(LA Times) The final compromise mandates that terrorism suspects thought to have ties to Al Qaeda and planning attacks against the United States be taken into military custody, even those captured in the U.S. In response to some complaints, though, the bill carves out an exemption for U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The bill also allows the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects accused of having ties to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. That provision specifies that such power cannot be applied to U.S. citizens captured in the U.S.

As I wrote, I never posted anything about this because I was behind the curve on the story. Also, because I spoke with an aide to a politician who said that the language would never survive to make it to the president’s desk. There was too much opposition in the House and Senate.

(The Hill) One of the more controversial provisions of the bill is language that reaffirms the authority of the administration to detain people found to be associated with al Qaeda, and requires military detention for anyone who plots an attack against the United States. In both cases, the bill does not create any new authority to detain U.S. citizens, ensuring their rights to a fair trial, and the military detention language does exempts U.S. citizens.

The redone provisions apparently are more than just giving the POTUS the power to waive indefinite detention for American citizens and legal residents caught on US soil. It gives them the normal legal protections already accorded.

Just to be clear, the final version of HR 1540, National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Subtitle D, Section 1032(b)

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Sections 1031 and 1032 are the ones cited, and the above language comes from the final legislation. They won’t be able to haul off US citizens even if captured outside of the US, nor to lawful residents captured within the US.

While there is still some concern by some Congress critters (who still voted for the bill), the language regarding US citizens is pretty cut and dry, with no exceptions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Washington Post) The National Transportation Safety Board recommended Tuesday that all states and the District ban cellphone use behind the wheel, becoming the first federal agency to call for an outright prohibition on telephone conversations while driving.

Distracted driving, some of it due to cellphone use, contributed to an estimated 3,092 deaths in highway crashes last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

So, only some of the deaths can be attributed to distracted driving. We should ban looking at scenery, since that is dangerous. And passengers. Listening to the radio. Drinking coffee. Eating. Brushing hair. Putting on makeup. Those mirrors that allow parents to look in the back. Kids. Oh, and CAFE standards, which increase the risk of death on the road.

The NTSB has no regulatory power, but

It would be up to state legislatures, which already have banned text messaging while driving in 35 states and the District, to decide whether cellphone use should be illegal. But in the past, Congress has not been shy about leveraging its control of the federal purse strings to bring states in line on issues such as seat belts and the legal drinking age.

“The NTSB recommendation may be a game-changer,” said Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association. “States aren’t ready to support a total ban yet, but this may start the discussion.”

A bunch of states ban texting/messaging in vehicles, which is, IMO, a good idea. People have their eyes off the road, two hands on the device. I spent well over a decade dealing with wireless devices, and I’m pretty darned good at sneaking a peek, but, I usually avoided any sort of messaging, including email, while driving. Many states also require the use of handsfree devices, which I have no problem with, since this keeps both hands free. I use a Bluetooth headset 98% of the time or so when in the car.

But, we shouldn’t ban the use of phones completely (one thing to note, the ban wouldn’t include emergency personnel). Los Federales could print a few good ideas for the use of electronic device use in vehicles, like

• use a handsfree device
• don’t stare at your GPS
• don’t use the phone in traffic
• avoid long and/or deep discussions
• avoid heated discussions
• can the call wait? Tell the person you’ll call them back

They could urge companies to put in place rules where employees are urged to stay off the phone while on the road, and won’t be in trouble if they do not answer calls from the bosses while on the road. Back at AT&T, that was the rule. There were many times when I didn’t answer when a superior was calling. But, they won’t. They’ll nag you and try and get Congress to pass some rules, or have the White House do it by executive fiat. It’s For Your Own Good.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Washington Examiner) It’s been said a thousand times: Congress had to pass President Obama’s health care law in order to find out what’s in it. But, despite the repetitiveness, the level of shock from each new discovery never seems to recede.

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.

What could possibly go wrong in handing over being forced to hand over confidential patient records? What if someone hacks in to the government server? What if yet another government moron loses their laptop or briefcase containing private data? What about the government getting a look at the confidential and private business practices of the insurance companies, which could “undermine their competitiveness”?

