Remembering the Egyptian revolution the citizens elected a Morsi to be rid of DEEP STATE Mubarak----then a legal election was simply ended by an overthrow of Egypt's military because Morsi was dismantling DEEP STATE structures and moving to theocracy. Now, Egyptian citizens may not have wanted a theocracy but they did want DEEP STATE and Mubarak out. DEEP STATE in Egypt simply created havoc within the government systems it controlled to push a legally elected President out of office. Egyptian citizens were largely unhappy with that as well. The point is ------we cannot have a democracy----have rights as citizens with liberty, freedom, or justice MOVING FORWARD to DEEP STATE in US.
We remember Turkey was a moderate and modern nation until Erdogan took it DEEP STATE.
Turkey: Exhuming the Deep State
By W. Robert Pearson | Scholar - The Middle East Institute | Mar 03, 2015
Police stand guard during a protest against the AKP in 2014.Turkey is in an unprecedented state of political tumult. Since the ascent of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) to power in 2002, all Turks have struggled to support, defeat, or accommodate this party that rose suddenly in free elections to national power. Now, that contest has entered a new and more dangerous phase.
Looking back, the AKP’s opponents cannot claim to have been perfect during their times in power, either. The steps to muzzle Turkey’s democratic processes prior to 2002 came from people within an interlinked matrix of the military, security, and judicial sectors, as well as some compliant political leaders and the media—the so-called deep state. Many felt that these were Turkey’s real rulers—out of sight and unaccountable. On four occasions, this group—led by the military—overthrew democratically elected Turkish governments. There were instances of collaboration with criminal elements and non-judicial killings. Ruling parties were forced to accommodate the powers behind the curtain or leave office.
This leadership may have saved the country from chaos, but it did so at the expense of the democratic process. Its no-tolerance approach to religion in politics gradually increased resistance among Turks wishing to be both Muslim and democratic.
This unhealthy development of the Turkish state may not have been what Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the revolutionary founder of modern Turkey, would have sought himself. To his credit, Ataturk always made clear his long-term trust in democracy. With this inspiration, Turks early on had embraced the principles of democracy and worked to make them a reality, despite coups and setbacks.
As time went by, however, the traditional parties claiming the Ataturk mantle were clearly unable to solve basic economic, legal, and social issues. No traditional party, for example, ever solved the rampant inflation that year after year gnawed away at the Turkish working class. One traditional party after another took office, failed, and was replaced in a merry-go-round of disappointment.
A great deal of pent-up hope and frustration thus swept the AKP into power 12 years ago. The economy had collapsed, and the previous government was hapless. Even the brilliant efforts of Turkey’s economics minister, Kemal Dervis, to press for deep and wide reform were partially undermined by his own government leaders and fellow ministers.
The AKP promised clean government and a new start for a broader democracy. In doing so, it drew on the reservoir of unhappiness with the deep state. Its winning coalition ran from modern urban secular and young left to conservative rural and religious right. The immediate effect of the AKP’s economic reforms was a surge of widely shared prosperity.
For five years, it looked as if this new national coalition would realize its professed goal to broaden domestic democracy, to join the European Union, and to become a shining example of successful development for other Muslim states. While the AKP never received an absolute majority from Turkey’s voters, the losing parties proved incapable of creating a viable alternative. The economy continued to boom, and there was justified pride in Turkey’s demonstration of its people’s talents and acumen.
Then the wheels began to come off the train. As the party rode from one election success to another, the corrosive effect of apparent invulnerability began to affect the leadership. Lacking any serious public objection within the party or an effective opposition, the government began to move away from being a government of the people to becoming a government over the people. The government’s vision for the people became more important than the people’s vision for themselves.
Press freedom was suppressed, corruption was left to flourish, the army was crushed instead of being reconciled, the judiciary was marginalized, the police forces were purged, anti-Semitism was legitimized, and the laws of economics were increasingly ignored. Now ordinary Turks are called traitors if they oppose the newest legislation on security. Those who buried the deep state are exhuming it.
One fundamental reason democracy works in the long run is because it attenuates the excesses of power, which almost inevitably overreach. There is no control beyond self-control on a leader who thinks more and more power and more and more control will make the vision he has safer and safer.
