Archive for the 'Insanity' Category

Travellers warned over US laptop seizures

Tuesday, November 7th, 2006

Customs may want to hold onto your laptop for weeks or months after US customs powers are extended

Business travellers to the US now face indefinite confiscation of laptops and other mobile devices, with the powers of American customs authorities appearing to have been extended.

Concern was expressed by many this summer after an appeal judgement delivered by a San Francisco courthouse making it legal for US customs agents and immigration officials to conduct detailed scans of laptop hard drives and browser caches on an entirely random basis.

Now the problem has apparently escalated, with a number of reported cases of laptops being randomly seized by agents and held for a matter of months, with no warrant necessary or probable cause required.

No plans are thought to exist at present to grant similar powers to European border officials, but the US laws affect any nationality seeking entry into that country.

The issue has been one of the major topics of a conference in Barcelona this week held by the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

Research by the body, which numbers around 2,500 members worldwide, shows that almost 90 per cent of its members were not aware that US customs officials have the authority to examine the contents of laptops, and even seize them for a period of time, without giving a reason.

“The information that US government officials have the right to examine, download, or even seize business travellers’ laptops came as a surprise to the majority of our members,” said the association’s executive director Susan Gurley.

“The common belief is that there is a right to the privacy of one’s computer. Yet it appears that there is none.”

The association also found that 87 per cent of members were, once aware of possible search and confiscation, less likely to carry confidential business or personal information on laptops when travelling.

The problem for many executives is the highly classified nature of the data on their laptops. Having this data out of their possession and in unknown hands could leave them in breach of legislation like the Data Protection Act or Sarbanes Oxley, both of which mandate strictly how data should be guarded and stored.

There is also, naturally, the issue of on-the-spot convenience for people often in a hurry for legitimate reasons.

“It’s not like a bag, that takes a couple of minutes to go through,” said Quocirca analyst Rob Bamforth. “What happens if the data is encrypted for quite legitimate reasons – what is that going to say to a suspicious official?”

[…]

IT PRo

And so, all of these people at the Barcelona conference will now be thinking, “Thank God we are having this conference in Barcelona and not New York!”.

These measures of course, are simple corporate espionage being carried out by the state on behalf of american corporations…ooops, thats the same thing isn’t it?.

No doubt that the old trrrrsm chestnut will be rolled out again to justify this insanity, and of course, that chestnut is full of crap. Anyone wanting to get data ‘through customs’ will FTP it, and not carry it on a laptop. The very idea of smuggling data on a laptop is completely absurd; almost as absurd as confiscating a laptop at an airport.

What this will do, as we have said before, is put even more people off of going to the usa. That country will become culturally isolated, and rightly so, since they have abandoned the yellow brick road of the righteous and diverted to the filthy dirt track of fascism.

What other countries do this sort of thing? Sudan for one. So, the american government has as much common sense as the Sudanese government. Great!

Thanks to the BLOGDIAL lurker ‘Calcium Fluoride’ for the heads up.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Monday, November 6th, 2006

Tony Bliar talks trash in The Telegraph about ID cards.

Let us tear him to bits:

On any list of public concerns, illegal immigration, crime, terrorism and identity fraud would figure towards the top.

Illegal immigration: Close the borders
Crime: Lock up the criminals
Terrorism: Stop terrorizing other people in their countries
Identity Fraud: not the business of government

In each, identity abuse is a crucial component. It is all part of a changing world: global mass migration; easier travel; new services and new technologies constantly being accessed.

The world is not changing; what HMG has done is opened the floodgates to migrants instead of thinking about the future carefully. It is this open borders policy that has caused the ‘problem’. The world has not changed at all; people are exactly the same as they used to be. Had you not, Mr Bliar Mass Murderer, invaded Iraq, we would not be on the top of the list of skunk nations. That is a fact. If the UK removes itself from Shengen and the EU, then the migration problem goes away. That is a fact. No matter how easy travel is, if you are stopped at the border, all the woes of unchecked immigration melt away.

As for new technologies being accessed, where these are transactions between private entities, the government has no place butting its terrorist head between the two parties. Period.

The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world.

The case against ID cards is all about liberty in the modern world, murderer, traitor and betrayer Bliar.

Biometrics give us the chance to have secure identity and the bulk of the ID cards’ cost will have to be spent on the new biometric passports in any event.

Biometrics do not solve the ultra flexible list of problems you are trotting out, scumbag, and as for the bulk of the ID cards’ cost having to be spent on new biometric passports, this is a blatant lie. The new passports, in order to conform to the international standards need only have a digital photograph in them. Everything else you are doing is by the design of your criminal vendors.

I am not claiming ID cards, and the national identity database that will make them effective, are a complete solution to these complex problems. That is the tactic of opponents who suggest that, if their introduction is unable to prevent all illegal immigration or every terrorist outrage, they are somehow worthless. What I do believe strongly is that we can’t ignore the advances in biometric technology in a world in which protection and proof of identity are more important than ever.

They are certainly not worthless. They have a great value to HMG as a tool of absolute control and surveillance. You have completely lost this argument you bastard Bliar, thanks to ‘Frances Stonor Saunders’: the thread in that link is highly representative of what happens to people when they find out what your bogus ID Card scheme really means. Once people understand the true horror of it, they turn against it 180°. Precisely this conversation and millions like it have appeared up and down the country. You have LOST this argument Bliar, and the more people are informed of precisely what you are doing, the less likely it will be that your evil scheme will be pulled off.

Nor is the Government alone in believing that biometrics offer us a massive opportunity to secure our identities. Firms across the world are already using fingerprint or iris recognition.

That is a PRIVATE matter between customer and business. It is not by compulsion that they identify themselves in this way to a business, and if it is, that is a matter for them to deal with. Also, providing this information to a business is not by compulsion of the law, and neither does doing it expose ALL of your personal details to millions of civil servants, criminals, the police and every busybody in the UK.

Providing your biometric to a business is completely different. Not only do you have a choice, but if you do decide to be identified in this way to them, they have a legal obligation to keep your details secret, and if they fail in this obligation, you can seek redress in the courts. As we have shown on BLOGDIAL again and again, HMG doesn’t give a DAMN what damage they do to you. If you are mistakenly branded a criminal or an alcoholic, “TOUGH SHIT, we don’t care” is the response.

You can hardly claim that this is of benefit to the British public…oh, I’m sorry, yes you can, because you are a pathological liar.

More than 50 countries are developing biometric passports. France, Italy and Spain plan to make their ID cards biometric.

I have just covered this. This means only a digital photo. You are misrepresenting this, as expected.

Visitors to the United States now digitally record their fingerprint, and new UK passports from last month must carry a facial biometric.

I’m glad that you mention USVISIT, because that evil system shows EXACTLY what this ‘biometric net’ is going to be used for; catching innocent people, like the heads of the absolutely legal internet gambling businesses who were intercepted thanks to USVISIT.

USVISIT is not about stopping terrorists, its about arresting people who are in no way a threat to the USA, but who represent a way to extort monies from foreigners trying to visit that beleaguered and once great country.

It is also not about stopping illegal workers, since those are able to WALK into the USA in their MILLIONS on an annual basis.

This is the truth about USVISIT and these systems in general:

Since January 2004, US-VISIT has processed more than 44 million visitors. It has spotted and apprehended nearly 1,000 people with criminal or immigration violations, according to a DHS press release.

I wrote about US-VISIT in 2004, and back then I said that it was too expensive and a bad trade-off. The price tag for “the next phase” was $15B; I’m sure the total cost is much higher.

But take that $15B number. One thousand bad guys, most of them not very bad, caught through US-VISIT. That’s $15M per bad guy caught.

Surely there’s a more cost-effective way to catch bad guys?

Yes indeed there is, and it does not involve this faddish Biometric madness.

USVISIT is a lie, just like your ID card scheme is a lie. It is there to control the decent people, the people with disposable cash who are economically active.

We also know how effective it can be. In trials using this new technology on visa applications at just nine overseas posts, our officials have already uncovered 1,400 people trying to get back into the UK illegally.

So, for 1,400 people, the liberty of the ENTIRE UK is going to be flushed down the toilet. BILLIONS are going to be spent setting it up, and we are going to have all of our details recorded and made available to anyone who wants to see them, for life.

I don’t think so.

A national identity system will have direct benefits in making our borders more secure and countering illegal immigration.

That is a lie. Illegal immigrants WILL enter this country, and they WILL find work. If they are not able to find work, and are not able to leave, then they will turn to crime to survive, unleashing a crime-wave the likes of which this isle has never before seen.

Biometric visas and residence cards are central to our plans and will be introduced ahead of ID cards. I also want to see ID cards made compulsory for all non-EU foreign nationals looking for work and when they get a National Insurance number. This will enable us, for the first time, to check accurately those coming into our country, their eligibility to work, for free hospital treatment or to claim benefits.

Biometric residence cards for EU citizens are illegal. In France, the ‘Carte de Sejour’ was found to be in contravention of EU law for anyone with EU citizenship wanting to live in France. This will be challenged and it will be put down.

I am convinced, as are our security services, that a secure identity system will help us counter terrorism and international crime. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities – up to 50 at a time – to hide and confuse. This is something al-Qa’eda train people at their camps to do.

More lies. All the Madrid bombers had valid ID, as did the ‘hijackers’ in ‘911’ and the people who perpetrated ‘7/7’. ID will do nothing to stop these outrages, and you know this Bliar you mass murderer. This argument has been defeated many times since it was first trotted out by the adulterer Blunkett. It was a lie then and it is a lie now, which is why you have written it like it is the truth. You are a liar. That is what you do.

It will also help us tackle the problem of identity fraud, which already costs £1.7 billion annually – a figure that has increased by 500 per cent in recent years.