What happens to the federal government if it loses a laptop full of patient data or business information? What recourse do individual citizens have against an inept bureaucrat who leaves the computer unlocked? Imagine a Wikileaks-sized disclosure of every Americans’ health histories. The results could be devastating – embarrassing – even Orwellian.

Excellent point. What do we do when the government essentially says, in bureaucrat speak, to just suck it up and deal with it?

The HHS attempts to justify its proposal on the grounds that it has to be able to compare performance. No matter what the explanation is, however, this type of data collection is an egregious violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and business privacy. It is like J. Edgar Hoover in a lab coat.

Interesting how the Left always complained about Bush “trashing the Constitution” and invading our privacy, how they say the government should stay out of our bedrooms, as well as how the government should stay out of the doctor’s office when it comes to abortion on demand, yet, here we have a power grab that will put sensitive, personal, and confidential health records in the government’s hands.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Please sign the drill now petition.

An FBI Denver Joint Terrorism Task Force handout being distributed to Colorado military surplus store owners lists the purchase of popular preparedness items and firearms accessories as “suspicious” and “potential indicators of terrorist activities,” instructing store owners to keep records on and report people who:

“Make bulk purchase of items to include: Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers; Meals Ready to Eat; Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks; High capacity magazines; Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles”

The FBI handout, entitled “Communities Against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Military Surplus Stores” also instructs surplus store owners to:

“Require valid ID from all new customers; Keep records of purchases’ Talk to customers, ask questions, and listen to and observe their responses; Watch for people and actions that are out of place; Make note of suspicious statements, people, and /or vehicles; If something seems wrong, notify law enforcement authorities.”

The handout also instructs surplus store owners to consider as “suspicious” anyone who “demands identity ‘privacy’” or anyone who expresses “extreme religious statements” and those who “make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, [or] radical theology.”

The “Communities Against Terrorism” flyer closes by stating:

Preventing terrorism is a community effort. By learning what to look for, you can make a positive contribution in the fight against terrorism. The partnership between the community and law enforcement is essential to the success of anti -terrorism efforts.

More HERE

Let me give a more realistic set of terrorism indicators: Possession of a Koran; Getting your butt up in the air 5 times a day; saying “inshallah”, “Allah Akhbar” or “Peace be upon him”; wearing long white coats; being seen inside a mosque.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Thomas Sawyer, a 62-year-old bladder cancer survivor who made headlines last November after a pat-down left him covered in his own urine, has filed a new complaint with the Transportation Security Administration.

Sawyer, who wears a urostomy bag that collects his urine through an opening in his abdomen, said he was traveling through Detroit Metro Airport on July 14 on his way to Orlando when he was singled out for a pat-down.

“Before I could even get (out) the words, ‘I want this done privately,’ the TSO agent began patting me down in public,” said Sawyer. “I said ‘Whoa! I have a medical condition.’ He said, ‘I know,’ and continued the pat-down.”

TSA policy states that travelers “should be offered a private screening before the beginning of a pat-down inspection if the pat-down will require the lifting of clothing and/or display of a covered medical device.”

Sawyer, of Houghton Lake, Mich., believes the policy was violated and filed a formal complaint with the TSA on July 20, after he returned from his trip.

Hey, Congress, isn’t it high time you reformed the TSA so that situations like this stop happening? We should be able to fly without being subjected to what would be considered assault in the private sector. How many times have people been subjected to these indignities and not have their story told in the news? I’ve mentioned before that I was subjected to these enhanced procedures at LAX in June 2010. Sheesh, they knew where the metal was: the hand wand only went off on my lower right leg, which has a stainless steel rod implanted in the bone. At least the TSA agent looked embarrassed and chagrined to have to do the search.

And let’s not forget all the theft that the TSA has been involved in.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The law has not caught up with cell phone cameras, Flip Cameras, compact video cameras, and the electronic age. Two stories being reported last weekend prove out how the ubiquity of video capture devices are often a gray area in the law.

In one case a woman in Rochester, New York, pulled out her video camera to record the actions of a local policeman as he arrested a neighbor. As it happens, this woman was standing on her own front lawn, no where near the policeman who was going about his duties, yet this cop got incensed and arrested her anyway. He claimed she was guilty of obstruction of justice.

