Member since: Sat Jan 5, 2008, 07:45 PM
Number of posts: 41,796
Number of posts: 41,796
- 2017 (15)
- 2016 (5)
- November (5)
- 2014 (8)
- January (8)
- 2013 (28)
- 2012 (146)
- 2011 (14)
- December (14)
- Older Archives
DU is, obviously, in one of its high octane civil discussions and you can tell how heated it has become by how uncivil the discussion has become. If you are surprised by any of this then you haven’t been here very long or haven’t been paying attention.
There are dozens of threads bashing the President and his supporters here but this one is my favorite: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023030629
and it launched a vigorous discussion among GD hosts because I was fairly certain that it was whining about DU but a few said that as the particular “lackey butt-kissing shit” wasn’t identified it couldn’t be classified as whining about DU.
Now I found that to be rather tendentious sophistry because I think it was quite clear who the OP was referring to, they were referring to me.
It seems obvious that they are referring to DU supporters of the President, that on DU the most ardent supporters of the President visit the BOG. As the longest serving host at BOG if you were compiling a list of “lackey butt-kissing shit” you would have to put my name at the top of the list.
I don’t complain about being on that list, I embrace it. But alas, I am not whining about it I embrace it. And while I prefer Solidarity Democrats I will take cheerleader, kool aid drinker, fan boi, or lackey butt-kissing shit, with a smile as long as it is clear that I still support the President 100%.
Please refer to me as LBKS #1.
Its not the first nor I am sure the last time I am at the end of a vulgar epitaph. In the past when I was on the receiving end of such vulgar histrionics I turned the absurdity of it to expose the weakness of the attack. My favorites were being called a communist when I publicly denounced Agnew’s upcoming visit in 1972 in a meeting before WA Governor Dan Evans (he laughed) and called a Nazi by an Auschwitz survivor whose department in the IOM I was charged with evaluating and reforming.
While DU remains a unique place for a great deal of insightful discussion (see the well informed threads by some DUers who are following the Martin murder trial) sometimes elements of the discussion become so white hot that positions harden and little actual discussion results and there is no persuasion.
No one is going to be persuaded by this thread.
If you are reading it then there is a 99% likelihood that your mind has not simply been made up but set in concrete on the NSA related warrants. It happens on DU. I post this because I continue to hold DU in deep affection and want some people who are President Obama supporters to understand that you can continue to participate here without succumbing to the bashing and without returning the vitriol.
So I have been giving a pass to most of the NSA related threads but have now noticed a number of threads now have commented that the absence of threads supporting the administration is evidence that there is no argument and that the only possible position for a DU member is to consider the Obama administration as a major violator of the 4th Amendment and that it is one of the following: authoritarian, totalitarian, surveillance state, Stalinist, and a whole list of other completely absurd adjectives.
Before getting into the details lets establish that:
1) The government has for decades established various data bases for investigative purposes, some more benign than others. Voicing concern about those data bases doesn’t make you anti-Obama, paranoid, or ‘hair on fire’.
2) On January 20th 2017 President Obama will no longer be President and so even if you are a 100% supporter of the President, which I am, then it is still reasonable to be concerned about how those data bases are used and oversight maintained.
Now for the points that I consider relevant:
A) The Fourth Amendment and government data bases.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The government has, for some time, accumulated or has access to various elements of meta data that is used for law enforcement. Some are more benign than others.
If you make a cash transfer of even $ 100 through a bank it is now recorded and added to a financial data base. If you drive within 100 miles of the Southern US border you will pass through check points and your cars details will enter a data base. If you cross a US border your movements are added to a data base, and so on.
The government doesn’t use these data bases for surveillance, and they are not opening up a personal file on you. If they find a person of interest in a money laundering investigations they go through the data base and see if there is evidence that can add to the investigation and develop other leads.
Driving along the Southern Border you will approach various Border Patrol Checkpoints. Prior to reaching the checkpoints you will pass a set of cameras that are obvious and not hidden:
There is nothing secret about these operations and you can ask the Border Patrol Agent about them. They are creating a data base and use it as an investigative tool, which is different than surveillance or spying. For example if they receive a report of a vehicle that was involved in drug activity in Ohio they might, for example, go back and find that particular vehicle crossed the border and moved north of Laredo on 14 occasions and on each of those occasions there were two other vehicles that passed the same check point within 20 minutes of each other. That would provide a lead that could result in probable cause to search those other vehicles.
If you find the meta data base that the NSA is building to be intrusive and a violation of privacy then I wonder what you are thinking about the other data bases that the government is building without warrants or Congressional scrutiny on a daily basis. Last month my daughter sent me $ 100 cash gift by Western Union and because I passed a BP checkpoint I entered two data bases on the same trip. One of them had my license plate and kept track of my physical travel and the other had my social security number and kept track of my cash movements.
B) The government and the telephone.
As soon as the phone was invented wiretapping soon followed. You can find a time line of legal cases regarding wiretapping here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061834
There is nothing illegal about a government agent listening to a public conversation in a restaurant, but listening in on that conversation through a wiretap without a warrant would be illegal. The phone has always triggered special concerns.
And here is the irony of the whole situation:
Wiretapping or listening to conversations per se must have become mostly useless for the government, for the simple reason that throw away phones are, as Tony Sopranao showed all of us a decade ago, ubiquitous.