‘Identity Fraud’ is a problem of service providers and the customers they serve. The market will take care of it in a highly efficient way. For example, the market for paper shredders has skyrocketed because discarded paperwork is one of the root causes of people having their identities taken over. Remove the discarded paperwork, the threat is greatly diminished. That is the market solving problems efficiently. It is not the place of government to guarantee the identity of anyone to a business. Of course, this is not your true aim. Your true aim in this is to have a frictionless taxation system, where everyone and every penny they earn is taxable and transparent to you.

But that is another blog post.

Building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

But not impossible. Meaning that the small number of ID thieves that are working now will simply tool up to the next level, while the bleating UK population are fleeced, and the crime carries on unabated. And of course, since all the IDs of everybody in the UK will be in one place, criminals will have a one stop shop to get your ID from, and staffers in Whitehall will be happy to facilitate them, as they have been proven to be in the past.

There will also be the added ‘bonus’ to you, Bliar, of being able to look into everyones lives at will; you and the millions of people around the world who will be able to buy info on any UK citizen from the illegally created databases that will emerge, not to speak of the journalists, and corrupt civil servants who will make a fortune out of this gold mine.

The National Identity Register will help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children.

The only evil here is you, Bliar. What this sentence actually means is astonishing. We have said on BLOGDIAL before how this will work. Everyone in this system will have a criminal record (even though the legislation does not provide for this). It will either be blank or not. Every company, individual an entity in the UK will be able to check wether or not you have a criminal record, simply by telephoning a service and dictating your number or asking you to swipe your card.

It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip between the cracks. Crime detection rates, which fell steadily for decades, should also be boosted. Police, who will have access to the national database, will be able to compare 900,000 outstanding crime-scene marks with fingerprints held centrally.

This is total speculation. Bliar says it SHOULD make it more difficult, crime detection rates SHOULD be boosted. Its a gamble, and a gamble with the liberty of every British person in the land. It is unacceptable, even if the detection rates went up; after all, they do not keep criminals locked up long enough to make a difference, so this is totally absurd.

This is how a national identity system will help tackle some of the major challenges facing our country. However, I believe its benefits go beyond helping us counter problems. Biometric technology will enable us, in a relatively short period of time, to cut delays, improve access and make secure a whole array of services. By giving certainty in asserting our identity and simplicity in verifying it, biometrics will do away with the need for producing birth certificates, driving licences, NI and NHS numbers, utility bills and bank statements for the simple task of proving who we are.

The problem with all of this, is that in each of these scenarios, the government keeps a record of when you identified yourself, and where you were when you did it. They track you, keep you under surveillance, and none of this is needed to prove your identity. Systems can be developed that do not require a central database to verify identity but which are 100% infallible and accurate. Of course, these systems empower the user and leave the government with no way to centrally track you, which is why they were not pursued. This is a project of control, pure and simple, designed from the outset to facilitate the needs of government surveillance.

A national identity system will quickly become part of the national infrastructure. It should prevent us having to tell every agency individually when we move house. In future, we could be automatically alerted when our passports are running out.

Just because everyone might become used to it if it becomes reality doesn’t mean that its right. The people in the USSR were used to living in their totalitarian state for decades, so much so that when it ended, some of them wanted it to be brought back.

This line also demonstrates amply that every agency will know your address, because they are watching you.

So these are the benefits against which we have to gauge the disadvantages of introducing a secure national identity system. There are three main lines of attack — the civil liberties argument, effectiveness and cost. I know this will outrage some people but, in a world in which we daily provide information to a whole host of companies and organisations and willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I don’t think the civil liberties argument carries much weight.

It doesn’t outrage us Bliar. After participating in the murder of 650,000 this is peanuts. Your points need to be shot down nonetheless.

Just because we CHOOSE to give our private data to organizations and companies, and because we WILLINGLY CHOOSE to carry a variety of cards for clearly defined purposes, doesn’t imply that YOU and your murderous cabal of genocidal traitors have the right to COMPEL us to carry YOUR CARD.

This is the difference that totalitarianists cannot understand; we choose what we want to do in a free society, and we let the market solve our problems. If there was a need for a centrally controlled database where your every move was under surveillance, accessible to every civil servant criminal and busybody, someone would have created it and sold it to the public. That is guaranteed. And what’s more, it would work VERY WELL unlike the IT projects that HMG perpetually fumble. NO one wants this when they find out what it really means. You know this, you liar.

More than two million shoppers in the US already use a “Pay by Touch” system that links their fingerprints to their bank accounts, and a similar system is on trial here in the UK.

Not compulsory, and your entire life is not laid bare to everyone through it, though your shopping habits are. These systems are facing opposition, which is due to grow exponentially once people find out what it really means to hand over your fingerprints like a criminal.

Parliament has attached important safeguards to the scheme, which should meet reasonable concerns.

Bhwaahhaahhahahahahahha!!!!!

Individuals will have the right to see what information is held on them; the register will not contain medical records or tax and benefits information;

That is a lie. We now know that the personal and private medical data of everyone in the UK is about to be uploaded to the NHS spine in 2007 (unless something is done about it) and to think that the NIR unique number that is issued to you will not be used as your universal patient number is simply absurd. 250,000 people will have unfettered access to the spine, meaning that once these two systems are up and running as designed, it will be trivial to match you with your medical records, and literally, millions of people will be able to see everything about you, including and not limited to, your medical records.

One of the reasons why this system is being built is, ostensibly, to cut benefit fraud. That means that anyone in the DSS system will have their NIR unique number in that database, meaning that all the people who have access to that system will be able to pass your information on that database to anyone else.

Any database run by HMG where your NIR unique number is attached to your name creates in effect, a virtual database, that is trivial to ‘short circuit’ into a connected single database, accessible as if it were a single entity. Everyone knows this.

This is an experiment not only in mass surveillance, but in how much intrusion and violation a civilized population will take before it breaks. That is why it is vital that no matter what the consequences, we all absolutely refuse to let it happen, by denying access to our GP records, not registering in the NIR by renewing our passports right now and not applying for new ones should the system come on stream. If we don’t do this, the message is, “fleece us, we don’t care”.

full accreditation will be required for any organisation that wishes to use the data – and they will have to get consent from each individual before they access their details.

That is bullshit not only because of what I just wrote, but consent in this case means handing over your card for a swipe, which will be construed as consent for your records to be accessed. ‘Full accreditation’ in this case means anyone who can pay the trivially small fee for accessing the Identity verification service, which will be an online service, and if you are not accredited, you simply pay someone who is. More lies from the Maximum Liar.

It was also very clear from last week’s arguments about surveillance and the DNA database that the public, when anyone bothers to ask them, are overwhelmingly behind CCTV being used to catch or deter hooligans, or DNA being used to track down those who have committed horrific crimes. And that’s what surveys suggest, too, about their position on ID cards.

The surveys that have been done have been shown to be wholly inadequate because the questions used did not address what the ID card scheme actually means to the interviewee. Questions like, “If an ID card could cut crime, would you be for it?” does not tell us anything at all about the real opinion of the interviewee, and the people who ran these polls knew this when they conducted them. As I said before, people are waging their own infowar on this subject, and the facts about this system are so chilling people go ballistic when they understand what it all really means.

Then there is the argument that ID cards and the national register simply will not work. This rests largely on the past failures, which I accept exist, of IT projects of all governments. This, however, seems to me an argument not to drop the scheme but to ensure it is done well.

‘Done well’? Bliar, you have absolutely no understanding of databases and computers; in fact, you are computer illiterate. This is clearly demonstrated by your statements on this subject. You are a luser. An asshat, and a murderer. Your next victim will not be the freedom of the British.

There are plenty of examples of how this can be achieved. The Passport Service database, which holds 70 million records, has already issued 2.5 million biometric passports since March.

See? A total moron.

That leaves the cost to the individual. Here, too, there has been some confusion. I simply don’t recognise some of the figures that have been attached to ID cards which, too often, include the costs of biometric passports. This is unfair and inaccurate.

You will be MADE to ‘recognize’, Bliar!!!

We will have no choice but to have a biometric passport, if we want to travel abroad.

That is a lie. We DO have a choice. ‘Biometric Passport’ means only a digital photo as the minimum requirement to qualify as ‘Biometric’. All the rest of it, the eye scans, fingerprints etc is all optional.

The United States has started to require them.

Yes, and we should REALLY follow them further into the abyss shouldn’t we?

This will soon be the case throughout the world. On present estimates, biometric passports make up 70 per cent – or around £66 – of the cost of the combined passports/ID cards we want.

and will not get.

The additional cost of the ID cards will be less than £30 — or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan. Not a bad price for the problems I am convinced they will help us tackle and for the benefits they will bring. […]

Telegraph

My God, the evil of this man is beyond belief. The lying bastardy, the baseness, the misdirection, omission, ignorance…The only price that matters in this bogus equation is that of LIBERTY and FREEDOM. The value of liberty and freedom are infinite. That means you cannot use them in an equation of any kind where you are trying to do a cost benefit analysis. You traitor. And even if we were to take your figures seriously, which we do not, they are totally bogus. The cost of running the system must be taken in aggregate and not on the individual level, since that is the context in which the money is going to be spent. Also, the benefit is not to the individual, but to the state, and since the man in the street is being made to pay and not the state (yes, they really are two separate things, now more than ever) HMG is getting a total surveillance system for free. The only people who are benefitting financially are the venal vendors.

Tony Bliar is a bad guy. With this scheme, he is single handedly throwing away what greater men than him died for in two world wars. He is a traitor to this nation, as are all the people are helping put this together, and those who voted for it.

It is not too late however to dismantle the whole thing. It has been done before, right here in the United Kingdom There is no justification, no excuse, no rationale that can be trundled out to justify enslaving people.

That is the bottom line. That is what this system is; a radical dehumanizing slave grid. The answer is ‘no’ and this scheme will be destroyed; mark it well nunckle.