President Erdogan showed himself in earlier days to be an astute, intelligent, and highly effective political leader. He has heard the advice that building a broad consensus to support Turkey’s democratic future is far superior to imposing a future on citizens stripped of legal protection. The best thing about going in the wrong direction is knowing that one can always turn around and go the right way. Even powerful voices in the AKP are calling for a second look at the government’s draconian measures. For Mr. Erdogan, this is precisely the moment to credit the voices of wisdom and return the deep state to its grave.
We discussed a few months ago the Homeland Security structures but today we want to consider the goal of Bush in consolidating all Federal security agencies under one umbrella---from DOD to NSA----from National Guard to CIA----this consolidation is moving forward with most Federal agencies inside Homeland being defunded as CIA and its funding and reach expands-----CIA is global while the other national security agencies are sovereign protectors.
IT MATTERS THAT OUR STATE NATIONAL GUARDS AND OUR LOCAL POLICING AGENCIES ARE BEING FOLDED INTO ONE OVERWHELMINGLY POWERFUL SURVEILLANCE AND SECURITY ARM WITH A GLOBAL WALL STREET CONTROL.
All population groups in US were clearly uncomfortable with Bush and his HOMELAND SECURITY----right wing voters and left wing voters---but the global Wall Street 5% to the 1% pols and players push all policies as hard as ever. Baltimore City Hall and Maryland Assembly pols are all DEEP, DEEP, DEEP STATE while they throw left social democratic bones like wage hikes, paid sick leave, and moritoriums on property tax foreclosures. None of these protections exist in a far-right, militaristic, authoritarian DEEP STATE.
OH, SHOUT BALTIMORE CITY HALL ---WE SUPPORT SANCTUARY STATUS FOR IMMIGRANTS----YEAH, RIGHT AS IF IMMIGRANTS WHAT DEEP, DEEP STATE
An unofficial poll of immigrants in Baltimore as to whether they want US to become a DEEPER STATE than from which they are fleeing----and all said HECK NO.
What is the purpose of Homeland Security?
The FBI, the CIA, the NSA... it seems that America has a never-ending host of acronyms ready to defend it from foreign attacks and terrorist incidents, so how does Homeland Security differ?
Formed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in an apparent attempt to improve the nation's security services, the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) was, in the words of President George W. Bush, created to "co-ordinate homeland security efforts". It exists to"develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States."As it was formed to protect the United States from domestic attacks and to improve the military's protection at home, it is not the same as The Department of Defense, that primarily deals with military actions abroad.With the passing of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the DHS was officially formed andas part of its remit, it aimed to co-ordinate and streamline the efforts of the nation's assorted security and federal agencies. As such, the DHS incorporated 22 other agencies under its umbrella, including;•United States National Guard•United States Coast Guard•United States Citizenship and Immigration Services•Federal Emergency Management Agency•US Immigration and Customs Enforcement•Customs and Border Protection•United States Secret Service•Transportation Security Administration•Civil Air PatrolThe inclusion of the Federal Emeregency Magement Agency (FEMA), highlights the fact that the DHS doesn't just deal with terrorist attacks, but also holds responsibility for preparedness, response, and recovery from natural disasters.
Now this all sounds very impressive; inter-agency co-operation, preventing terrorist attacks and 'coordinating the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy', but how effective is Homeland Security? After all, a lot of homeland security work falls outside the aegis of this department. The likes of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services are not part of the DHS and all operate independently.What this means is that whilst the DHS collects and analyses various information about the possibility of a foreign or domestic attack, and then shares this information with the likes of the FBI and the CIA... they might not do the same.Despite its much criticised 'preparedness measures' such as the five coloured 'Threat Levels 'that indicate the current possibility of an attack, the Department of Homeland Security is
designed to ensue that a repeat of 9/11 never happens. As such, it is dedicated to making sure it has a swift and coordinated response and rescue effort to an imaginable disaster.Sure, the Department has been accused of being another example of 'federal bureaucracy' and has been charged with being ineffective... but America hasn't been attacked on the scale of 9/11 since the DHS's foundation, and that can't be because the terrorists aren't trying hard enough
While Bush created Homeland Security and expanded the powers of CIA Democrats voted for an Obama to reverse all that knowing a Hillary was team Bush---what we got was a Clinton neo-liberal Congress partnered with Obama to DOUBLE DOWN on how DEEP THE DEEP STATE WOULD GET.