A couple of years ago a business acquaintance came to me telling me about his new business and tried to recruit me. I told him that I considered the financial instruments highly unethical and almost certainly illegal and tried to persuade him not to proceed. He ignored my advice and I tried to avoid him as much as possible. Last year he called me and told me he had been arrested and wanted my advice on his legal strategy. I told him to end the call and met him for lunch and gave him a number to one of my ‘throwaway’ phones that I use because I do business in a number of area codes and have found it easier to contact clients when they see that it is the same area code. I told him that if he wanted to talk to me about legal issues as his case progressed he should buy a throw away phone and call me on one of mine. (He did later call me and was frustrated with his counsel who wanted an additional $ 50,000 but told him that not only was he going to walk but that the government was going to have to refund all of his legal fees. Based on what he had told me I told him that my advice was to do the right thing and tell his attorney to strike a deal with the prosecutor so that he could avoid prison and also help some of the victims recover some of their lost assets, which he eventually did. It was revealed that he did have a wire tap on his regular phone but none on his throw away)
My point is that anyone who knows that the government is actively after them should at this point in time have the common sense not to use their regular phone but one that is untraceable, and the same is true with throw away email accounts.
Obviously anyone connected to Al Queda has been trained not to have any substantial conversations on a phone line that they could be identified with.
So on a practical level what is the NSA doing?
Here is the case against the Administration:
We learned yesterday that the National Security Agency (NSA) obtained a top-secret court order that forces Verizon to hand telephone records of millions of US customers over to the government. Today, the Obama administration is defending the practice as a critical tool for preventing terrorist attacks.
The Guardian, which uncovered and published the secret court order, today detailed the White House's response.
The Guardian wrote:
The White House has sought to justify its surveillance of millions of Americans' phone records as anger grows over revelations that a secret court order gives the National Security Agency blanket authority to collect call data from a major phone carrier.
Politicians and civil liberties campaigners described the disclosures, revealed by the Guardian on Wednesday, as the most sweeping intrusion into private data they had ever seen by the US government.
But the Obama administration, while declining to comment on the specific order, said the practice was "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States."
The phone record collection doesn't target only suspected terrorists. The court order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forces Verizon to give the NSA "all call detail records or 'telephony' meta data created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls." The order, which covers a three-month period ending July 19, means the government is receiving data such as "phone numbers of both parties, the duration of the conversation, the time of the conversation, location data, telephone calling card numbers, and unique identifiers pertaining to the phones," as we noted yesterday.
Such call detail collection also occurred during the Bush administration. US officials say it is allowed under the Patriot Act passed in 2001.
An unnamed Obama administration official quoted by the Associated Press said that "n its face, the order reprinted in the article does not allow the government to listen in on anyone's telephone calls." Call meta data can help the government identify the people making the phone calls, however.
"It allows counter-terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States," the administration official quoted by The Guardian said.
So what is the value of these meta data records?
I believe that it is pretty similar to my example of the use of car movement data bases by the Border Patrol described above. Once they capture or identify a throwaway phone they want to be able to reverse the network and unravel all of the other throw away phones that were ever used and in doing so identify other people connected.
One of my problems with those that are raising concerns (and some of the concerns are, as noted, valid) is the outrageous hyperbole involved.
“the most sweeping intrusion into private data they had ever seen by the US government”
This isn’t even the most intrusive action they have into my private data in the last week.
Here would be my ranking:
1) Keeping track of my financial transactions.
2) Keeping track of my car movements
3) Keeping track of the same information that is on my phone bill.
C) Government abuses of the constitution including the 4th and 14th Amendments.
The strongest case for those that are concerned about the NSA data bases is to point to how this has been abused in the past.
It has been abused in the past. When the government abuses its authority it eventually leads to a ‘knock on the door’ and either your liberty or your property is taken or the government is used for corruption or to hide illegal deeds.
We have seen this time and again in Republican administrations. Under Nixon the government was caught out in a massive campaign of bugging and intimidation. Under Bush the administration was caught red handed trying to influence federal prosecutors and there were millions who lived in fear of the ‘knock on the door’ when the Bush administration had ICE go into Hispanic neighborhoods and arrest and deport thousands of law abiding undocumented workers.
As the soon to be Father-in-law of an undocumented worker we celebrate that these abuses have ended, even for undocumented workers. My future son-in-law was able to report to the government and the Obama administration provided a card authorizing him to work legally in the US even though the President cannot unilaterally regularize his immigration status. We not only don’t worry about the ‘knock on the door’ we can proceed through a Border Patrol check point without worry because we know that this administration will not abuse the law and the Constitution.
D) Authoritarian, Totalitarianism etc etc
The hyperbole referred to above has found a welcoming home at DU where a legitimate discussion of government data bases, oversight and efficacy has given way to an unbridled assault on language and history. We have all seen the comparisons to Stalinism, Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism and so on.
As pointed out when a government abuses its power there is a ‘knock on the door’.
I know. I have seen it. The federal government once ‘knocked on my door’. I was traveling back and forth between Thailand and the US in the ‘80s and when I was boarding a flight back to Thailand federal officers pulled me aside and asked where and why I was going. They were obviously profiling drug smugglers from travel data and being in my ‘20s fit a profile. I didn't consider it much of an
attack on my civil liberties because I was working with hundreds of thousands of people who were fleeing real totalitarian states and real attacks on civil liberties.
I also lived in countries where there were degrees of Authoritarian governments and you could get a ‘knock on the door’. All of them with less safe guards than we have:
Indonesia – too many ways to describe here but to suffice it to say that being labeled a communist after the attempted coup would get you in trouble.
Singapore – nothing really sinister but if you made comments about the Prime Minister that were not 100% based on fact then you would be buried in lawsuits and ruined.
Malaysia – Not a great deal but they famously ruined one Islamic reformer by arresting him on a trumped up Sodomy charges.
Thailand – Generally a more relaxed place except for Lesse Majeste charges. (By the way in Thailand the police are forbidden from executing search warrants except when there is sunlight.
I also visited Totalitarian countries like the People’s Republic of Vietnam where there was really no effort to conceal their action and when tens of thousands were forced from their homes to live in ‘new economic zones’.
China does a very effective job of intimidating its population by landing hard on a few high profile cases.