They did wrong, but have learned nothing

Monday, October 30th, 2006

Secret Cabinet memo admits Iraq is fuelling UK terror

Tony Blair’s claim that there is no link between Britain’s foreign policy and terrorist attacks in this country is blown apart by a secret cabinet memo revealed today.

Ummm we and every other person on the planet already knew this.

A classified paper written by senior Downing Street officials says that everything Britain does overseas for the next decade must have the ultimate aim of reducing “terror activity, especially that in or directed against the UK”.

The memo, circulated in recent weeks to ministers and security chiefs and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, outlines an extraordinary “wish list” of how the Government would like world troublespots to look in 10 years’ time. It also signals a drive to reduce Britain’s military commitments around the globe.

It admits that, in an ideal world, “the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile” – effectively accepting the argument that Britain’s military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has served as a recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorist groups. Publicly, Mr Blair has resisted this line fiercely. During his final speech as leader to Labour’s annual conference last month, he described such claims as “enemy propaganda”.

His cabinet allies have supported his position. Earlier this year, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said: “I think it is a dreadful misjudgment if we believe the foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorist activity, if we do not have a foreign policy with which the terrorists happen to agree.”

But the memo leaves no doubt that all foreign policy must be driven by the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain. It demands a “significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity”.

In other words, KNOCK IT OFF, COME BACK HOME and DONT EVER GO BACK.

After a decade, Iraq must have “stable central and local government, accepted by all sectarian groups”. Afghanistan must be “stable, democratic, with all territory under central government control”.

You guys just don’t get it do you?

WHY should Iraq have a central government? ‘What does this have to do with Richmond?’ is the test that you need to apply to every one of these pronouncements. Why should Britain have a say about anything that happens in Iraq? That is what caused this problem in the first place. You are all living on tenter hooks, paranoid, disrupted, humiliated and scorned…and for what? For precisely nothing, since these people have their own ideas about what is right and what is wrong, and they will live by those ways or die and take you with them. They resist living in ‘democracy’ in the same way that we would all resist living under pure Sharia; to the death. Only the most blinkered and uneducated buffoons can not see this.

Similarly, why on earth should Afghanistan be a centrally controlled democratic government? Who are you to make that judgement? You making these proclamations and then acting on them are the sole cause of everyone hating the UK second only to the USA. For the thousandth time, will you KNOCK IT OFF. What those people do has absolutely NOTHING to do with Richmond. You have no right to demand that they live in a democracy. You have no right to dictate anything to anyone. If you DO believe that you have the right to shape the destiny of hundreds of millions of people in other lands, then take the consequences, and don’t whine like babies when people are lining up to slaughter you.

Israel must have “secure borders” and live in “peaceful co-existence” with its Arab neighbours,

sure, but thats up to THEM isn’t it?

while Iran must have a “representative, tolerant government … no nuclear weapons” and “no sponsorship of terrorism”.

There you go again.

The whole reason why there is an Islamic Republic in Iran is because YOU DISMANTLED THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT that was running there. What the Iranians have now is the government that they want. What happens in Iran is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

The Iranian government doesn’t ‘sponsor terrorism’. The entire cause of ‘terrorism’ is USUKs interference in other people’s countries. Look at this documentary to find out just how IGNORANT Bliar and Bu$h are; the killer part is where the presenter recounts the event where Bu$h took some Shias and Sunnis to the Super Bowl. They talked. Somehow, the discussion came round to Islam, and someone mentioned that Sunnis and Shias sometimes….’don’t get along’, whereupon The Great Satan said, “You mean that there is more than one kind of muslim?”.

You cant make stuff like this up.

A similar story is recounted about Bliar. These people, these ignorant animals have the gall to tell Iran how to run its affairs? It beggars belief.

The document concludes: “If all or most of the above were in place, threats from other sources of Islamic terrorism (eg Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria) would be manageable or on the way to resolution. Any remaining deployments of the British armed forces should be seen as contributing to international stability and security.”

Indonesia, The Philippines, Nigeria? listing these countries shows that the person who wrote this memo is as ignorant as Bu$h and Bliar. No muslim in any of these countries gives a damn about the UK, and they would be more than happy to never have any hatred towards anyone. If you however, decide to land troops in their countries, try and stage coups there, stir up trouble and make a nuisance of yourself, you are guaranteed to face fierce resistance. This part of the memo shows that they know nothing and have learned nothing, not even from recent history…and by recent I mean the last five years. There is no problem between Indonesia, Philippines, Nigeria and the UK. My advice to you you JACKASSES is not to start one!

A Downing Street spokesman declined to comment on the memo. However, in an interview, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, played down suggestions that large numbers of British troops may soon be coming home from Iraq. “I think you’re perhaps a little impatient to see a huge change, which I don’t think we are yet in,” she said.

She acknowledged, how-ever, that Britain and America had failed, before going to war, to predict that “there were huge pent-up hatreds and resentments in Iraq which exploded once Saddam Hussein was deposed”.

[…]

Telegraph

You fail again and again. You know nothing about Indonesia, The Philippines, Nigeria and anywhere other than Richmond Upon Thames. Nothing wrong with that; just make sure that you NEVER interfere with any of these countries and how they are run. As soon as you try to interfere, you cause disaster. You always have caused disaster, and always will cause disaster. Solve your own problems, mind your own business and all the ‘terrorism’ will melt away. If you do not, it will be ramped up and your precious ‘democracy’ which you have already partially dismantled, will be utterly destroyed by your own hand.

No one wants your ‘help’ and no one needs your advice. Every educated person can see that you are amongst the biggest hypocrites ever to walk the face of this earth. The British people on an interpersonal basis are the best ambassadors for the UK, because they are decent, peace loving people, and amongst the most tolerant, creative and intelligent in the entire world. The same cannot be said about HMG sadly, and its brief should be confined to garbage collection; that way, no one gets hurt.

Anyone who mentions Iran, who says its ‘intolerant’ who creates and transmits bogus documentaries about, sharia, veiled women blah blah blah; these people are traitors and warmongers and liars and are completely insane.

Enough is enough. Britain has alot of healing to do, and the sooner it starts the sooner Britain will start to look like the place we all loved. The first step is the purging of the war criminals and their bogus anti-democratic legislation.

But thats another blog post!

Olbermann / Juba2

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

The latest Olbermann special comment mentions the new Juba Video, which was transmitted on network news in the usa. Have you seen it? It’s brutal.

It has some of the same music that appears in ‘The night of Bush capturing’ 1st person shooter.

I had heard about ‘Juba’ but have not till today, seen him in action.

So lets get this straight; there is a sniper, called ‘Juba’ who has a rifle not only equipped with a powerful scope, but also video camera with a telescopic lens.

Thats just too much.

Those poor boys, being blown away for no good reason. It’s all bad…all bad.

And take a look at these soldiers, pissing their pants as they face death.

And now imagine being Drafted.

Perfect Encapsulation

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

If Your Fingerprints Aren’t Down You’re Not Coming In

UK Government wants to control where citizens go to get drunk. Will people start caring more about the liberty crushing surveillance society now?

Steve Watson / Infowars.net | October 23 2006

The drinks are on Big Brother.

The British government has announced that it wishes to send nationwide a previously localized program of mandatory fingerprint scanners at the entrance of every pub and club in major UK cities. Under such rules If you want to have a drink in the trendiest places in the UK you will have to be fingerprinted.

As usual this is being sold as a way to reduce alcohol related crime and weed out troublemakers. We’re all suspects now, we’re all possible criminals and we all need to be scanned and catalogued in order to save civilized society. The young hoodlums are taking over and we must all be considered dangerous in order to stop them.

The move to introduce the scanners is being sold to club and bar owners with the promise that they can stay open longer if they implement it. If they refuse that nice little earner they will simply be shut down as new licenses stipulate that a landlord who doesn’t install fingerprint security and fails to show a “considerable” reduction in alcohol-related violence, will be put on report by the police and have their licenses revoked.

What’s more, reports detail the fact that all clubs and bars that have this forced upon them, or choose to willingly use it, will be hooked up to a centralized database in order to easily share the biometric information. Access to this database will also be granted to the police and the government.

We have previously been told that it is just a matter of time before the fingerprint replaces cash and credit cards.

As a citizen of the UK I have not known a time when civil liberties have been under attack from so many angles at the same time. In the name of the war on crime, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on binge drinking, the war on anything the government can’t be bothered to attempt to get to the real cause of, we have to relinquish our privacy.

Big Brother Is watching… And listening and shouting and scanning and taking your fingerprints and swabbing your DNA. Lets take a snapshot of a typical day in Britain should all these things be fully implemented.

You get up to go to work and walking down your residential street you are picked up by multiple cameras within minutes of leaving your house. Before you board the tube or the train you may have to relent to going through the high-tech body screener for detecting would-be terrorists. Place your hands above your head and wait for the machine to produce a naked picture of you on a screen.

If your ‘re lucky enough not to have to go through one of these you will certainly be picked up by the the face scanning cameras which are programmed to sound an alarm when they spot suspicious behaviour, such as waiting somewhere for a prolonged period of time or just walking in a suspicious way.

Should you drop some litter or act out of turn the cameras may even start shouting at you in order to publicly humiliate you and let everyone else around you know what you’ve done. This way you might be shamed into never stepping out of line in that way again.

You swipe your electronic travel card over the reader and a unit of travel credit is deducted. This sends a signal to the central database reporting your whereabouts. You could still use cash but the fare has been raised so high for cash users that it seems ludicrous to opt for that.

Those who are lucky enough to work out of the big cities or those who drive to work will have their movements and personal behaviour monitored by traffic cameras all over the country. They will also be tracked at all times by the black box locator within their vehicles.

Once you get to work you are continuously monitored from the moment you enter the building until you leave.

After work you may go for a drink. Once you have had your fingerprints scanned to enter you may also have to undergo a DNA swab test for drug use. If you refuse you are recorded as suspicious and may even be arrested at which point your DNA will be forcibly taken anyway.