How this woman’s actions was interfering with the police officer is impossible to figure, but she was detained nonetheless.

It is obviously a sham arrest. But, the law is not clear and its lack of clarity gave this thug cop the room he needed to attack this woman who was merely standing there filming the arrest.

In a second case, two journalists got themselves arrested for taking photos and video with their cell phones in a public meeting. For all the gritty details, check out Robert Johnson’s recounting of the incident, as the details are not necessary in this discussion.

Suffice to say, the two journalists were at a public meeting where one tried to take a still picture and was arrested. The second tried to use his cell phone to take video of the arrest. Both were detained by police for no real reason at all.

Why did these various police forces imagine they had the power to stop people from recording video in public spaces? By what right did these police imagine they had the power to take these actions? In truth the actions of the police were illicit. They are oppressive of our rights.

Simply put, the law has not caught up to the fact that video is so easily at hand for every last citizen. The police are not used to being filmed from every angle and at any time and what they feel is an intrusion into their lives is something they aren’t used to at all.

But here is the interesting thing. The police feel that they have the right to film us at every turn, now don’t they? They film us from the cars, they film us from the tops of poles at stop lights, they film us from street corners, they film us inside buildings. Yet when we return the favor, why suddenly they are all upset about it! How is it logical that police have some expectation of privacy in public when the rest of us don’t? This smacks of an un-American double standard.

Still the law has not firmly sided with the right of the citizens to film anyone in public, just like the cops do. In fact, the law is sort of silent in most corners of the nation. Not enough precedent has been set in the courts to make it clear to all of us.

So, until the courts have their say, policemen everywhere will be violating the rights of the citizenry to film in public, just like the cops do.

Clearly, what troubled me was the fact of the raid, not its justification. I did note the official claim that the raid was “not related to student loans”.

Yesterday on DISSECTING LEFTISM, I posted a wide-ranging post about the steady transmogrification of the USA into a police state. In that report the claim was repeated that the raid was related to student loan repayments. I included that despite the official denials. Anybody who takes official denials at face value is naive, in my opinion. The claim that student loans were the issue apparently came from the man who was raided and I make no apology for preferring his word over the word of anybody in the Obama administration.

A regular reader of my blogs has however been digging further into the matter and offers some interesting observations. I reproduce his comments on DISSECTING LEFTISM. You will note that the reason for the raid given on the search warrant has been deleted. That seems to me to be remarkably poor practice and great grounds for suspicion of impropriety or folly. Until that part of the document is revealed, nothing is certain about the motive for the raid.

You will also note my reader’s conclusion that the raid WAS related to student loans — albeit the fraudulent obtaining of them rather than being in default on repayments. One wonders how that squares with the statement by U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton that the search was “not related to student loans”. Dishonesty abounding is what I see.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Well, there might be a wee bit more to it than originally came out. Refresher

A federal education official Wednesday morning offered little information as to why federal agents raided a Stockton man’s home Tuesday.

The resident, Kenneth Wright, does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe why what he thought was a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 in the morning.

“I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers,” Wright said.

So, we know what happened after that. He and his kids were detained for around six hours, and the person who was at the center of the search break in, his ex-wife, was not there, and had abandoned the family, along with her loans. So many on both the Left and Right were up in arms over this, wondering why the Department of Education was using SWAT teams to execute search warrants. Well, the story gets a bit deeper, with a bit more clarity

U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. Hamilton would not say specifically why the raid took place except that it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Hamilton said the search was not related to student loans in default as reported in the local media.

OIG is a semi-independent branch of the education department that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud, embezzlement of federal aid and bribery, according to Hamilton. The agency serves 30 to 35 search warrants a year.

The local Stockton PD had nothing to do with the raid, only standing by in their jurisdiction. Then there is this from the search warrant (page 4)

Apparently, said ex-wife was racking up some serious federal violations, and the OIG would have had no idea if the husband was involved. 18 USC 371 is about conspiracy to commit an offense against or defraud he Federal government. While that might not fully support a SWAT raid as of this time, we’re starting to see a clearer picture of multiple federal violations. The warrant covers what can be searched and seized, which was pretty much most of the house, looking for all sorts of records. And, if we follow this story on further, I have a good suspicion that information will come out that will probably support the use of a federal team. Government does some really stupid things, but, one has to figure that somewhere up or down the line, someone was going to say “um, do we really need a SWAT team?” Cooler heads would digest the information and, apparently, say “um, yeah.” No one wants to be caught in a Janet Reno/Elian Gonzales situation.