Russia, well Putin’s opponents and media critics just have a nasty habit of being murdered, rather like KGB opponents suffered when Putin was in the KGB.
So again while it might be useful to have a constructive discussion about limits and oversight it becomes more difficult when the terminology has reached such epic heights where this President is labeled with histrionic associations that aren’t even within the same universe.
I am still waiting for the first evidence of Obama’s government misusing the Constitution to ‘knock on the door’ and take someone’s liberty or property.
E) The embarrassing double standard at DU.
Some have taken to criticizing ‘cheerleaders’. ‘kool aid drinkers’, ‘fanbois’, or the above cited “lackey butt-kissing shit” based on the premise that we have one standard for Bush and another for Obama. These equivalencies remain way off base up until the moment that Obama is found to actually order agents to round up people accused of no crime or using federal agencies for political prosecutions.
There does exist a rather embarrassing double standard at DU however. This President is judged against a set of criteria that is not applied to others, especially when it comes to issues regarding respecting the constitution.
It is not uncommon, for example to see a poster proclaim,
“I am an FDR Democrat”
And then in the next phrase talk of
“Obama’s war on Civil Rights”
(Disclaimer on my support of FDR: He wasn’t simply the best President ever elected he was the best politician ever elected anywhere. He didn’t simply restore our government but he had to restore an entire economic system. In doing so he made a turn in shared benefit that Marx never predicted. If this were not enough he was a great Commander in Chief and he was right about Normandy when Churchill, who gets more press on military issues was 100% wrong.)
Now while I agree that Roosevelt was the best, there is no metric where you can embrace FDR and lambaste Obama on civil rights.
The reason is that under FDR there were ‘knocks on the door’. More than 140,000 legally established citizens and residents were taken from their homes and lost all of their property when FDR signed and executed Executive Order 9066.
These are not theoretical ‘invasions of privacy’ but real loss.
One of the ladies at my high school study hall, Mrs. Saki, went into one of these camps. It wasn’t just confinement they lost their farms, businesses and property.
It wasn’t simply a complete trashing of the Constitution, it was a particularly stupid one. The place where it was known to have a Japanese Spy ring (Hawaii) was not touched while those living in Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona. If you were living in Yakima Washington you were picked up, if you lived in Spokane you were safe.
This isn’t meant to disparage FDR (see disclaimer above) but simply to state an obvious fact; If your praising FDR as the greatest and have unbridled vitriol for Obama and give any weight to civil liberties then its pretty obvious that you are using two different standards.
So what accounts for the level of unrestrained vitriol against President Obama when it is such an obvious double standard? I do not think that any long term DUers would have such a double standard based on racial bias of any kind. That kind of bias would have seeped out long ago. I think that some DUers have an image of a combative partisan FDR based on a few partisan speeches and find President Obama’s patient persistent approach infuriating. The irony is that FDR also was a seducer. He wanted to start immediately with arming the allies, especially Great Britain. But he was patient and instead started with Lend/Lease rather than make waves. On almost all contentious issues he patiently waited until he was 100% sure he would be successful.
And then there is the rather banal “I must be a racist . . . “ construct (“I must be a racist because I care for the Constitution” etc).
This construct is a Republican/Reactionary construct that I have been hearing for decades “I must be a sexist if I believe that women make better mothers””I must be a racist because I don’t want to go to an Affirmative Action Doctor”. It is meant to mock serious charges of racism, sexism, homophobia and so on. Since when did it become acceptable to mock racism to make your case on DU?
Let’s just hope that never reoccurs.
F) Proudly continuing to support the President.
Rather than reproduce a familiar list of achievements I prefer to see his impact in the broad issues.
For the first time in modern history we have a President who campaigned as a candidate on raising taxes and increasing revenues to the Federal Government. Most of the expansion of the Federal Government in US history has occurred during or immediately after large military actions (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam). During these times it was possible to expand the functions of government at the same time there was popular support for military action. This President has successfully achieved an expansion when winding down military action. He established, after 80 years, a federal mandate for the Federal Government to control the health care system AND got it passed by the court.
It is clear that some support the President but have serious concerns about the NSA warrants, which of course is a completely natural and common situation among progressives. It is also clear that for some there is an unbridled vitriol against this President and his supporters and the NSA issue has simply given license to express it, frequently in hyperbole and sometimes in crude vulgarities.
No President has delivered more real life benefit to my family. In fact this President has delivered more than all of the Presidents combined, here are some:
1) My cousins in the reserves are no longer facing deployments.
2) My friends and family that have an undocumented status no longer face a “knock on the door”.
3) People, like me, who have pre-existing conditions (diabetes) will soon be able to buy health insurance.
4) And many other smaller improvements like the savings of several hundreds of dollars a month because the banks can no longer charge bogus fees.
On the other side we have a party that is determined to:
1) Keep health care a privilege for the healthy and wealthy.
2) Try to prevent my AA relatives from voting.
3) Undermine my daughters reproductive rights and access to planned parenthood.
At the same time there are much more serious issues, in fact I would argue there are much more important privacy issues. I am much more concerned about how creepy the internet is (Google something and watch the ads follow you for months) becoming and how private companies with no oversight are accumulating info not into a meta data base but into a personal file.
But frankly there are 50 issues that I would put above that. There are the economic issues that millions of people who are struggling with and there are environmental issues that the whole world is facing. Many of these issues are discussed with passion and intelligence at DU, but there are dozens of others that never reach here: the millions in refugee camps, the increasing threat of Asian Brown Cloud which now covers vast areas of Asia, millions who die needlessly from Malaria. These are real people facing real loss of life and quality of life.