This will be added to the national DNA database which is also hooked up to the central UK citizens database which eventually will contain the DNA of everyone no matter whether or not they have committed a crime. You will not have access to this information but the government will. They may even sell the information to private companies should they wish to. The Information will be stored on the database forever.

If you do manage to get in the pub for a drink you will be able to pay for it much more quickly and easily if you have an implanted microchip. Just wave your arm over a reader and it will pick up the chip’s signal and deduct a beverage credit accordingly. A chip may also eliminate the need for an ID card, travel card, medical card and the like. No need to carry cumbersome wallets or handbags anymore!

Perhaps you will not have worked hard enough this week to earn enough beverage credits though. Oh well never mind time to go home. When you get back remember to put out the trash. Make sure the bag is not too heavy though or more refuse credits will be deducted from your allowance. And don’t forget to recycle or you could get some jail time.

Just before you turn in check your personalized cctv channel and report any suspicious activity in your neighbourhood. You can then go to sleep safe in the knowledge that you are ‘secure beneath the watchful eyes’ of Big Brother.

In the UK we are the most observed population outside of North Korea. Britain is the surveillance bench mark, the rest of the Western world is a close second. As Henry Porter Commented in last week’s London Observer, It’s time to wake up to what we have become and stop allowing limits to be put on our liberty. It’s now or never.

[…]

http://www.infowars.net/articles/October2006/231006prints.htm

Once again, the nail is hit right on the head.

But…

WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING TO DO ABOUT IT?

We can sit down and write about this until the end of time (not too far away now ay?) but it will change absolutely nothing. In the past, people made careers out of being in opposition. Lets be absolutely clear; I am NOT one of these people. I do not enjoy or endorse or agree with the idea of an ‘underground’ or ‘resistance’. I do not want to spend time paying the price of eternal vigilance for freedom. There are simply some things that I will not do, by default and so all these measures do not apply to me. But I digress.

As we can see, despite all the blathering and warnings spread all over the country, England is being turned into a police state. Once again, what are you going to do about it? I mean, what personally are you going to do to stop this fingerprinting abomination from spreading to every pub in the land?

Are you going to:

  • Write to every publican?
  • Write to the breweries that own the pubs that are not free houses?
  • Write to CAMRA and every other beer association, asking them to contact all of their members?

Those are for example. If you are not willing to do this, or to even suggest that this should be done whenever you write an article, then you are part of the problem, whoever you are, when you do not act to preserve this great land.

This fingerprinting at pubs is not the final goal. It is a softening up exercise, designed to get every drinking adult used to the idea of being fingerprinted on a regular basis. If they manage to roll out the NIR, enrollment will encounter much less resistance because everyone will think that fingerprinting is a part of ‘normal life’ and will not think twice about handing over their prints for their passport or driving license etc etc.

Business must resist this. They are proxy shearing centres that HMG uses to enforce its nonsense and butter up the public. There is no way that they will revoke the licenses of ALL the pubs in the UK; if all of them refuse to help bastardize this country, the only recourse for the government is to back down. The publicans and license holders will only have the balls to do it if they feel threatened by a massive letter writing campaign (one of the last instances where letter writing actually works; between one human and another).

That is what I propose; because the British don’t flee from their own land when its under attack from a hostile enemy, and this is a war, no doubt about it!

That’s it. I’m off to France

Monday, October 23rd, 2006

Beer fingerprints to go UK-wide

The Register | October 23 2006

The government is is funding the roll out of fingerprint security at the doors of pubs and clubs in major English cities.

Funding is being offered to councils that want to have their pubs keep a regional black list of known trouble makers. The fingerprint network installed in February by South Somerset District Council in Yeovil drinking holesy is being used as the show case.

“The Home Office have looked at our system and are looking at trials in other towns including Coventry, Hull & Sheffield,” said Julia Bradburn, principal licensing manager at South Somerset District Council.

Gwent and Nottingham police have also shown an interest, while Taunton, a town neighbouring Yeovil, is discussing the installation of fingerprint systems in 10 pubs and clubs with the systems supplier CreativeCode.

Bradburn could not say if fingerprint security in Yeovil had displaced crime to neighbouring towns, but she noted that domestic violence had risen in Yeovil. She could not give more details until the publication of national crime statistics to coincide with the anniversary of lax pub licensing laws on 24 November.

She was, however, able to say that alcohol-related crime had reduced by 48 per cent Yeovil between February and September 2006.

The council had assumed it was its duty under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) to reduce drunken disorder by fingerprinting drinkers in the town centre.

Some licensees were not happy to have their punters fingerprinted, but are all now apparently behind the idea. Not only does the council let them open later if they join the scheme, but the system costs them only £1.50 a day to run.

Oh, and they are also coerced into taking the fingerprint system. New licences stipulate that a landlord who doesn’t install fingerprint security and fails to show a “considerable” reduction in alcohol-related violence, will be put on report by the police and have their licences revoked.

Offenders can be banned from one pub or all of them for a specified time – usually a period of months – by a committee of landlords and police called Pub Watch. Their offences are recorded against their names in the fingerprint system. Bradburn noted the system had a “psychological effect” on offenders.

She said there had been only been two “major” instances of alcohol-related crime reported in Yeovil pubs and clubs since February. One was a sexual assault in a club toilet.

The other occurred last Friday when an under-18 Disco at Dukes nightclub got out of hand after the youngsters had obtained some alcohol from elsewhere. A fight between two youngsters escalated into a brawl involving 435 12-16 year olds

A major incident is when 15 police attend the scene, said Bradburn. She was unable to say how many minor incidents there had been but acknowledged that fights were still occurring in the streets of Yeovil.

The Home Office paid for Yeovil’s system in full, with £6,000 of Safer, Stronger Communities funding.

Bradburn said the Home Office had paid her scheme a visit and subsequently decided to fund similar systems in Coventry, Hull and Sheffield.

The Home Office distanced itself from the plans. It said it provided funding to Safer, Stronger Communities through the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Local Area Agreements. How they spent the money was a local decision, said a HO spokeswoman.

[…]

Propaganda Matrix Quotes The Register

I swear to you right now, that I will NEVER give my fingerprint in order to have a drink. My local can fuck off to hell if they think that I am going to do it. DEATH to all publicans to go along with it…and if it does get rolled out, then farewell O England…I fought for thee….

Radicalize Yourself

Sunday, October 22nd, 2006

BOSTON (Reuters) – Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S.
Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff said on Monday.
Click to learn more…

“We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet,” Chertoff said on the sidelines of a meeting of International Association of the Chiefs of Police.

“They can train themselves over the Internet. They never have to necessarily go to the training camp or speak with anybody else and that diffusion of a combination of hatred and technical skills in things like bomb-making is a dangerous combination,” Chertoff said. “Those are the kind of terrorists that we may not be able to detect with spies and satellites.”

Chertoff pointed to the July 7, 2005 attacks on London’s transit system, which killed 56 people, as an example a home-grown threat.

To help gather intelligence on possible home-grown attackers, Chertoff said Homeland Security would deploy 20 field agents this fiscal year into “intelligence fusion centers,” where they would work with local police agencies.

By the end of the next fiscal year, he said the department aims to up that to 35 staffers. […]

Yahoo News

My emphasis.

We can substitute ‘radicalize themselves’ for its true meaning, ‘educate themselves’.

Most interesting is the quote, “Those are the kind of terrorists that we may not be able to detect with spies and satellites”.

Indeed. The people who cannot be stopped but who can stop everything are those who do not. Those who do not march in the streets for example. Those who do not do more than those that do, and they cannot be stopped, and what they do not can do more than those that do. You do remember this do you not?

ZDNet Australia says ‘Black is White’

Friday, October 20th, 2006

Maybe its because they are in the southern hemisphere, and the Coriolis Effect has addled their sunburned brains…whatever the reason, ZDNet Australia appears to be smoking crack:

Fingerprinting technology is the most reliable and cost effective biometric authentication technology but it’s not being deployed on a wide scale because people still imagine that criminals are the only ones that have to surrender their fingerprints, according to Sagem.

Users are resisting the switch to fingerprint authentication technologies because they still see the process of giving a fingerprint as somehow related to being caught by the police, according to Gilles Novel, manager for secure terminals and transactions at Sagem Australasia.

“We have to shift mentality away from where people are scared [of giving their fingerprints],” Novel told ZDNet Australia. “The problem we have faced is that people think ‘if I enrol my fingerprint there has to be, one way or the other, a link to the police’. They think criminal activity instead of their own privacy.”

Novel argues that attitudes are slowly changing — especially as people slowly realise that fingerprints are more reliable than passwords and can help increase, not erode, privacy.

“If you are an employer and someone does the wrong thing on your network, that person can say ‘it wasn’t me — someone has used my password’. But in the case of biometrics, how can you say ‘it wasn’t my finger?’.” Novel told ZDNet Australia.

???!!!

This uncritical article can only be the result of paid for PR insertion. Everyone knows that fingerprinting is for criminals, and that it should remain ONLY for criminals; free and innocent people should be at liberty to be anonymous and unaccounted for; the exact opposite of what happens when you give your fingerprints to anyone. ZDNet has just published an article that claims that Black is White.

Unbelievable.

Fingerprinting violates your privacy in many ways, which we have outlined on BLOGDIAL for years, and which the writers of a technology rag like ZDNet should for certain understand, ummm don’t they read The Register for crying out loud?

The piece ends with this:

In Australia, fingerprinting technology was being adopted by Centrelink, the government’s nationwide human services agency. Last year, the organisation decided to ditch passwords in favour of a fingerprint authentication system that would require it to purchase and deploy 31,000 finger scanners. However, the plan was scrapped earlier this year.

ZDNet Australia

[…]

Well I do declare, there ARE some sensible people in Australia!

WHY was it scrapped ZDNet Australia? Could it have something to do with the incredible and totally sucessful resistance to ID cards that smashed the Australian governments plans so many years ago?