The far-right always give such patriotic and freedom loving names to what are the worst of totalitarian structures----here we have the Patriot Act and Freedom Act---
These Congressional laws are what brought more and more US citizens to calling MOVING FORWARD ----DEEP STATE. We have discussed concerns coming from both right wing and left wing but we are looking at the expanding structure of CIA this week. Technology being called GREEN-----being called SUSTAINABLE are mostly research tied to building these DEEP STATE structures of ONE ENERGY GRID-----ONE GLOBAL SECURITY AGENCY-----ONE TELECOMMUNICATION as we discussed under environmental public policy none of this is GREEN ---it is the opposite but the magnitude of this network required these new research products----ergo all kinds of nano----all kinds of battery----all kinds of transmission cables-----and of course those SUPER-DUPER MEGA COMPUTERS.
'Many of the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act, particularly those dealing with bulk surveillance, expired in 2015 but were renewed in part or whole through the Freedom Act'.
Below we see a more recent article on concerns over these Congressional laws empowering CIA and surveillance----those citizens who see these actions as PROTECTIONS and not minding if privacy is lost must WAKE UP and look down a road as short as a decade or two-----these are structures our children and grandchildren will age into.
When our public schools and public universities are filled with instruction tied to computer programming and coding----this is much of what our 99% of citizens will be tied to. It is tied to global industries as well but the greater goals of MOVING FORWARD is installing these global security structures since WE THE PEOPLE are not going to like global corporate campus SOCIALISM.
A breakdown of the Patriot Act, Freedom Act, and FISA
Published by Paul Bischoff on October 6, 2016 in VPN & Privacy
How the US conducts surveillance and investigation of electronic communication media–particularly the internet–is largely shaped by three pieces of legislation:
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
- Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act)
- Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act (USA FREEDOM Act)
This FAQ will hopefully answer all of your questions about these three important pieces of legislation and how they affect online privacy.
- What is FISA?
- What is the Patriot Act?
- What is the Freedom Act?
- What kinds of surveillance are authorized under FISA, the Patriot Act, and the Freedom Act?
- Why are FISA, the Patriot Act, and the Freedom Act dangerous?
- Are the Partiot and Freedom Acts effective at preventing terrorism?
- How is the Freedom Act different from the Patriot Act?
- Do the Patriot/Freedom Acts distinguish between US citizens and foreigners?
- Do the Patriot/Freedom Acts cover investigations that do not deal with terrorism?
- How does the NSA use the Patriot/Freedom Acts?
- How does the FBI use the Patriot/Freedom Acts?
- How does the CIA use the Patriot/Freedom Acts?
- Which provisions of the Patriot Act were ruled unconstitutional?
- What changes were made to the Patriot Act in 2006?
- Which parts of the Patriot/Freedom Acts are permanent, and which parts must be reauthorized?
- What is the FISA court (FISC)?
- What is metadata?
- How do I protect myself from government spying?
What is FISA?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by Congress in 1978, lays out the procedures for physical and electronic surveillance of foreign powers and agents. That includes US citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism.
The act provided judicial and congressional oversight of spying activities by intelligence agencies on foreign entities and US citizens suspected of working with them. Perhaps most importantly, it officially removed the need for a court order to spy on foreign powers. Judicial authorization is required to spy on a US citizen, but only within 72 hours after such spying has already begun.
To use FISA, a government entity must have probably cause that the subject is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
FISA lays out guidelines for electronic surveillance (read: phone tapping), physical searches, access to business records, pen registers, and trap and trace devices.
What is the Patriot Act?
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act was rushed through Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on October 25, 2001. The law covers a broad range of subjects including border security, detention of immigrants, funding for counter-terrorism, and, of course, surveillance.