Where is the list of real people who have gotten a knock on the door as a result of use of the telephone meta data? None exist. It is a discussion about a hypothetical future abuse and future knock on the door. Fine. It is a legitimate discussion to have and the President has said so and he has invited a broader review as well
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Number two. I've stood up a privacy and civil liberties oversight board, made up of independent citizens including some fierce civil libertarians. I'll be meeting with them. And what I want to do is to set up and structure a national conversation, not only about these two programs, but also the general problem of data, big data sets, because this is not going to be restricted to government entities. (Charlie Rose Show, June 17, 2013)
So pick your vulgarity, and epitaph I continue to support, with pride the President. Call me a cheerleader, fanboi, kool aid drinker or a lackey butt-kissing shit just as long as everyone understands that means I support the President.
Put me at the head of the list. Just you don't dare call me a God Damned Flemish
Right under me please put people like Sen Al Franken
Liberal Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) emerged as a vocal defender of the National Security Agency on Tuesday, telling Minneapolis-based CBS affiliate WCCO that he was convinced the agency's actions did not constitute spying.
Last week, The Guardian published a bombshell report detailing how the U.S. government has been secretly collecting phone and Internet data. Edward Snowden, who came out as the NSA whistleblower responsible for the explosive leaks, is currently in hiding.
"I can assure you that this isn't about spying on the American people," said Franken, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I have a high level of confidence that this is used ... to protect us, and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism."
G) DU’s 'Renaissance'
Some people have argued that this division has led to a “Renaissance at DU”. I disagree. I think it has lead to more hardened positions and less collegial discussion and Sunday’s proxy war in the form of a “shout out” competition was to me a nadir rather than a pinnacle of quality DU discussion.
The trend line at Alexa doesn’t support the Renaissance theory as generally the number of people visiting appears to be lower. For me I have never believed in addition by subtraction. I think you add to your numbers by actually adding to your numbers:
The fact remains that if we were at a cocktail party long enough the people who post at this site from both sides would end up in the corner and be in about 95% agreement. Even in the issue of the role of the NSA there is likely wide agreement that we need better oversight, there are probable issues of efficacy, questions of budget and waste the need for transparency. The only way that the reactionary forces win is if we are divided.
And the final bottom line that every DUer agrees on is that if you want the President to sign more liberal friendly legislation there is only one way to get that done:
Elect a more liberal legislature.
If you think that opposition to the President is an open and shut case for liberals/Democrats that position isn't consistent with Gallup showing very little movement with 72% of those identifying themselves as Liberals supporting the President and 82% of Democrats doing the same.
If you believe it to be an issue that needs to be engaged in then I will make a suggestion:
Perhaps a less vitriolic and more substantive line of argument would be more effective.
Posted by grantcart | Tue Jul 9, 2013, 10:46 AM (208 replies)
It seems that many are equating meta data records as being invasive as listening to individual conversations, which of course, it is not.
If we take at face value that this operation prevented one significant terrorist attack I would still wonder about the ongoing efficacy of the operation. Al Queda and other organizations are still around because they are very effective in adapting tactics based on government actions. It is very doubtful to me that it is of any ongoing benefit to allocate massive assets when it is unlikely that they continue to use cell phones in the same way. In the same way that tens of millions of air passengers will needlessly take off their shoes it is highly doubtful that terrorists will use cell phone for communications when they can anonymously set up an email account and send it in an untraceable fashion.
I wonder about the enormous cost of all of these intelligence operations that are added at significant cost because they were useful once but not now. A much smaller irregular use would certainly save tens of millions and have the same effect in the same way that randomly checking shoes would likely have the same effect as making every passenger take off their shoes, the asymmetrical opponent simply makes a change in tactic.
A much more insidious invasion of personal privacy
It appears that the reaction to the metadata is in part because it has to do with telephones and the feeling that it involves individual surveillance, which it does not.
A much greater invasion of personal privacy is the ongoing effort by the federal government to track every single financial transaction. This is justified on two fronts, stopping repatriation of revenue to drug Cartels and choking off liquidity to terrorists.
It used to be that reporting on transactions used to have a reasonable ceiling of $ 9,999. That ceiling appears to be dropping and recently when helping a friend get a relatively small amount (less than $ 500) on a Western Union transaction at a bank I was astonished at how much information was now required by the government for the bank to report.
I am a lot less concerned about the telephone meta data operation than the creeping increase of the government collecting more and more financial information which is not done on a meta basis but on a micro-transaction basis.
I suspect that in neither case was the level of surveillance that now exists was ever imagined at the time the security people started the operations, but that there is an element of operational creep involved that pushes the bureaucracy to slowly demand more and more.
Not only should this be pruned back from time to time with a demanding eye for civil liberty reasons it should also be done to reduce bureaucracy and wasteful use of limited resources. In the same way that we continue to buy tanks that would have been great for WWII but are no longer needed I suspect that this meta data mining is another wasted expenditure that is no longer useful because the enemy has made tactical adjustments.
In the example of the purchase of the tanks, however, the resources used are accountable and not secret and it is the government bureaucracy (the army) that pushes against the economic and political interests requesting that no more tanks be purchased. In a world of secret intelligence budgets without public scrutiny the public is left trying to balance unknown safety issues against unknown civil liberty issues with unknown financial costs.
Beyond the civil liberty issues there are also pressing issues of efficacy and cost and more transparency is needed.
Posted by grantcart | Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:59 PM (7 replies)
The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators
Posted by grantcart | Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:44 PM (0 replies)
I have noticed a lot of confusion about whether or not META topics and their place at DU.
A general, but incorrect, assumption has become common that META-like topics, i.e. topics that discuss the over arching nature of DU, face a strict prohibition at DU because the META forum was eliminated.
I suggest that this is not true.
META topics are not prohibited by the GD SOP which is reprinted here:
Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.
To test this theory I offered this entirely META thread in GD that was not locked:
I suggest that if someone wanted to post, a purely hypothetical example, a thread titled "A statistical analysis of how DU is obsessed about domestic issues and ignores foreign policy" and that OP went on to document with objective statistics and then discuss how this is a harmful trend, that this would not be contrary to the SOP because while it would be both META and critical of DU it would not be whining.