Maybe we need some of that Coriolis Effect and hot sun here in the UK!

Henry Rollins: lots of anger and no answers

Friday, October 20th, 2006

Henry Rollins has a typical vein popping performance on YouTube. Sadly it typifies the sort of thinking that has allowed Murder Inc. to go hog wild with their plans to the point of suspending the constitution.

Rollins makes several mistakes in his piece. The first one, is that he is swearing like a sailor. The people in middle america who need to be shown the truth instantly switch off when you use ‘bad language’; indeed on Propaganda Matrix (where I found this clip) there is a warning, “Extreme Profanity” many people will not get past that to press play.

Lets go through this garbage line by line:

Freedom is under attack.

There is no such thing as ‘Freedom’. This is a childish simplification. More accurately, the american constitution has been suspended by a small cabal of murderous animals, who will do literally anything to achieve their goals. It has been done with language that even the most terrible of tyrants have never dared to put on paper.

Under attack by hysterical and well funded Christian psychotics,

Wrong. These people are NOT Christians by any measure. They are in fact worshipers of Satan.

intellectually undernourished leaders

Actually, these people are amongst the smartest people on the planet. They are evil for sure, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that they are not smart. Lord Bush might not be smart, but he doesn’t matter.

who lie and manipulate information,

true.

overfed Baby Huey coward bitch motherfuckers like Karl Rove and their suck up weakling apologists like Sean Hannity. To question authority is to be somehow unpatriotic, unAmerican and in league with terrorists worldwide?
Fuck you.

Indeed. Darth Cheney is a fat pig. As for Fox News, they are able to reach into the minds of middle america for a reason, and you would do well to find out what that reason is and then use it to put your own message there, instead of alienating them with your foul mouth. Of course, there will be people who say, “but hey, BLOGDIAL is CHOCK FULL of swearing!!”, yes, indeed it is, but the audience of BLOGDIAL is very particular, and not intended to be a mass one. We tailor the language we use to the particular audience we are addressing, and we have been VERY VERY successful at doing it.

Henry Rollins needs to put on some neat clothes and get on his knees to reach middle america. He needs to be temperate, rational and humble. Alex Jones has the balance between anger, respect and the pure facts perfect, which is why he has had a real impact on the entire world. You cannot pour gasoline on a fire and expect it to go out. This is what Rollins is doing in this piece. He is doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to face the problem head on, and is providing no solution of any kind, and is alienating the very people he needs to protect his ‘freedom’.

With even election results becoming more and more questionable, The Constitution a thing to be manipulated, ignored and frivolously amended, even Democracy itself seems to be on the run.

Election results are being fixed with deliberately insecure Diebold voting machines. If this is the problem, then you need to calmly point out that only a paper count with an audit trail is the solution. Saying that, “election results becoming more and more questionable” is meaningless. How it is being done is a matter of public record. Face the problem head on and provide a solution, or shut up.

The constitution is not being manipulated, it is being nullified by pieces of legislation, (PATRIOT, Military Commissions Act etc etc) you need to name these pieces of legislation and then call for them to be repealed. If they are not repealed, then your state should secede from the union. After that, the right of every person to form a militia to overthrow the government comes into force. This is called getting your facts straight, attacking the problem head on and providing a solution. Anything less is just pointless.

Where’s one place you can go and tell your version of the truth, rail against liars, fakes and propagandists with your own unique propaganda, sign your name to it and let the world know how you feel? That’s right, the internet. Perhaps responsible for the most substantial shifts in culture in the last several decades. There is so much freedom and potential on the World Wide Web that one is barely able to get one’s head around it.

Telling the truth is not enough. This was done before the illegal Iraq invasion, and the mass murder happened anyway. Railing against liars is also pointless. Signing your name to anything is just suicidal. The potential of “the internets” as lord Bush calls it, is in its use as a tool to organize real world mass-less and un-manifested civil disobedience. By mass-less and un-manifested I mean the organizing of people in a flash mob sense, where there is no gathering; in fact, where there is an absence of gathering. Demonstrating in the streets (as we have said so many times before on BLOGDIAL) is totally pointless and counter productive. We need to destroy the monster by not engaging with it on any level. That means getting O.U.T., it means 20AC, it means a complete shutdown of obedience. If all the people in the USA who were against Murder Inc did this, the whole criminal organization would collapse. Olberman is a blood brother to Rollins in this error; you must provide a solution and not just a presentation of the facts. The ineloquent and the greatly learned are both slaves to this monster, and neither of them can do a single thing about it because they are not thinking of this as a fire that needs to be put out. They are both like deers in the headlights, stunned spectators at the pyre when all it takes to put it out is to reach for the extinguisher.

The question we have to ask is…why won’t they do it?

Who in their right mind would to dare to regulate or charge websites to be on the internet? Who would dare to rain on a parade so fantastic that many of us wouldn’t know what to do without our high-speed connection and our lives on the internet?

Actually some very powerful forces. Telco companies want to make you pay for your site to be carried on the internet. If you can’t afford to pay, guess what? That’s right–you’re cyber history pal.

Before the internet there were other, smaller nets of computers. This isn’t a problem; your problem is the fire that is raging at your ankles and your inability to even pee on it to quench it. The internet can fix itself. The people in control of it will make sure that happens. If not, it will fissure into a free internet and the commercial internet. You will still be able to run your blog (probably text only) and do your email and it will probably be more secure than the commercial internet. As I said, this is not the issue; it is in fact, a distraction. While the internet is here and unbroken, you would be well advised to use it to its full potential to organize the second american revolution.

The Bush Administration wants major internet and phone companies to keep track of where their customers surf, all in the name of the War On Terror don’t ya know. How much do you want to bet they want the internet regulated, contained and thrown into a cell in Guantanamo Bay?

Indeed Mr Rollins. Do you encrypt your email? Do you use Windows? Do you do ANYTHING to protect yourself and your digital communications? You would do better to calm down, and spread information about GPG and all the other myriad free tools that are out there to use, and of course, use them yourself, contribute to their development and integration into everyone’s life.

For a country that talks so much about freedom being on the march, seems to me that some people want anything but. If they come for your freedom you must not only resist, you must strike back with a vengeance that will stun them. On this front, if your anger and outrage are not at the forefront then you’re already dead. Dead to me, anyway. Fuck these cowards, these traitors, these enemies of Democracy.

These people take what they want. Just like the founding fathers did; they wanted ‘freedom’ and they engineered a revolution to get it. These people want Nazi style total control, and they are doing what they need to do to get it. They have perfectly gauged the public mood (total apathy) and are forging ahead with their plans. You have to admire their balls.

You say, “if they come for your freedom”. They have already come for and stolen your ‘freedom’ you imbecile, and your suggestion that people ‘resist’ is absolutely meaningless. Striking back with a vengeance that will stun them is is also nothing but a hollow phrase.

Without specific instructions or plans and a concrete goal, you will be wiped off the face of the earth, and no Mr. Rollins, and Olbermann, you will not be taken off to ‘Gitmo’ (Guantanamo Bay you habitually abbreviating simpletons), you will in fact be bussed off to one of the six hundred american concentration camps that are currently staffed and waiting for you and your ranting swearing gunless tattooed bespectacled cohorts.

Never relent.

And do WHAT?

Like we said: BOLT CUTTERS!

Thursday, October 19th, 2006

The rest of the world slowly catches up with BLOGDIAL:

By Mark Ballard
18th October 2006

The public fears losing their fingers to ruthless biometric ID thieves in the fingerprint-controlled future, apparently. Or at least, so says Frost & Sullivan analyst Sapna Capoor, who argued unconvincingly that “A dead finger is no good to a thief.”

If you have a fingerprint scanner protecting your family jewels, your data might be safe, but what about your fingers?

So, it’s all getting out of hand? Then on the other… there are recorded instances of people having their fingers chopped off, and the biometric industry takes the issue seriously.

For example, there were the Malaysian crooks who nabbed a man’s fingers in order to operate the biometric security on the S-class Mercedes they stole from him.

Nevertheless, biometric firms are doing what they can to detect whether a fingerprint being scanned is alive or not, said Jean Francois Mainguet, chief scientist of fingerchip biometrics at Atmel-France, and inventor of the sweeping technique for direct silicon fingerprint scanning (he was awarded his patent on 9/11, as it happens).

Speaking at Biometrics 2006 in London, Mainguet said it wasn’t yet possible to detect “liveliness”, and even when it was, this would guarantee security no more than a regular biometric.

“Absolute security doesn’t exist,” he said. If you could detect liveliness, you wouldn’t be able to tell if someone was accessing some system or authorising some payment under duress or not.

Security causes an escalation of causes and reactions just like the arms race. Want to cheat the banking system? Forge an ID. Fingerprint scanner making it tricky? Chop someone’s finger off. Live fingerprint scanner? Hold someone’s family at gun point.

The techniques being explored for live scanners include inducing involuntary responses via an electric charge to cause a spasm in skin pressed against the glass. Or there’s the use of light fluctuations to induce involuntary responses from the user of an iris scanner.

They can all be faked, said Mainguet. The electrical response, for example is as easy as making a frog’s leg twitch if you have chopped carefully.

There is a solution, he said, which is to use a variety of biometrics to identify someone. Biometrics? You just can’t get enough of them. At some shows, anyway.

[…]

The Register

We made this exact point before. Like we have been saying if you do not register in the biometric net (ID Card, NIR), or in this case, buy a car, or a lock, or a safe that uses your thumbprint as the key, you will not have to worry about the bolt cutters removing your thumb(s) or the cheese slicer removing the top four millimeters of your thumb skin.

Now, if they get out the cheese slicer, and slice off your prints, when they stick them onto their own fingers, they will seem to be alive, because the criminals finger is providing the 37° warmth that these ‘is she alive’ scanners will be looking for. For example. Either way, having a biometric door-lock on your house tells the criminal that he has to come properly equipped, just as he does when he sees a particular type of lock that he knows how to pick. It also tells him that he can target your wife, your children and your housekeeper.