Title II of the Patriot Act amended FISA and greatly expanded the scope of surveillance allowed under US law. Foreign intelligence information could now be gathered from both Americans and foreigners. Government agencies no longer needed to prove that a target is an agent of a foreign power. The maximum duration of surveillance and investigations were lengthened.
Any district judge in the United States could issue surveillance orders and warrants for terrorism investigations. The FBI gained access to stored voicemail through search warrants. The definition of wiretapping expanded to include communication over the internet and other electronic “packet switching” networks.
Sneak and peak warrants came into existence with the passing of the Patriot Act, which allowed law enforcement to break and enter a premises without the owner’s consent and stealthily search the premises. Law enforcement can notify the receiver of the warrant after the fact.
Roving wiretaps were implemented. A roving wiretap removes the need for a new surveillance order if a suspect throws away their phone or moves to a new address, for instance. It could also expand the scope of an investigation so that anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspected terrorist can be wiretapped.
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can order a person to produce documents to protect against terrorists or foreign spies without a court order. These documents range from business records to library registers.
Intelligence agencies could conduct investigations on lone wolves. A lone wolf is a person suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities but without any ties to terrorist groups.
What is the Freedom Act?
Many of the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act listed above were set to expire in 2015. The day before they expired, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act.
The USA Freedom Act renewed many of those expiring provisions through 2019, albeit with some new limits concerning bulk interception on telecommunication metadata about US citizens. Congress implemented these limits in reaction to Edward Snowden’s disclosures about bulk surveillance by the NSA on both US and foreign citizens, which prompted a public backlash against the agency.
The act reauthorized roving wiretaps and tracking of lone wolf terrorists.
While the legislators in support of the act argued the Freedom would reign in the power abuses allowed under the Patriot Act, many critics including privacy advocates say it will do little to change the overall surveillance situation in the United States.
What kinds of surveillance are authorized under FISA, the Patriot Act, and the Freedom Act?
Records searches expand the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by third parties. Secret searches expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner. Intelligence searches expand a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information. “Trap and trace” searches expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content.
Physical searches and telecommunication surveillance are both authorized under the Patriot Act, Freedom Act, and FISA. Telecommunication surveillance includes wiretapping phones, accessing voicemail, intercepting emails and text messages, and wiretapping VoIP calls (such as Skype).
The FBI can force doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers to hand over information on their clients and customers.
Roving wiretaps, sneak-and-peak warrants, national security letters, and lone wolf surveillance are among the most controversial provisions set out in the Patriot Act.
Why are Patriot and Freedom Acts dangerous?
FISA, the Patriot Act, and the Freedom Act include many provisions that are arguably unconstitutional, specifically violating the First and Fourth Amendments.
In terms of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, law enforcement under the Patriot Act can prohibit the recipients of a search from telling others about the search. Furthermore, the FBI can authorize investigations of American citizens for exercising their freedom of speech, such as writing an editorial or reading a certain book.
As for the Fourth Amendment, which stipulates the government cannot conduct a search without a warrant and probable cause, both of those stipulations are effectively out the window when it comes to much of the bulk interception data collected. Law enforcement also no longer needs to provide prior notice to the recipient of a warrant before searching their property.
Beyond the constitutional implications, FISA, the Patriot Act, and the Freedom Act also grant law enforcement a huge amount of unchecked power without any judicial review. Targets of an investigation no longer need to be agents of a foreign power, nor do they require probable cause. Judges do not have the authority to reject applications for such investigations.
Are the Patriot and Freedom Acts effective at preventing terrorism?
The government hasn’t been able to provide any examples where the NSA’s bulk data collection played a key role in thwarting a terror plot. Multiple reviews of the program by groups and individuals with access to classified information concluded the program isn’t as much of a boon to national security as its defenders claim.
An opinion piece co-authored by a US Congress Senator and Representative, published in Politico, described the reasons for reigning in bulk surveillance activities in the Patriot Act when passing the Freedom Act:
“The intelligence community has failed to justify its expansive use of [the FISA and Patriot Act] laws. It is simply not accurate to say that the bulk collection of phone records has prevented dozens of terrorist plots. The most senior NSA officials have acknowledged as much in congressional testimony. We also know that the FISA court has admonished the government for making a series of substantial misrepresentations to the court regarding these programs. As a result, the intelligence community now faces a trust deficit with the American public that compromises its ability to do its job. It is not enough to just make minor tweaks around the edges. It is time for real, substantive reform.”