On the other hand the much more ubiquitous DU meta expression along the lines of "DU sucks" would, quite clearly, be whining and against the SOP.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Posted by grantcart | Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:40 PM (2 replies)
Got up and saw that the Miranda exception was still a hot topic at DU.
I Googled the subject and was surprised that the FBI page was at the top of the list.
Further surprised to find that their page on the exception was so good
It includes detailed information about Miranda like this:
The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.
It then details the reason for the exception and how and why it should be used, and this important detail about how it cannot be used. I think most people at DU will find the entire article one of today's best "Good Reads".
Voluntariness is the linchpin of the admissibility of any statement obtained as a result of government conduct.43 Thus, statements obtained by the government under the public safety exception cannot be coerced or obtained through tactics that violate fundamental notions of due process.44 Here, it is worth mentioning that prior to the Miranda decision, the only test used to determine the admissibility of statements in federal court was whether the statement was voluntarily made within the requirements of the due process clause.45 This test requires that a court review the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the subject's will was overborne by police conduct. If a court finds that the questioning of a subject, even in the presence of a situation involving public safety, violated due process standards, the statement will be suppressed.46
Posted by grantcart | Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:30 AM (4 replies)
Starting tomorrow expect to see a constant stream of Press Releases from the Border Patrol Union AFGE detailing how Sequestering will decimate the Border Patrol's effectiveness.
The key is to get the public to understand that beyond the 14 furloughed days (roughly a 10% salary cut) overtime is also being eliminated. Union representatives estimate, and management generally confirms, that this will result in about a 40% reduction in take home pay for Border Patrol Agents.
Forceful reaction from the Border Patrol Union representatives were only delayed because, coincidentally, today was their national election
AFGE Local 2544 posted this announcement on their website
Local 2544 officers have met with Congressman Ron Barber, Senator John McCain, Governor Jan Brewer and Delaware Senator Tom Carper in the last two weeks to express our views and concerns. We recently met with NBPC officers, and we have continued to relay the concerns presented to us by our Local members, but there is an NBPC election on Sunday and we don’t know what changes in leadership will take place after that election. We will know by late Sunday afternoon who the new NBPC officers will be.
There are numerous issues that are involved here but there is little question that Border Patrol agents will be carrying an unfair burden of the cuts and that there absolutely will be an impact on border security.
To understand the improvement in San Diego/Rio Grande border with Mexico it is necessary to understand the cat and mouse back and forth that is part of the strategic calculations that the DHS and Mexican Cartel go through on a daily and hourly basis. Most Americans think that the border will be secured with a simple fence. The fence is the Cartel's best friend. While the fence is needed and effective in urban areas where there are lots of activity on the American side of the border (San Diego, Calexico, Yuma, El Paso and Laredo) it's effectiveness outside of those areas is limited and becomes non existent in the more remote areas altogether.
The reasons that the Cartel loves the fence and would love to see it expanded is that they have effective methods of mitigating a stationary structure while amateur drug and human smugglers don't have.
In addition to significant increases in Border Patrol Agent manpower in populated sectors (San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson and El Paso) during both the Bush and Obama administration there has not been any increases in the Laredo area in the vast underpopulated area stretching hundreds of miles from Del Rio, Eagles Pass, Laredo and south of Laredo (this will become more significant as explained later).
Changes in the nature of border crossers
The single most significant change in the whole border security matrix under the Obama administration is the radical change in utilizing ICE enforcement to people that are here illegally. Under the Bush administration ICE branches became independent franchises where local managers launched vast blind sweeps trying to catch large numbers of non criminal undocumented workers. This disrupted tens of thousands of ordinary hard working employees and their families and created a climate of fear through out Hispanic neighborhoods. Here is an example of one sweep in San Bernardino CA
At 5:15 a.m. on August 30, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents converged at a supermarket parking lot in Maywood, California. Armed and wearing bulletproof vests, they looked through a list of the names and addresses of targeted people before descending upon homes and apartment complexes in the neighborhoods where so-called “criminal aliens” live. This was one of many raids that have taken place throughout Southern California in the past two weeks.
In total 1,200 people have been detained in these massive raids, and at least 600 of those arrested have already been deported. ICE boasts that this is the largest operation they have conducted in the U.S. so far. Most of the arrests took place in Los Angeles—with many people also being picked up in Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura County.
Such raids were very popular among reactionary sectors of the Republican Party but were not only damaging to the innocent families involved but drained law enforcement resources from real criminal enforcement.
The Obama administration quickly restructured ICE investigation and eliminated sweeps for ordinary undocumented workers and directed ICE to target violent criminal felons instead. Here is an example of an Obama sweep in San Bernardino:
LOS ANGELES (CBS) — More than 200 illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area were arrested in a national immigration sweep, the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement said Monday.
ICE had more than 1,900 officers bring in a total of 3,100 people described as convicted criminal aliens, immigration fugitives and immigration violators as part of a six-day national “Cross Check” enforcement operation.
. . .
Those arrested in the Los Angeles area include Veasna Uy, 34, a Cambodia national immigration fugitive living in Long Beach, who was convicted in April 2000 of manslaughter, attempted murder and assault of a deadly weapon. ICE agents also arrested a twice deported Mexican National living in Bell with two prior convictions of narcotics for sale and a Salvadoran national living in North Hollywood who was convicted of arson in 1994.
In addition to ICE investigations and sweeps ICE has positioned officers at prisons and jails to identify felons who are illegal immigrants and deport them. As a result there has been a sharp increase in gang and violent criminals being returned to Mexico, and Central America.