Its pretty obvious really.

I had the opportunity to look at Virgin’s ‘self service’ checkin at Heathrow. To use this ‘service’ you put your machine readable passport into a machine, and your checkin pass is printed out for you.

What’s wrong with this picture? That instead of using your credit card or some other card to issue with your ticket, they use a state issued document whose purpose is to get you past immigration, and nothing else. There is no reason whatsoever for them to use your passport for this, and since you and your passport and your ticket will be examined by several people on your way to the cattle truck aircraft, this check is redundant. A machine should never be used to check your ‘identity’ or validity. Of course, people were lining up to take advantage of the ‘convenience’ of this ‘service’, blithely sticking their passports into this machine without any indication of what this machine was doing with their data. Of course, if the RFID passports gain wide acceptance, you wont even have to touch the machine….and thats the machine that you know about.

What 5.4 billion gets you these days

Tuesday, October 10th, 2006

1 ID card system for the first ten years (read: 1 extremely rich IT consultancy firm and no working ID card database)

About 7% of a new nuclear deterrent. (which is the greater waste of money?)
Around 100 new hospitals.

1000 pounds of tax back in the hands of every man, woman and child in the country.

Over 200,000 of these…

The image “http://www.roundshot.ch/pictures/Seitz-6x17-handheld.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

… anyway…. I digress. What a neat beard that man has.
Been listening to Sinead O’Connor (Lion and the Cobra) and the Waterboys (eponymous) a bit tonight. It’s been a long time. Makes me feel old and young at once. And it’s good to have a sing along now and again.

Mandatory ‘cancer jab’ urged for schoolgirls

Friday, October 6th, 2006

Paul Willis and agencies
Friday October 6, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

A leading medical journal today said a vaccine that could protect thousands of women from cervical cancer should be made compulsory for schoolgirls.

The Lancet called for the Gardasil vaccination – which protects against the human papilloma virus (HPV) – to be made available to all 11 and 12-year-olds.

HPV causes changes to cells that can lead to cervical cancer and most cases of genital warts.

The vaccine, which should reduce deaths from cervical cancer by 70%, has caused controversy among some Christian groups, who object to it being given to girls before they become sexually active.

Article continues
Last week, the European commission approved the sale of the vaccine across the UK and Europe. Women will be able to buy Gardasil privately, but it has not yet been decided whether it will be available on the NHS.

A government survey of parents’ attitudes to early vaccines suggested there would not be widespread resistance to a vaccination campaign.

In its editorial, the Lancet pointed to the US, where Gardasil immunisations were recently made compulsory for all 11 and 12-year-old girls in the state of Michigan.

“This is the first legislation of its kind in the USA, and a decision from which the EU member states should take heed,” the editorial said.

The European licence allows the vaccine to be given to all females aged from nine to 26. The journal said there was growing support for giving the vaccine to boys as well, because men can also be carriers of HPV.

Studies have shown the immunisation of women alone would only prove around one third as effective as targeting both sexes.

They highlighted the rubella vaccination programme, which was widened to include boys in 1995 after a rise in the number of pregnant women contracting the disease.

“For effective and long-term eradication of HPV, all adolescents must be immunised,” the Lancet editorial said.

“Data from the vaccine trials in boys are urgently needed; in the meantime, EU member states should lead by making the vaccination mandatory for all girls aged 11-12 years.”

Around 80% of sexually active women can expect to receive an HPV infection at some stage in their life. Cervical cancer caused by the virus kills an estimated 230,000 people a year, with 1,100 of those in the UK.

Gardasil, which is made by Sanofi Pasteur and Merck and Co, is one of two vaccines that have been racing for approval. It is already licensed in Australia, Mexico and the US, where the three-dose, six-month course costs around $195 (£100).

A rival product, Cervarix – made by GlaxoSmithKline – is thought to be likely to gain European approval in early 2007.

However, Alex Markham, the chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said women should continue to attend for cervical smears even if a national vaccination programme was introduced.

“Current vaccines do not prevent all cancer-related HPV strains,” he said. […]

Guardian

They are going to harvest FOUR BILLION PER YEAR with this vaccination. THAT is the real reason why they are pushing it. They assume that your daughters are whores, who WILL contract HPV.

They are beyond belief!

Merck (Research) is appealing to states to make the vaccine mandatory for all children who attend public schools. A mandate from the states, which control vaccination policies, would make Gardasil a guaranteed blockbuster.

That’s crucial for the nation’s fourth-largest drugmaker, which is still struggling to replace revenues lost after the 2004 withdrawal of its blockbuster arthritis medicine, Vioxx, in addition to shrinking sales of its cholesterol drug Zocor, as it faces generic competition this summer.

Gardasil is almost certain to be approved by the FDA, say analysts, who place the medicine’s annual peak revenue potential in the $2 to $4 billion range. Those estimates assume states will make Gardasil mandatory. The shots are given three times over a six month period, and will cost anywhere between $300 and $500. The vaccine lasts for up to five years.

So it only lasts FIVE YEARS.

You are forced to give it to your whore daughter when she is nine, and then by the time she is sweet sixteen, and much more likely to be whoring around (ALL sixteen year olds are whores RIGHT?) the vaccine will have worn off.

This is nothing more than an enormous SCAM.

Inoculating pre-adolescent girls for a sexually-transmitted virus raises concerns for many parents – not just Christian conservatives. A survey of 1,600 mothers and fathers published in the journal Pediatrics found that 35 percent are against having their child inoculated.

Damn right.

Fisher says mainstream parental opposition to Gardasil is easy to explain. “Parents are becoming more concerned about the shear number of vaccines kids are getting these days,” she says. “In the 1980s, U.S. children got 23 doses of seven vaccines by age six. Today, they get 48 doses of 14 vaccines in the same period.”

“And during the time that vaccines doses have doubled,” she says, “there’s been an increase in the number of children with autism, attention deficit and hyperactive disorder, learning disabilities, asthma, and diabetes, in which vaccines could be a contributing factor.”

FOURTY EIGHT DOSES!!!!!

Fisher is strongly opposed to Merck’s proposals to inoculate girls at age 9, which is six years before the average age of first sexual experience in the United States “It’s just profit-making on the backs of 9-year-old girls,” charges Fisher.

did he say that?!

You can’t make stuff like up.

And these days, you don’t have to.

Even Merc employees are against it:

Gardasil: The Coming Battle

Yesterday, the FDA approved Gardasil–a vaccine for four strains of HPV which cause genital warts and cervical cancer–for 9- to 26-year-old girls and women. For obvious reasons, Merck is marketing Gardasil as a “cancer vaccine,” not an STD vaccine. Nevertheless, one only has to look at the patient population for which Gardasil was approved to recognize the seeds of a major national controversy: nine to twenty-six-year-old girls and women.

The medical reason for immunizing a 9-year-old girl against an STD is that the vaccine is most effective when administered before the onset of sexual activity. (I am unsure whether this means that a 4-5 year lead time is necessary or that the medical community is anticipating some very unsettling situations.) Not only will parents face the choice of whether to immunize their daughters against an STD, but private religious insurers will have to decide whether to cover the cost of the vaccine (anticipated to be $360 per 3-dose regimen). You can expect there will be lawsuits over that.

Most controversial, however, will be the decision by school districts whether to make Gardasil mandatory for attending school. As opposed to contagious diseases like measles, HPV infection is easily avoided by not engaging in sexual activity. Vaccines are among the safest medical products available, but they still carry a small amount of risk. Why force a student to accept that risk to protect against an entirely avoidable disease?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am employed by Merck.)

Posted by Eric Seymour at June 9, 2006 08:58 AM […] Agora

!!!

Gibson says if Gardasil does become part of the state immunization schedule, it would be different than those vaccines that are already routine. “It’s an interesting concept,” says Gibson. “It takes away from the concept of communicable disease – of getting kids sick, staff sick – to health promotions. That would be a huge leap if they do that. That’s a very different type of issue.”

About 64 percent of vaccines are covered by private insurance. The state’s Vaccines for Children plan picks up those without insurance. Still, as with other vaccines, there may be about 18 percent not covered.

If the HPV vaccine does become part of the school requirement in Michigan, parents will be able to opt out for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. […]

WWMT

Opt out!! Hmmmmm…

In Florida:

(e) Effective with the 2001/2002 school year, prior to admittance, attendance, or transfer to a preschool or kindergarten, completion of varicella vaccination. Each subsequent year thereafter the next highest grade will be included in the requirement so that students transferring into Florida schools are added to the immunized cohort, with the exception of Haemophilus influenzae type b required only prior to admittance, attendance or transfer to a Florida preschool. The manner and frequency of administration of the immunizations shall conform to recognized standards of medical practice. Each child whose documented immunizations fall short of all requirements listed above shall present a completed DH Form 680 Florida Certification of Immunization Temporary Medical Exemption (Part B), or a completed DH Form 680 Florida Certification of Immunization Permanent Medical Exemption (Part C), incorporated by reference in subsection 64D-3.011(5), F.A.C.; Part C listing the exemption for specific immunization(s), or a completed DH Form 681, Religious Exemption from Immunization, as incorporated by reference in subsection 64D-3.011(5), F.A.C., to be filed with said Florida public or nonpublic school, grades preschool and kindergarten through 12. […]

2. Religious Exemptions – Religious Exemption requests must be presented on DH Form 681, Religious Exemption From Immunization, incorporated by reference in subsection 64D-3.011(5), F.A.C., which is to be issued only by county health departments. […]

(6) Florida SHOTS (State Health Online Tracking System) Opt Out Provision – Parents or guardians may elect to decline participation in the Florida immunization registry, Florida SHOTS, by completing a DH Form 1478, Florida SHOTS Notification and Opt Out Form, as incorporated by reference in subsection 64D-3.011(10), F.A.C. and returning the form to the Department of Health. The immunization records of children whose parents choose to opt-out will not be shared with other entities that are allowed by law to have access to the child’s immunization record via authorized access to Florida SHOTS. […]

Unbelievable:

Birth Exemptions:

For those who are planning a hospital birth but want to evade invasive routine post natal procedures such as a Hep B shot, vitamin K injection, newborn screening, or the application of silver nitrate in the newborn’s eyes, a very specific birthing plan must be submitted to the hospital in advance of the birth. Hospital staff must be informed, in advance, of your needs, wants and desires where your baby and birthing experience are concerned. The same applies to midwives.

