Showing posts with label NDAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NDAA. Show all posts
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Friday, March 08, 2013
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
FBI Wants a Database of Your Tattoos
Ever since President Obama signed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012 into law, US law enforcement and military agencies have begun to document everything they can about American citizens. Whether it is the new biometric database that the FBI has started or the use of military spy drones domestically. Just this week, the firm D-Star Engineering has received what appears to be the first contract (for $4.8 million) awarded under the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (IARPA) Great Horned Owl (GHO) program to develop a new class of quiet small unmanned aircraft.
Now, FBI is consulting local police and vendors about new technology already at their disposable that would allow them to spot anyone by interpreting the symbolism of their tattoos.
According to recently released government documents, last week the FBI issued a request for information on existing databases “containing tattoo/symbol images, their possible meanings, gang affiliations, terrorist groups or other criminal organizations.” The request asks that all law enforcement agencies, vendors and academics to supply by Aug. 13 information about the capabilities of tattoo analysis systems. This follows work already underway by the FBI and Homeland Security Department to add iris and facial recognition services to their respective fingerprint databases.
Already, the FBI has amassed a large collection of biometric markers, including vocal tracks and handwriting samples. The question is who will the FBI and DHS target and how citizens can be sure that the government will not misuse this technology against innocent people. Another goal is to find out how tattoo databases draw on the knowledge of gang experts and how they may be used to document “possible meanings and gang affiliations” observed by officials nationwide.
Unfortunately, the overreaching activities of the FBI and DHS under the Obama administration raise major privacy and liberty concerns. Many of the activities described in the document, just like their online activities, are basic practices of any individual concerned with security or privacy. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Bureau have already stoked considerable privacy concerns from groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have called for more transparency and oversight of such monitoring activities.
Now, FBI is consulting local police and vendors about new technology already at their disposable that would allow them to spot anyone by interpreting the symbolism of their tattoos.
According to recently released government documents, last week the FBI issued a request for information on existing databases “containing tattoo/symbol images, their possible meanings, gang affiliations, terrorist groups or other criminal organizations.” The request asks that all law enforcement agencies, vendors and academics to supply by Aug. 13 information about the capabilities of tattoo analysis systems. This follows work already underway by the FBI and Homeland Security Department to add iris and facial recognition services to their respective fingerprint databases.
Already, the FBI has amassed a large collection of biometric markers, including vocal tracks and handwriting samples. The question is who will the FBI and DHS target and how citizens can be sure that the government will not misuse this technology against innocent people. Another goal is to find out how tattoo databases draw on the knowledge of gang experts and how they may be used to document “possible meanings and gang affiliations” observed by officials nationwide.
Unfortunately, the overreaching activities of the FBI and DHS under the Obama administration raise major privacy and liberty concerns. Many of the activities described in the document, just like their online activities, are basic practices of any individual concerned with security or privacy. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Bureau have already stoked considerable privacy concerns from groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have called for more transparency and oversight of such monitoring activities.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Is Obama King Leopold II Revisited
In Areopagitica, John Milton wrote: “Let truth and falsehood grapple: whoever knew truth, put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”
He wrote this in either 1644 as an appeal to the English Parliament to end a political order that attempted and bring all publishing under control by official government censors (authors would submit their work for approval prior to having it published). It is a terse yet polemical parallel to the Areopagiticus of Isocrates and the story of the apostle Paul in Athens from Acts 17: 18-34. The first pertaining to the “degradation of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus, the highest court in Greece.” However, one can also apply this to political tyranny axiologically as well, in particular when it concerns facts as a function of political action and mandate.
Over the past few years, the Obama administration has increased rather aggressively its foot print, militarily in Africa. Under the guise of fighting for the righteous neoliberalim to defeat tyranny and kleptocratic rule in the name of democracy, the Obama administration has boldly implemented a path in Africa similar to those seen in past history. Especially that of King Leopold II (1835-1909).