This has changed the mix of the kind of people that the Border Patrol catches. A decade ago the ratio of violent criminal predator to normal economic migrant might have been 1 to 12, meaning that if they caught 12 border crossers one could have been classified as a certifiable bad guy that was involved in criminal activity. As the border has gotten harder to cross there has been a drop in migrants here going home and risking a trip back, a decline in people willing to chance a dangerous trip and an increase of those violent criminals who have been deported trying to get back.
The result is that the ratio (admittedly unscientific but generally accepted by Border Patrol Agents I talk with in different sectors) has dropped from 1 in 12 to something like 1 in 4.
How eliminating overtime affects Border Patrol effectiveness
By eliminating (or technically 'de certifying' AUO- Automatic Unauthorized Overtime) it means that Border Patrol Agents cannot get paid when they are involved in pursuits that exceed their authorized 8 hour shift.
Currently Border Patrol Agents work 10 hour shifts that include 2 hours automatic overtime. Overtime allows the Border Patrol operational flexibility to respond to movements by the Cartel. Once the fence was established the Cartel could simply find isolated areas and throw contraband over the fence, or in human trafficking, jump the fence. By expanding sensors the Border Patrol would respond to movements. The Cartel responds by putting across alto of foot traffic in one part of the sector to draw attention (and then have the decoys jump back to Mexico) and then put across the real load in a remote part on the other side of the sector.
Once the elimination of overtime is instituted this flexibility will be lost. This will open easy to decipher holes for the Cartels to exploit.
The situation is exacerbated in remote areas. Currently if you are in a remote area you may travel one hour from your home to your report in station. After attending a 20 minute muster you might drive 70 minutes to a remote post. This means that in a 10 hour shift only about 7 hours are spent in the field (1 1/2 hours lost each way). By limiting the Border Patrol to 8 hours that reduces field time to only 5 hours.
This will create significant gaps between shifts. Cartel operations are able to monitor shift changes and traffic by simple observation posts in residential areas near by stations.
There is no question that elimination of the AUO overtime will have a significant impact on Border Patrol effectiveness. This comes at a time when the volume of migrants has dropped significantly the efforts of violent felons who have already been deported and attempt to return have increased.
Exploiting Border Patrol Agents
Border Patrol Agents have the most dangerous law enforcement job in the Federal Government. In 2012 5 agents died in Arizona alone, 2 killed in a collision with a train, 1 shot by friendly fire, 1 committed suicide, 1 natural causes. Since I have begun interviewing BP agents in large numbers (over 500) since 2009 I have found almost none fit the 'Chuck Norris' image that I, and I think that most people have. Given that 40% of new hires are from Hispanic backgrounds I have found the bulk to be much closer to a George Lopez type.
For those that are recruited from the area the furlough days and loss of overtime will mean about a 40% loss of pay. There will be agents who, if this is prolonged, will go deeply in debt and in some cases lose their homes.
I think of the single father in El Centro who is raising 3 children and whose income will fall from about $ 52,000 to $ 38,000. That will mean that his take home pay will be around $ 2,500 a month.
For those that have been recruited from other areas like New York or Ohio and have relocated the impact will be much greater. The only reason that they have agreed to live in such inhospitable areas (and many of the areas are extremely inhospitable) is that the total package could reach about $ 80,000 after 5 years. For many couples that has not turned out to be as good a deal as they thought because they did not calculate that the spouse would be unable to get a job in those areas. So they have gone from a two income family making around $ 100,000 to a single income family making $ 80,000 (after 5 years) to a single income family making $ 55,000.
Elimination of AUO for the Border Patrol will not only impact Border Patrol effectiveness but is also a betrayal to those who have one of the most dangerous law enforcement jobs in the US.
For these reasons you should expect, starting tomorrow, a well organized effort by the newly elected leaders of the AFGE Border Patrol union to educate the American public on how sequestering is going to effect border security and Border Patrol Agents.
Effects on Customs
The elimination of AUO will also have an impact on busy Ports of Entry and Customs Agents.
The most obvious result will be that busy ports like San Ysidro (San Diego - busiest POE in the world) will likely have wait times stretch to 4 hours.
It will mean that there are fewer officers to conduct secondary inspections so less interdictions should be expected.
The unfairness issue is the same as explained to Border Patrol agents above.
For ICE the impact will not be as great in most cases but there may be some areas, like gang surveillance in urban areas that will be impacted.
Posted by grantcart | Sun Mar 3, 2013, 10:36 PM (13 replies)
I agree with the general feeling that we should stop nominating Republicans for Secretary of Defense.
At this particular time there is a particular reason why Chuck Hagel is needed.
The number one job of the next SOD is to push through deep cuts in the defense and intelligence bureaucracies. If it took Liz Cheney to do it I would take her.
The next SOD is going to have to take on deeply rooted interests in the Pentagon and in Congress. Hagel is the guy that can get the biggest cuts passed. Hagel is also a non interventionist at heart.
Before you pass judgment on Hagel have a read:
The Secretary of Defense Cuts
Potential Obama nominee favors massive defense reductions
Potential secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel has expressed support for massive budget cuts that could cripple the Pentagon’s ability to ensure America’s national security, sparking concern among proponents of a robust national defense.
. . .
The likely selection of Hagel has led Democrats and Republicans to express anxiety about what they say are the former senator’s troubling foreign policy views. These positions should disqualify him as a candidate for the nation’s top defense post, they say.
Concerns include his statement that the United States should stay out of war-torn Syria and his support for a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Hagel has also been knocked by the pro-Israel community for his sharp criticism of Israel as well as for advocating direct unconditional talks with Iran.
“If Chuck Hagel has his way, Iran will get nuclear weapons and Israel will be thrown under the bus,” said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a board member of the Center for American Freedom, which publishes the WFB.
. . .
During his 12-year tenure in the Senate, Hagel adopted foreign policy positions that placed him in the minority of both political parties. His views on a number of critical matters have become even more troubling since that time, sources said.
