Iraq hostage to their demands for a withdrawal timetable. Of course, none of this stops the pork-barrel spending they had so selflessly exposed in their legislative opponents, as they graciously offer to "cut billions in domestic spending" from the supplemental budget.

And the agreement on immigration, nice, let's split families. So my green (greed) card-carrying wife could not get me one? Or, I complied with all laws and my employer and I have to pay $10,000+ for one, yet one of these lawbreakers can get one for $5,000? Nice.

'nuff said.