How is the Freedom Act different from the Patriot Act?
The Freedom Act extends many of the would-be expired provisions of the Patriot Act, but with more limitations due to public scrutiny in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations regarding bulk surveillance and interception.
Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement agencies can collect business records–phone logs, flight manifests, and much more–so long as it was “relevant” to a national security investigation. This power was abused by the NSA in particular to collect huge troves of phone records to find links between suspects. Proponents argued that such a huge database was necessary in order to spot patterns that could lead to the prevention of terrorist acts. The government has not been able to provide any examples of where such bulk surveillance played a key role in stopping a terrorist plot.
Public backlash against bulk surveillance of American citizens prompted changes in the Freedom Act. The NSA and other agencies can now only request company records regarding a specific person, account, or device. The agency must show that the entity is associated with a foreign power or terrorist group.
The Freedom Act also requires intelligence agencies to be more transparent about the data they are collecting. Tech companies are no longer subject to gag orders that prevent them from informing customers when their private data is given to the feds.
Finally, the Freedom Act allows citizens to lobby FISC, the surveillance-specific court set up under FISA. Those civil liberties advocates can force the government to declassify major opinions from FISC judges.
While the Freedom Act is an improvement on the Patriot Act in terms of individual liberty and privacy, it still does not go far enough. The government can still bend the rules to collect information on a large scale. The lone wolf and roving wiretap provisions were effectively renewed and left untouched.
Do the Patriot/Freedom Acts distinguish between US citizens and foreigners?
When FISA was first instituted, it focused solely on foreign powers and agents of foreign powers. While an agent of a foreign power could conceivably be a US citizen, a law enforcement or intelligence agency would have to show probable cause before investigating them. Spying on a US citizen or permanent resident required judicial authorization within 72 hours after an investigation begins.
The Patriot Act expanded FISA to include terrorism on behalf of groups not specifically backed by a foreign government. That includes US citizens suspected of terrorism.
Under the Patriot Act, a government agency can force any US citizen or company to divulge records that they own or have access to. Obviously, it cannot do the same for foreign companies. The American government can, however, force an American residing abroad to divulge information and subsequently require they don’t disclose these actions.
Information that travels across borders, either due to outsourcing or establishing servers in other countries, also falls under the jurisdiction of the NSA. This eventually caused the collapse of the Safe Harbour agreement between the US and Europe following the Snowden revelations. Safe Harbour ensured that information travelling between the US and EU would fall under the same strict privacy protections, but the NSA violated this stipulation by collecting bulk data owned by foreign citizens.
Do the Patriot and Freedom Acts cover investigations that do not deal with terrorism?
Yes. In the 10 years following the enactment of the Patriot Act, the Washington Post reports it was used in 1,618 drug-related cases and only 15 terrorism cases. By 2014, out of over 11,000 sneak-and-peak warrant requests, only 51 were used for terrorism.
How does the NSA use the Patriot and Freedom Acts?
In 2006, after the Patriot Act got a bit of an overhaul (see below), the National Security Agency used it to justify bulk metadata collection of phone records for millions of Americans. After the Freedom Act reformed the Patriot Act in 2015, this program should be reigned in to an extent so that subjects of surveillance must be somehow linked to terrorist activities.
The NSA also uses the Patriot Act to force tech and telecommunication companies to hand over private information. Under the law, the NSA can bar the recipient of the warrant from discussing the warrant with anyone. The Freedom Act in effect removed such gag orders.
How does the FBI use the Patriot and Freedom Acts?
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order. Law enforcement agencies’ access to business records, including library and financial records, expanded.
The FBI availed of sneak-and-peek warrants, roving wiretaps, and access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens.
How does the CIA use the Patriot and Freedom Acts?