Sample Vaccine Letters From this website… http://www.vaccines.bizland.com/letters.htm

Most states now require the Hepatitis B vaccine for newborns. Many parents are also cornered by emergency room personnel during accident visits. Hospitals nationally are under pressure to utilize every opportunity to score a “hit.” […] Florida Immunization Exceptions

Vaccine Exemption Forms Online – by State or Country

Silver Nitrate in the newborn eye?

No, thats ‘Silver Spoon in the MOUTH’.

That’s No Way To Get Along

Friday, October 6th, 2006

Unlikely Terrorists On No-Fly List
Steve Kroft Reports List Includes President Of Bolivia, Dead 9/11 Hijackers

CBS News | October 5 2006

(CBS) 60 Minutes, in collaboration with the National Security News Service, has obtained the secret list used to screen airline passengers for terrorists and discovered it includes names of people not likely to cause terror, including the president of Bolivia, people who are dead and names so common, they are shared by thousands of innocent fliers.

Steve Kroft’s investigation, in which an ex-FBI agent who worked on its al Qaeda task force says the list of 44,000 names is ineffective, will be broadcast this Sunday, Oct. 8, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

The former FBI agent, Jack Cloonan, knew the list that was hastily assembled after 9/11, would be bungled. “When we heard the name list or no-fly list … the eyes rolled back in my head, because we knew what was going to happen,” he says. “They basically did a massive data dump and said, ‘Okay, anybody that’s got a nexus to terrorism, let’s make sure they get on the list,'” he tells Kroft.

The “data dump” of names from the files of several government agencies, including the CIA, fed into the computer compiling the list contained many unlikely terrorists. These include Saddam Hussein, who is under arrest, Nabih Berri, Lebanon’s parliamentary speaker, and Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia. It also includes the names of 14 of the 19 dead 9/11 hijackers.

But the names of some of the most dangerous living terrorists or suspects are kept off the list.

The 11 British suspects recently charged with plotting to blow up airliners with liquid explosives were not on it, despite the fact they were under surveillance for more than a year.

The name of David Belfield who now goes by Dawud Sallahuddin, is not on the list, even though he assassinated someone in Washington, D.C., for former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. This is because the accuracy of the list meant to uphold security takes a back seat to overarching security needs: it could get into the wrong hands. “The government doesn’t want that information outside the government,” says Cathy Berrick, director of Homeland Security investigations for the General Accounting Office.

Berrick says Homeland Security would probably agree that leaving such names off the list is a concern. The Transportation Security Administration is trying to fix the list through a program called “Secure Flight,” says Berrick, but after three years and an estimated $144 million spent on the program, there’s “nothing tangible yet,” she says.

Even if the list is made more accurate, it won’t help thousands of innocent travelers who share a common name on the list and who get detained, sometimes for hours, when they attempt to fly.

Gary Smith, John Williams and Robert Johnson are some of those names. Kroft talked to 12 people with the name Robert Johnson, all of whom are detained almost every time they fly. The detentions can include strip searches and long delays in their travels.

“Well, Robert Johnson will never get off the list,” says Donna Bucella, who oversaw the creation of the list and has headed up the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center since 2003. She regrets the trouble they experience, but chalks it up to the price of security in the post-9/11 world. “They’re going to be inconvenienced every time … because they do have the name of a person who’s a known or suspected terrorist,” says Bucella.

Cloonan, when shown a copy of the list from March 2006, tells Kroft, “I did see Osama bin Laden, both with an “O” in the first name and “U” in the second…I was glad to see that. But some of the other names I see here…I just have to scratch my head and say, ‘My God, what have we created here?'” […]

www.cbsnews.com/

I’s wantin’ some plane to come along and take me away from here
Friends, take me away from here
Some plane to come along and take me away from here
Some plane to come along and take me away from here
And that’s no way for me to get along

Robert Wilkins

…. !!

oops!

Did I just past in the lyrics from a ROBERT WILKINS song?! It’s ROBERT JOHNSON that’s the ‘terrorist’ here.
Bleh, what’s the difference, – they all look the same anyway, these DIRTY TERRORISTS!

It’s official: America is a fascist nation

Wednesday, October 4th, 2006

My fellow Americans, it’s official now: We live in a fascist nation.

Now, the term “fascist” has been thrown around over the last fifty years in a loose way that has drained it of much of its meaning. If someone wanted to cut 5% off of a leftist professor’s favourite welfare programme, the professor would call his opponent a “fascist.” I’m not using the word like that. I mean honest-to-goodness, old-fashioned, 1930s style fascism, featuring such old favourites as:

  • Secret prisons – they’re back!
  • Torture – we’re doing it.
  • Spying on all citizens.
  • Arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
  • Rampant militarism.
  • Secret detention.
  • Enforced disappearance.
  • Denial and restriction of habeas corpus.
  • Prolonged incommunicado detention.
  • Unfair trial procedures.

(This list was compiled partially based on the work of Amnesty International, available here.)

An absolutely mind-numbing response to complaints that our traditional legal system is being torn apart is the question, “So, you want to protect the rights of terrorists?”

Um, no, I want to protect the rights of non-terrorists who might be falsely accused of terrorism! That was sort of, you know, the whole idea of our legal system. I’m sure there was some neo-con around in the 1700s saying to Jefferson or Madison, “So, you want to protect the rights of murderers and robbers?” but luckily they ignored him.

We’ve now gotten to the point where Nazi Germany was, say, in 1934. Remember, at that time, if you had told a typical German what his government would do over the next ten years, he would have looked at you as a madman. After all, his land had been civilized for over a thousand years. His was the nation of Albertus Magnus, Gutenberg, Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Bach, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte, Heisenberg, Reimann, Mann, Lessing, Herder, Handel, Dürer, Leibniz, Gauss, Helmholtz – he could have gone on, but you get the point. His nation could not possibly descend into barbarism! If you tried to tell him he was living in a police state, he would have pointed out that his government had used its vast new powers very judiciously, and only against a few trouble-makers. So far.

It is interesting, in gauging the direction we are heading, to look at the proclamations of “respectable” opinion writers who support this administration. For instance, we have people at a “libertarian” think tank proclaiming that Moslems are not entitled to full civil rights in the US. (Perhaps we need to make them wear something special on their clothing like, say, a yellow star, so we know just who they are, hey?) But “conservatives” provide even more stunning examples of purely fascist reasoning. For example, conservative demagogue Ann Coulter has called for the editor of The NY Times to face the firing squad for his part in publicizing this administration’s abuses of power. Let’s look at a recent column by Douglas MacKinnon at TownHall.com.

MacKinnon considers all of those involved in revealing the sordid collection of secret programmes that have been launched by the Bush administration as “traitors” who have publicized these schemes “purely because they don’t like the policies of the new president.” Well, he’s right in that “they don’t like the policies” that they consider unconstitutional violations of our rights. Far from “aiding the enemy,” these revelations aided us, the American people, by letting us know what our government has in store for us.

Consider what the point of classifying these programmes was in the first place, and who they were being kept secret from. The jihadists no doubt already knew about the secret prisons – their friends are in them! They surely knew that the war in Iraq has been helping their recruiting – it’s their recruiting! (“Praise be to Allah, Abdul, I read in The NY Times that it is the Iraq War that is sending us these thousands of new recruits – who knew?”) They no doubt suspect they may be wiretapped – what they didn’t know was that all the rest of us are, as well. No, not one of these leaks helps terrorists, nor was one of them classified to stop terrorists from finding them out. We were the ones who weren’t supposed to find out about them.

MacKinnon continues: “And if even one American lost his or her life because of a leak, then I would want that person to be executed for treason.”

So anyone who reveals our fascist government policies is a traitor who can be executed! This is obviously an attempt to intimidate the opposition so that our police state can be expanded without the annoying work stoppages caused by public outcry when the latest bit of construction is revealed. And just how does MacKinnon propose to show that some American lost his life because a journalist revealed that the US government tortures people across the globe, rather than, say, because the policies he supports have inspired a million new jihadists? Secret trial, perhaps? Or why even bother with trials for filthy traitors?

Herr Goebbels – oops, I mean MacKinnon – writes, “Until we severely punish those who leak classified information, then the traitors among us will not only continue to flourish, but will grow more brazen with the secrets they reveal.”

Yes, what we ought to be able to do, you know, is simply seize anyone who even mentions our government’s “secret” prisons, and, without a trial, throw them in a secret prison! This is the logical conclusion of this fascist’s article, after all, since those who talk about the American Gulag are pretty much terrorists themselves.

Folks, this is coming real soon, and, once it does, domestic opposition is pretty much over. One journalist – that will be about all it takes – will be seized as a “terrorist” and thrown in the Gulag. The government may release him, but then another will simply disappear in the night in Iraq or Afghanistan, and rumors will circulate that he is being kept in a cage somewhere and waterboarded. No journalist lacking heroic courage will any longer be willing to seriously protest government policy.

America is full of decent people, who could never believe their own government could become fascist. So were Germany and Italy in the 1920s. But they became fascist anyway. They passed laws suspending civil liberties, but the government promised the frightened populace that those laws would only be used against targets like “Communist terrorists.” And, a little bit at a time, the target kept getting bigger and bigger, slowly enough that the people who weren’t paying close attention never detected it.