. . .
Hagel also has taken a tough stance against job creation at the Pentagon.
“Our Defense Department budget, it is not a jobs program,” he stated last year. “It’s not an economic development program for my state or any district.”
The fact is that while other aspects of Hagel's political background might be far right when it comes to defense issues he is to the left of many Democrats.
More importantly he is going to be able to get more cuts through than anyone else.
Finally consider this: This rightwing site quoted above is absolutely terrified of Hagel. They don't think he will get the 60 votes. It may be that they let the Rice proposed nomination hang in the air a longer period than was necessary in order to use up McCain and other's political credit and undermine a certain attack on Hagel.
The case for Hagel boils down to this: He will be the Secretary of Defense Cuts.
Because of a busy work schedule I am unlikely to be able to respond to folks on the thread. Thanks in advance for responses from all different points of view.
Posted by grantcart | Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:42 AM (8 replies)
Mssrs, Boehner, McConnell, and Norquist did the rest.
The President offerred them a sweet heart deal last year but they preferred to pass and use it against him in the election, charging that he couldn't get big things done.
They blew their wad and now all the President has to do is wait for the markets to pummel these idiots into sawdust.
The President has many outstanding qualities.
The Republicans are about to realize that they may have way underestimated one of them:
Tik Tock, tick tock the minutes are ticking down and you three guys are going to end up giving all Americans a huge tax increase. Since we all know what would happen if that actually happened and that you will eventually fold the longer you wait the less you will get.
Tick tock, tick tock.
Posted by grantcart | Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:05 PM (1 replies)
We all have seen the gritty 50's drama about the good hearted fighter who has to raise money to pay for his sister's operation (or some other soap opera twist) and takes a dive for a few bucks.
In the post Citizen's United era the spigots were opened at hundreds of millions of dollars started flowing into SuperPacs and we now know that not all of the money was used to buy ads. Where did some of that money go? Some of it went, as we all know, into a well orchestrated voter suppression campaign. Contractors were caught, voter registration applications were found destroyed but strangely no investigative reporters have gone after the larger question, what was the larger strategy? Who was behind it, who funded it and who implemented it. These are the questions that started with a few burglars at the Watergate apartments and unveiled the vast operations of wide ranging activities headed by Liddy in illegal campaign activities. Will today's reporters live up to the tenacity and courage of those in the 70s?
Among the questionable trends that were detected in the 2012 campaign was the sudden surge of right wing pollsters who came out of nowhere and were providing 30% of the polls in key swing states. In fact one of the pollsters' behavior was so odd that we took an in depth look at the people behind the polls and under the glare of exposure moved the pollster from his position in January to proclaiming that he had been a "manager of national campaigns" to conceding in October that "I am a robo caller, not a pollster".
But that wasn't the only strange behavior of a pollster during the campaign.
In fact another pollster, David Paleologos' (the president of Suffolk University Political Research Center and bearer of the surname of the family that, in this context is extremely fitting, is the last ruling dynasty of the Byzantine Empire) behavior is so strange that questions have to be raised as to his motivation and conduct. These are questions that Suffolk University must address.
First the facts
Suffolk University Polling Results in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida and the actual results;
September 26 SUP finds President Obama leading by 2%.
On November 6 Virginia votes for Obama +3%
No SUP polls, however there are these polls:
Survey USA on October 2nd has the President up by 2.
PPP on September 27th has it a tie
On November 6 Romney wins North Carolina by 2.2%
SUP runs a poll May 6 Showing President Obama +1
SUP runs a poll September 27th showing President Obama +3
It appears that President Obama is going to win Florida by .5 of the vote
So we have a situation at the end of September where Suffolk University polling is showing the President ahead in Virginia and Florida and other reputable pollsters have NC tied (or Obama slightly ahead).
And then we have this on October 10th
With a little less than a month until the election, one pollster says the race in three battleground states is over for President Barack Obama.
“I think in places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we’ve already painted those red," David Paleologos, the president of Suffolk University Political Research Center told Fox host Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday. "We’re not polling any of those states again. We're focusing on the remaining states.”
Paleologos is clearly lying because his own latest polls showed Obama ahead and where he didn't poll it was basically tied.
In light of this bizarre behavior there was an immediate reaction of astonished disbelief and then laughter at the lunacy of the claims by Suffolk University Pollster.
Tampa Bay Times calls Paleologos "Loser of the Week"
Loser of the week: Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos. Suffolk is relatively new to Florida polling, and Paleologos bizarrely declared on the Fox News Channel that it would no longer poll in Florida, North Carolina or Virginia, because he is convinced President Barack Obama will lose those states. He clearly has little understanding of Florida, which nobody with a political brain can take for granted.
And this from the New York Magazine
Pollsters Puzzle Over Suffolk’s Decision to Call Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina for Romney
Even Bill O'Reilly couldn't believe what he was hearing: David Paleologos, pollster for Suffolk University, was announcing on Fox News that he was pulling out of Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina for good. Romney, it seems, has them in the bag. "We’ve already painted those red, we’re not polling any of those states again,” Paleologos said.
This is an absolutely bizarre decision on its face. The Real Clear Politics polling average currently shows a tie in Florida, Obama up 0.3 percent in Virginia, and Romney up three in North Carolina. There's still nearly a month left until Election Day. How could a pollster possibly call those states for Romney?
. . .
So Paleologos called Florida for Romney because their most recent poll showed Obama with a shaky lead. We're ... even more confused now.
Looking for some answers, we asked some of Paleologos's fellow pollsters what they thought of the decision. None of them had very flattering things to say.
"I think all three of those states are still toss-ups," Public Policy Polling's Tom Jensen told us. "We’ve already polled Virginia since the debate and Obama was up by 3. I don’t agree with his assessment, and I don’t know why he would have made it without even conducting any polling after the debates."