Unlike the FBI, the CIA is technically an intelligence agency and not a law enforcement agency, and it primarily focuses on foreign powers. Even so, the Patriot Act permits gathering information on U.S. citizens from school records, financial transactions, internet activity, telephone conversations, information gleaned from grand jury proceedings, and criminal investigations to be shared with the CIA.
This information can be shared with the CIA from the FBI or NSA without a court order.
The Patriot Act also gives the head of the CIA power to manage the collection of intelligence information gathered in the US.
Which provisions of the Patriot and Freedom Acts were ruled unconstitutional?
A federal judge in New York ruled that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review. Specifically, the court ruled against the use of “national security letters” (NSL), which do not require court orders and prohibit targeted companies from discussing the demands made of them.
A panel of federal judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the NSA’s bulk data collection program is not authorized under the Patriot Act. The judges ruled that the law doesn’t allow the government to collect domestic phone records.
In 2007, a judge ruled sneak-and-peak warrants unconstitutional after a wrongly-jailed suspect of the Madrid train bombings had his home secretly examined by the FBI.
What changes were made to the Patriot Act in 2006?
The Patriot Act was renewed and revised by Congress in 2006. It added more judicial oversight, granting recipients of subpoenas the right to challenge an order not to discuss the case publicly. Still, recipients had to wait a year and comply with the subpoena in the meantime. This was further revised in the Freedom Act in 2015 (see above).
The 2006 revisions stopped the FBI demanding the names of lawyers hired by recipients of government requests for information.
Libraries were no longer subject to requests for records.
Information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agencies was expanded.
Strict punishments were imposed on crew members who impede law enforcement officers trying to board their ships.
After the Patriot Act was renewed, the NSA used it to justify bulk metadata collection of phone records of millions of Americans. The NSA was already doing this to some extent prior to the renewal, but it did not justify its actions under the Patriot Act until 2006.
Which parts of the Patriot and Freedom Acts are permanent, and which parts must be reauthorized?
When the Patriot Act was renewed in 2006, 14 out of 16 of its provisions were made permanent.
Roving wiretaps, tracking of lone wolf terrorists, and the power to demand records from businesses and institutions must be reauthorized by Congress every four years. These provisions now fall under the Freedom Act rather than the Patriot Act.
What is the FISA court (FISC)?
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a federal US court set up under FISA. The court oversees law enforcement and intelligence agency surveillance and issues warrants to track and monitor foreign spies. Requests are most often made by the NSA and FBI, the bulk of which are kept secret.
As an example, a top secret order from the court was leaked by Edward Snowden. It required a Verizon subsidiary to provide daily call records, domestic and international, to the NSA.
The nature of the court’s business makes it a secret court, acting without anyone other than the government and judge present. This intransparency has lead to heavy criticism about the court’s lack of oversight. It has been known to rubber stamp warrant requests, though supporters deny that accusation.
What is metadata?
Metadata is information about the content of data, but not the contents of the data itself. When it comes to the Patriot Act, metadata often refers to information gathered through the NSA’s bulk surveillance program, most notably call records.
The NSA insists that it does not collect or analyze the calls themselves, but only the call metadata. That means it is not listening in on a call, but the agency does record the time, location, callers, devices, and other information on the general public, whether or not they have ties to terrorist groups. The most notorious bulk metadata collection program, PRISM, was run by the NSA.
When it comes to internet surveillance, metadata can include timestamps, IP addresses, devices, browser signatures, email addresses, and much more. Metadata does not include the content of internet traffic or communications such as emails or text messages.
If people are not aware of what OPEN GOVERNMENT means-----both at a national level and state/local level it means all public data is available for any corporation wanting to make use of it------our government has been selling our personal data these few decades under OPEN GOVERNMENT.
Sorry Sen Leahy------no one believed this Freedom Act-----and just this year 2017 we see yet another disclosure that the CIA is expanding MEGA-DATA COLLECTION. The problem for the American people is not only the collection and spying on phone or social media---it is the expansion of Smart Meters and surveillance cameras into every facet of our communities and cities. While CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have national media pushing our attention to PHONE RECORDS they are inside every avenue of our lives.
“It’s historical,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, one of the leading architects of the reform efforts. “It’s the first major overhaul of government surveillance in decades.”