In 1876, Belgium’s King Leopold II held a conference in Brussels in which he asserted that Western nations should establish an international benevolent committee for the propagation of civilization among the peoples of Central Africa (the Congo region). Between the years of 1878 to 1884, it resulted in an eventual Belgian sovereignty, in the Congo Basin. His primary objective was to exploit the lucrative ivory and rubber market in Central Africa. After proclaiming sovereign Belgium state rights, and via three successive decrees, Leopold asserted rights of proprietorship over all vacant lands throughout the Congo territory and reduced the rights of the Congolese in their land to native villages and farms. His goals were so colonialist and imperialistic that those who refused or failed to supply enough rubber often had their villages burned down, children murdered, and their hands cut off.
It is now 2012, and President Obama is seemingly on the same path. It started in Libya with a fake and non-extant humanitarian mission to protect the citizens of the oil-rich African nation. However it resulted in the merciless and brutal overthrow of a government and the death of a leader, Muammar Gaddafi who was making progress and vowed to create a 'United States of Africa' after his election as head of the African Union. Since last November, we have observed President Barack Obama send U.S. troops to Africa to help hunt down the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army in and around Uganda. In his own words, Obama stated, “I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.” Ironic is just as Libya, Uganda is sitting on tons of oil. Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago and according to estimates by the Energy Ministry, the African nation has over two billion barrels of oil. And as I wrote last October, “billionaire George Soros is a member of its executive board and personally, just recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda.”
In addition, in fall 2009, the Obama administration announced a security assistance package for Mali – valued at 4.5 to 5.0 million dollars – that included 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment and was intended to enhance Mali’s ability to transport and communicate with internal security forces throughout the country and control its borders. Plus, his recently passed NDAA contained $75 million in U.S. aid aimed at fighting in Somalia and arming forces, particularly from Uganda and Burundi, as well as the armies of Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia.
Over the past few weeks, after the coup in the West African country of Mali, it has been uncovered that the leader Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo, who led a renegade military faction that deposed Mali’s democratically elected president, has been in the United States several times to receive professional military education and training. Although official Obama administration doesn’t support the overthrow of the formerly elected leader and that the U.S. Africa Command has suspended military cooperation with Mali, U.S. military personnel continue to deploy to Mali in part of a so-called Joint Planning Assistance Team.
I can go on with more, but such is not the case. The goal is to point out, as Milton asserted that when “truth and falsehood” do battle, truth always wins “in a free and open encounter.”This part of a total plan hatched by the Obama administration. We know that he has sent military advisors which are still on the ground in Nigeria and have had them there since 2009. And I find it ironic that our first African American President would be the one, as Leopold did, to establish a permanent US military beach head in Africa, for the advancement of a long-range Anglo-American geopolitical agenda for Africa.
The query is does it serve our best interest? Is it for the benefit of Africa or is it to challenge China’s economic interests in Africa? Or is it to reinvigorate the west past preoccupation with raping Africa for its resources for other plutocratic interest? In the past there were for human resources mainly for the utility of mining and slavery, today they are natural resources in the name of Oil, gold, diamonds, nickel, palladium, copper, zinc, silver or others? I am just asking, we already have US special forces and other military personnel on the ground in five African nations and that’s just on the record.
If my postulate is true and the aforementioned is even remotely plausible, then we should get ready for more famine, death, disease and all as the result of contrived wars in the name on benevolence as suggested by Leopold or national security as detailed by President Obama. Simple fact is that one cannot have either benevolence or security when the outcome is poverty, genocide and morbidity.
Over the past few years, the Obama administration has increased rather aggressively its foot print, militarily in Africa. Under the guise of fighting for the righteous neoliberalim to defeat tyranny and kleptocratic rule in the name of democracy, the Obama administration has boldly implemented a path in Africa similar to those seen in past history. Especially that of King Leopold II (1835-1909).
It is now 2012, and President Obama is seemingly on the same path. It started in Libya with a fake and non-extant humanitarian mission to protect the citizens of the oil-rich African nation. However it resulted in the merciless and brutal overthrow of a government and the death of a leader, Muammar Gaddafi who was making progress and vowed to create a 'United States of Africa' after his election as head of the African Union. Since last November, we have observed President Barack Obama send U.S. troops to Africa to help hunt down the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army in and around Uganda. In his own words, Obama stated, “I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.” Ironic is just as Libya, Uganda is sitting on tons of oil. Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago and according to estimates by the Energy Ministry, the African nation has over two billion barrels of oil. And as I wrote last October, “billionaire George Soros is a member of its executive board and personally, just recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda.”