And, next thing you know, there were millions of people dead! So, it turns out, it would have been worth paying attention after all. […]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan160.html

Gonna pull that trigger
Gonna shoot that nigger
Big Stick

The end of a great country: They are starting to feel it

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

“There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country – if the people lose their confidence in themselves – and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.” – Walt Whitman

It was a dark hour indeed on Thursday when the United States Senate voted to end the Constitutional Republic and transform the country into a “Leader-State,” giving the president and his agents the power to capture, torture and imprison forever anyone – American citizens included – whom they arbitrarily decide is an “enemy combatant.” This also includes those who merely give “terrorism” some kind of “support,” defined so vaguely that many experts say it could encompass legal advice, innocent gifts to charities or even political opposition to US government policy within its draconian strictures.

All of this is bad enough – a sickening and cowardly surrender of liberty not seen in a major Western democracy since the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag in March 1933. But it is by no means the full extent of our degradation. In reality, the darkness is deeper, and more foul, than most people imagine. For in addition to the dictatorial powers of seizure and torment given by Congress on Thursday to George W. Bush – powers he had already seized and exercised for five years anyway, even without this fig leaf of sham legality – there is a far more sinister imperial right that Bush has claimed – and used – openly, without any demur or debate from Congress at all: ordering the “extrajudicial killing” of anyone on earth that he and his deputies decide – arbitrarily, without charges, court hearing, formal evidence, or appeal – is an “enemy combatant.”

That’s right; from the earliest days of the Terror War – September 17, 2001, to be exact – Bush has claimed the peremptory power of life and death over the entire world. If he says you’re an enemy of America, you are. If he wants to imprison you and torture you, he can. And if he decides you should die, he’ll kill you. This is not hyperbole, liberal paranoia, or “conspiracy theory”: it’s simply a fact, reported by the mainstream media, attested by senior administration figures, recorded in official government documents – and boasted about by the president himself, in front of Congress and a national television audience.

And although the Republic snuffing act just passed by Congress does not directly address Bush’s royal prerogative of murder, it nonetheless strengthens it and enshrines it in law. For the measure sets forth clearly that the designation of an “enemy combatant” is left solely to the executive branch; neither Congress nor the courts have any say in the matter. When this new law is coupled with the existing “Executive Orders” authorizing “lethal force” against arbitrarily designated “enemy combatants,” it becomes, quite literally, a license to kill – with the seal of Congressional approval.

How arbitrary is this process by which all our lives and liberties are now governed? Dave Niewert at Orcinus has unearthed a remarkable admission of its totally capricious nature. In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:

“[There is no] requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant,” Olson argues.

“‘There won’t be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this,’ Olson said in the interview. ‘There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances.'”

In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the “law” is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their “instincts” determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism – and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.

And underlying this edifice of tyranny is the prerogative of presidential murder. Perhaps the enormity of this monstrous perversion of law and morality has kept it from being fully comprehended. It sounds unbelievable to most people: a president ordering hits like a Mafia don? But that is our reality, and has been for five years. To overcome what seems to be a widespread cognitive dissonance over this concept, we need only examine the record – a record, by the way, taken entirely from publicly available sources in the mass media. There’s nothing secret or contentious about it, nothing that any ordinary citizen could not know – if they choose to know it.

Six days after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush signed a “presidential finding” authorizing the CIA to kill those individuals whom he had marked for death as terrorists. This in itself was not an entirely radical innovation; Bill Clinton’s White House legal team had drawn up memos asserting the president’s right to issue “an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense,” despite the legal prohibitions against assassination, the Washington Post reported in October 2001. The Clinton team based this ruling on the “inherent powers” of the “Commander in Chief” – that mythical, ever-elastic construct that Bush has evoked over and over to defend his own unconstitutional usurpations.

The practice of “targeted killing” was apparently never used by Clinton, however; despite the pro-assassination memos, Clinton followed the traditional presidential practice of bombing the hell out of a bunch of civilians whenever he wanted to lash out at some recalcitrant leader or international outlaw – as in his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998, or the two massive strikes he launched against Iraq in 1993 and 1998, or indeed the death and ruin that was deliberately inflicted on civilian infrastructure in Serbia during that nation’s collective punishment for the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic. Here, Clinton was following the example set by George H.W. Bush, who killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Panamanian civilians in his illegal arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, who killed Moamar Gadafy’s adopted 2-year-old daughter and 100 other civilians in a punitive strike on Libya in 1986.

Junior Bush, of course, was about to outdo all those blunderbuss strokes with his massive air attacks on Afghanistan, which killed thousands of civilians, and the later orgy of death and destruction in Iraq. But he also wanted the power to kill individuals at will. At first, the assassination program was restricted to direct orders from the president aimed at specific targets, as suggested by the Clinton memos. But soon the arbitrary power of life and death was delegated to agents in the field, after Bush signed orders allowing CIA assassins to kill targets without seeking presidential approval for each attack, the Washington Post reported in December 2002. Nor was it necessary any longer for the president to approve each new name added to the target list; the “security organs” could designate “enemy combatants” and kill them as they saw fit. However, Bush was always keen to get the details about the agency’s wetwork, administration officials assured the Post.

The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen, along with several foreign nationals, by a CIA drone missile in Yemen on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred on December 4, 2005, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al-Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner’s son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported. […] http://www.chris-floyd.com/

If you were reading this in a book thirty years ago you would have laughed it off as impossible, and bad writing.

Now it has come true, all of it. This is worse than the 50s Communist witch hunt era insanity…. much worse. One thing is for sure; if america comes through this and returns to being a free country, it will come back stronger and better than ever. I can imagine that happening, more readily than I could have imagined america turning into a dictatorship decades ago.

Feeling sheepish?

Monday, October 2nd, 2006

Rail firm to tackle overcrowding by taking out seats

Paul Willis and agencies
Monday October 2, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Animal rights groups today expressed concern at plans to ease overcrowding on busy commuter trains by removing seats from carriages to create more space for standing.South West Trains will carry out refurbishments [sic] on almost 500 cattle trucks, replacing more than one-fifth of the seats with extra hoofholds and creating so-called perches. […]  A recent report identified sheep in London and the south-east as the least satisfied in the UK.

[]

Baaa! Baaa! MoooooooOOOoooo!

A veterinarian speaks: What do you think of western civilization? I think it would be a good idea.
Da dum!

Oh no, I’ve been enveloped by a cloud of smug.

Further than ever down a dark road

Monday, October 2nd, 2006

Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of “wrongfully aiding the enemy” which labels all American citizens who breach their “allegiance” to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal.

01:27 GMT UPDATE

After five hours of searching through the 80-plus page bill, Alex Jones, who won the 2004 Project Censored award for his analysis of Patriot Act 2, uncovered numerous other provisions and definitions that make the bill appear as almost a mirror image of Hitler’s 1933 Enabling Act.

In section 950j. the bill criminalizes any challenge to the legislation’s legality by the Supreme Court or any United States court. Alberto Gonzales has already threatened federal judges to shut up and not question Bush’s authority on the torture of detainees.

“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.”

The Bush administration is preemptively overriding any challenge to the legislation by the Supreme Court.

The definition of torture that the legislation cites is US code title 18 section 2340. This is a broad definition of torture and completely lacks the specific clarity of the Geneva Conventions. This definition allows the use of torture that is, “incidental to lawful sanctions.” In alliance with the bill’s blanket authority for President Bush to define the Geneva Conventions as he sees fit, this legislates the use of torture.

The media has spun the bill as if it outlaws torture – it only outlaws torture for “enemy combatants,” and in fact outlaws the retaliation of any military against the United States as “murder.” Those deemed “enemy combatants” are not even allowed to fight back yet the government affords itself every power including the go-ahead to torture.

  • Further actions that result in the classification of an individual as a terrorist include the following.
  • Destruction of any property, which is deemed punishable by any means of the military tribunal’s choosing.
  • Any violent activity whatsoever if it takes place near a designated protected building, such as a charity building.
  • A change of the definition of “pillaging” which turns all illegal occupation of property and all theft into terrorism. This makes squatters and petty thieves enemy combatants.

In light of Greg Palast’s recent hounding by Homeland Security, after they accused him of potentially giving terrorists key information about U.S. “critical infrastructure” when filming Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery (clear photos of which were publicly available on Google Maps), sub-section 27 of section 950v. should send chills down the spine of all investigative journalists and even news-gatherers.

“Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 – Crimes triable by military commissions – includes the following definition.

“Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

For an individual to hold an allegiance or duty to the United States they need to be a citizen of the United States. Why would a foreign terrorist have any allegiance to the United States to breach in the first place?

This is another telltale facet that proves the bill applies to U.S. citizens and includes them under the “enemy combatant” designation. We previously cited the comments of Yale law Professor Bruce Ackerman, who wrote in the L.A. Times, “The compromise legislation….authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.”

The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced, “A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.”

Calling the bill “our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts,” the Times goes on to highlight the rubber stamping of torture.

“Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.”

Since with this bill, in the aggregate, Bush has declared himself to be above the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the allegiance of American citizens is no longer to the flag or the freedoms for which it stands, but to Bush himself, the self-appointed dictator, and any diversion from that allegiance will mandate arrest, torture and conviction in a military tribunal under the terms of this bill.

Similar to the UK’s Glorification of Terrorism law, which top lawyers have slammed as vague, open to interpretation and a potential weapon for the government to kidnap supposed subversives, the nebulous context of “wrongfully aiding the enemy,” could easily be defined to include publicly absolving an accused terrorist of involvement in a terrorist attack.

That renders the entire 9/11 truth movement an aid to terrorist suspects and subject to military tribunal and torture. In addition, Bush’s recently cited National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which is available on the White House website, labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters. […]

Propaganda Martix

Something must break…