Update, 6/16: Via an email from Mark Goldich, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Communications and Outreach, he writes

I recently saw your June 9^th post on “Stop the ACLU.” While we appreciate that you’ve noted the correct nature of the investigation, we’d also like to note that the search was not carried out by a SWAT team, nor does the Department own or operate a SWAT team. If you wouldn’t mind updating your story to include such details, we would be very appreciative, as the image of a “SWAT team” is very much in contrast with the real work we do here.

Furthermore, the whole “SWAT team” thing comes from the original story, in which MR. Wright thought that’s what they were. They weren’t.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The ACLU filed Wednesday in in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis seeking to block the state’s new E-Verify law. It would expand the reasons police can arrest immigrants and make the use of identification cards issued by foreign consulates illegal.

The law also mandates employers check their workers’ citizenship.

The ACLU says the arrest provisions violate constitutional protections against arrest without probable cause. It also says that Indiana is overextending its constitutional bounds by regulating international affairs with the ID measure.

Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the measure into law May 10.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Indiana’s highest court has turned against our rights and the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of Indiana has just decided that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to the citizens of Indiana.

The court has decided that Hoosiers have no right to be safe in their own homes from illegal entry, search, and seizure by police. Indiana’s highest court has just said that Hoosier stormtrooers can invade any home at any time and citizens have no right to resist because it is “against public policy.”

Blogger Bruce McQuain said this appalling incident in Indiana is an example of, “why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks from within,” and boy is he right.

NorthwestIndiana.com pinpoints the problem perfectly.

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The Supreme Court has decided that the right to be safe in one’s own home is not as important as the state being allowed to batter down people’s doors at will. Justice Steven David averred that there are enough protections of homeowners after they are accosted illicitly by police, after they’ve been arrested and possibly physically harmed, and after the state has caused them to spend untold thousands of dollars on their own bail and defense in the courts.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

This turns natural rights on its head and alters the basic compact between citizen and government in the USA. It takes us from an “innocent until proven guilty” premise to one where citizens have no rights at all unless the state deigns to allow them.

Now, the argument that the anti-constitutionalists make almost sounds sensible at first blush. This ruling, they say, is merely meant to prevent any chance that the actions of a homeowner in a given situation will “escalate the level of violence.” If homeowners sit meekly by and allow police to illegally enter their home, why the level of violence won’t grow. We need to protect the lives of our police, right?

Almost logical, eh?

The problem is that with a rule such as this in place, the police have no real reason to be sure that they are in the right when battering down a homeowner’s door in the first place. Freed from this onerous requirement to be 100% sure, they will find themselves battering down doors with little provocation because, hey, THEY are covered by the law from being wrong. THEY don’t need to be sure that the home they are invading is the right home, one inhabited by real criminals. Why, it can all be cleared up later, right? So the citizen can just shut up, sit down, and take this violation of his rights.

That’s right, you, the citizen, can just shut up, taste the cop’s boot heels, and maybe (if you are lucky) some judge down the line might agree with you that your rights were violated and, gosh, they need to mumble an apology to you sometime.

As McQuain said, this is proof of why we need to zealously protect our rights and fight for them every day.

It is also proof that our legal system is badly breaking down. It is proof of yet another thing, too. It is proof that these “judges” have no fear of the people. The Indiana Supreme Court judges that voted in support of this outrageous decision should all be thrown off the bench if not by outright impeachment, then at least in the next election.

But, I’d rather see impeachment, as opposed to election turnovers. Our elected politicians need to begin to systematically eliminate judges of this sort who have turned against the US Constitution. These people need to fear for their jobs. Impeachment of these un-American monsters has never been used enough and we should start doing it ASAP.

When even a red state such as Indiana starts turning against our natural rights, we know our governments have turned against we the people.