In addition, in fall 2009, the Obama administration announced a security assistance package for Mali – valued at 4.5 to 5.0 million dollars – that included 37 Land Cruiser pickup trucks, communication equipment, replacement parts, clothing and other individual equipment and was intended to enhance Mali’s ability to transport and communicate with internal security forces throughout the country and control its borders. Plus, his recently passed NDAA contained $75 million in U.S. aid aimed at fighting in Somalia and arming forces, particularly from Uganda and Burundi, as well as the armies of Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia.
Over the past few weeks, after the coup in the West African country of Mali, it has been uncovered that the leader Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo, who led a renegade military faction that deposed Mali’s democratically elected president, has been in the United States several times to receive professional military education and training. Although official Obama administration doesn’t support the overthrow of the formerly elected leader and that the U.S. Africa Command has suspended military cooperation with Mali, U.S. military personnel continue to deploy to Mali in part of a so-called Joint Planning Assistance Team.
I can go on with more, but such is not the case. The goal is to point out, as Milton asserted that when “truth and falsehood” do battle, truth always wins “in a free and open encounter.”This part of a total plan hatched by the Obama administration. We know that he has sent military advisors which are still on the ground in Nigeria and have had them there since 2009. And I find it ironic that our first African American President would be the one, as Leopold did, to establish a permanent US military beach head in Africa, for the advancement of a long-range Anglo-American geopolitical agenda for Africa.
The query is does it serve our best interest? Is it for the benefit of Africa or is it to challenge China’s economic interests in Africa? Or is it to reinvigorate the west past preoccupation with raping Africa for its resources for other plutocratic interest? In the past there were for human resources mainly for the utility of mining and slavery, today they are natural resources in the name of Oil, gold, diamonds, nickel, palladium, copper, zinc, silver or others? I am just asking, we already have US special forces and other military personnel on the ground in five African nations and that’s just on the record.
If my postulate is true and the aforementioned is even remotely plausible, then we should get ready for more famine, death, disease and all as the result of contrived wars in the name on benevolence as suggested by Leopold or national security as detailed by President Obama. Simple fact is that one cannot have either benevolence or security when the outcome is poverty, genocide and morbidity.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Monday, January 09, 2012
President Barack Obama Signs Police State legislation Into Law
With all political attention focused on the Republican Presidential race or the recent holiday season, President Barack Obama under the cloak of little attention signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law on New Year’s Eve.
This is not your basic run of the mill law and was passed in the same manner of another law over the holidays on December 23, 1913 - the Federal Reserve Act, also known as the Glass-Owen Bill. Many see the NDAA as against all that is written in the constitution of the United states. The NDAA effectively revokes the democratic right, habeas corpus, which prevents arbitrary imprisonment of individuals by the government by requiring that the government present evidence to a judge or court to justify taking a person into custody. Yes, one of the provisions included in the 2012 NDAA allows for American citizens suspected of terrorism to be indefinitely detained in military custody without charge or trial.
The Bill goes far beyond terrorists linked to the 9/11 attacks, to include anyone defined by the president as “engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” Under the new law, the president of the United States can designate any American citizen if desired, to be arrested and detained for life by the US military. This means that it could include domestic opponents of US military action and/or the Us government, including opponents of any war or even the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
The bill provides $662 billion for the US military and even authorizes the US military to seize individuals anywhere in the world and hold them in a military detention facility indefinitely, without a trial or any other legal recourse. In the signing statement, Obama stated he had “serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) and Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
He signed the bill into law although he had reservations and previously indicated that he would not sign the bill. In addition, it is another demonstration of the President breaking another campaign promise, specifically not to use signing statements and executive orders to circumnavigate legislation signed into law.
By making this the law of the land, Obama has provide himself and any other Presidents to follow, the right to indefinitely detain any American citizen in the future just by the arbitrary position of the executive branch. He has just implemented a de facto police state similar to those observed historically in fascist and totalitarian regimes globally.
Forethought pertaining to this legislation suggests that certain liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed in the name of protecting the country from further terrorist attacks. Obama did not have to sign the bill and could have done what President Truman did when he vetoed an indefinite detention bill. Guess Obama doesn’t see that The NDAA is more of a threat to our freedom and our rights than any terrorist ever can or will be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)