Gary Langer, who runs the ABC News/Washington Post poll, quipped tartly, "With that kind of foresight, we should find out who he likes in the fifth at Aqueduct."
SurveyUSA CEO Jay Leve was harsher. "This guy from Suffolk is obviously a jackass," he said.
David Paleologos extremely bizarre behavior and attempt to throw three swing states into the Romney camp didn't just happen. Here is the context. Please note from above the last polls done in VA, NC and FL:
On September 12th we predicted that the Romney Campaign (as opposed to the SupePACs) was likely to experience cash problems. Eight days later the New York Times confirmed that the official campaign funds were going dry and the Romney campaign would borrow $ 20 million to make it throught the end of the month:
Things are looking bad for the Romney campaign's finances. It must be frustrating to look over to the SuperPACs that are awash with an ocean of money and not have enough money to pay for the expensive infrastructure of the campaign. Overhead, Rent, Polling, Transportation, Staff and so on, cost tens of millions a month and cannot be subcontracted outside the campaign. Ironically campaign funds are well regulated and transparent. If you don't believe that just ask John Edwards who ran into massive legal problems on a technical question of misusing campaign funds.
Somehow something has to be done to get more direct donations into the Romney campaign, or they will have to take out more loans which like the first one, will be reported.
Now we have the Gravis miracle.
After 7 non Rasmussen polls in a row show Obama ahead in North Carolina. A brand new pollster comes out with a radically different result.
On October 6th Douglas Kaplan presents the Romney campaign with a magicial result North Carolina is now almost double digits for Romney, he's up 9. As the first highligted link shows we have released a number of articles showing that Kaplan has no academic or professional experience in polling and a checkered (to be kind) past. Under scrutiny he admits that he is not a pollster and that some of his polls "are not very good".
But on October 6th these are the numbers that the right wing media has been thirsting for. The media eats it up and the RW blogosphere explodes and Gravis becomes the most quoted pollster on the internet and becomes a production line of favorable state polls. On October 24th Gravis will anoint the Romney campaign with another blessing of a +8 showing. Along with a few happy Rasmussen polls North Carolina is moved to a lock for Romney.
North Carolina is critical because Romney has to switch 4-5 states from Obama 2008. He has Indiana and Missouri and the next one should be North Carolina which the President won by a hair. If he cannot win North Carolina by a large margin he is not going to be able to flip ANY other state.
So the October 6th poll showing a huge swing for Romney will be great news if it can be believed.
Enter David Paleologos' absolutely incomprehensible statement on October 10th in which he disregards his own and other polling and states that NC, VA and FL are not only going for Romney by large margins (which none did) but that the margins are so wide that no other polling is even necessary.
My, my what a wonderful set of circumstances that show a complete reversal of fortunes for Romney (and which we know by the election day results are completely untrue) that triggers a flow of new contributions back to the campaign.
Just as Kaplan has been discredited it is now appears that David Paleologos was part of a larger con.
Of course we 'could' be wrong and that David Paleologos is, like Kaplan, just an incompetent pollster that happens to produce statements that save Romney's ass.
Part of a conspiracy to create a false meme to help a campaign or utterly incompetent, in the words of another pollster, a jackass, which do you think fits, David?
This is the question that we will be addressing to Suffolk University, the trustees, the administration, the faculty and the students.
Why would you keep a professor that is either corrupt or incompetent.
When James Keefe III pulled his fast one on ACORN we weren't fooled but we were slow.
Fool us once shame on us. Fool us twice and we organize.
We will be following up to bring the bright light of DU onto the incompetent and/or corrupt pollster David Paleologos in our next article. In this case the offense is on many levels. We have an academic using his position to spread false information on the behalf of a campaign and go on partisan media to promote it. But it goes even more than that because David Paleologos didn't just work with bad data he tried to shut down lines of inquiry. This is absolutely unacceptable in any self respecting academic institution and violates everything that a University stands for. It must be held accountable.
Last time we had a number of people join DU and provide us confidential material. We checked it against numerous sources and when verified released it. To date none of the essential facts have been disputed. If anyone reading this has inside information and would like to share it you can join DU and send me DUmail and maintain your confidentiality. We had numerous members of the Gravis Working Group who we only identified by a number and whose real names I never learned.
For the record: The New York Times and Nate Silver have not responded to any of the facts that we have brought forth about Douglas Kaplan and his own admission that "(he) is not a pollster" hopefully by painting a larger context they will see the significance and do their duty.
Posted by grantcart | Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:20 PM (14 replies)
One of the frustrations of the last campaign season was the designation of various polling. Gravis was never identified as R even when it issued polls which gave Romney huge leads in the swing states of CO, VA and NC.
PPP on the other hand seemed to have the most accurate polling. It labeled NC as a tie when Gravis was giving Romney an 8+ advantage. PPP is always identified as a Democratic polling firm because they are frequently hired by Democrats. And yet in 2010 they went against the pack in predicting first that Brown would take Kennedy's seat.
Fordham University examined and ranked the various polling. The most accurate pollster was PPP. PPP therefore has to be considered the baseline and from that point all other pollsters you would either fall in the range of error or show a consistent R or D bias. The pollster who is identified as the most accurate cannot be categorized as having a bias, by definition. PPP is the only pollster that cannot be given either a D or R.
The fact that the most accurate pollster is usually hired by Democrats, or that they are run by Democrats, or that they make the most sense to Democrats doesn't mean that PPP leans Democratic it means that Democrats lean to objectivity.
The media should stop attaching 'D' to PPP, they are only embarrassing themselves.
Fordham Ranks the accuracy of various pollsters.
1. PPP (D)*
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP*
5. Purple Strategies
13. Pew Research*
13. Hartford Courant/UConn*
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)*
27. National Journal*
Posted by grantcart | Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:54 AM (30 replies)