WikiLeaks claims to reveal how CIA hacks TVs and phones all over the world
by Jose Pagliery @Jose_Pagliery March 8, 2017: 8:43 PM ET
'The CIA has become the preeminent hacking operation, sneaking into high-tech phones and televisions to spy on people worldwide, according to an explosive WikiLeaks publication of purported internal CIA documents on Tuesday.To hide its operations, the CIA routinely adopted hacking techniques that enabled them to appear as if they were hackers in Russia, WikiLeaks said'.
We have read this from many sources inside US and globally-----so what does this say to the RUSSIAN HACKING OF US ELECTIONS?....
'To hide its operations, the CIA routinely adopted hacking techniques that enabled them to appear as if they were hackers in Russia, WikiLeaks said''.
Obama quietly passes FREEDOM Act, Worse then the Patriot Act -_-
By a vote of 67-32 the senate passed Obama's Freedom act, rather quietly I might add. here's a few things wrong with it:
1) The recent decision of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the bulk collection of American citizens’ telecommunications information was not authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act means that as of this afternoon, the bulk collection of American citizens’ telecommunications information was an illegal act. The government was breaking the law each time it grabbed our metadata. The moment the FREEDOM is signed by President Obama that same activity will become legal. How is making an unconstitutional and illegal act into a legal one a benefit to civil liberties?
2) The FREEDOM Act turns private telecommunications companies into agents of state security. They will be required to store our personal information and hand it over to state security organs upon demand. How do we know this development is a step in the wrong direction? It is reportedly the brainchild of Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the NSA director at the time! According to press reports, this was but a public relations move to deflect criticism of the bulk collection program. Alexander “saw the move as a way for Obama to respond to public criticism without losing programs the NSA deemed more essential,” reports Homeland Security News.
3) The FREEDOM Act turns private telecommunications companies into depositories of “pre-crime” data for future use of state security agencies. It is a classic authoritarian move for the state to co-opt and subsume the private sector. Once the FREEDOM Act is signed, Americans’ telecommunications information will be retained by the telecommunications companies for the use of state security agencies in potential future investigations. In other words, an individual under no suspicion of any crime and thus deserving full Fourth and Fifth Amendment protection will nevertheless find himself providing evidence against his future self should that person ever fall under suspicion. That is not jurisprudence in a free society.
4) The FREEDOM Act provides liability protection for the telecommunications firms who steal and store our private telecommunications information. In other words, there is not a thing you can do about the theft as long as the thief is a “private” agent of the state.
Thomas Jefferson's looking down wondering wtf lol
If one reads broadly on this current issue we will see articles supporting the CIA and saying the CIA is not creating FALSE FLAGS but simply using pre-existing coding to SAVE TIME.
Anyone believes that after several decades of our CIA being exposed for doing just what creating FALSE FLAGS entails----is looking for any straw that our US governance is not totally corrupted. Of course the CIA has been creating FALSE FLAGS we have been reading about this these several years and our CYBER-SECURITY training recruits global hackers to do just such actions. The problem these DEEP STATE global 1% have is this---they think EVERYONE they hire and pay a super-sized salary will stay on board----and we are seeing tons of people tied to these programs coming out against them---it is not simply an Assange----or a Snowden ------the CIA has recruited grassroots hackers from around the world who then describe for what they were hired.
The point is this-----there has become too many ways to create DIS-INFORMATION and a REAL Democratic Rule of Law nation would not be expanding the use of these practices---it would be pulling away from avenues of exposure-----there is no solution to a global network being vulnerable no matter how brutal and authoritarian ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE becomes.
This is how the US and our CIA is becoming DEEP, DEEP, DEEP STATE----the dis-information structures hit all avenues of our life.
This is how the US and our CIA is becoming DEEP, DEEP, DEEP STATE----the dis-information structures hit all avenues of our life.
When media tells us the CIA has all of these capabilities trained on BAD GUYS----remember a sovereign citizen these several decades fighting against World Bank/IMF takeover of their nations not liking the brutal dictators installed have been called TERRORISTS. WE THE PEOPLE have Congressional legislation these several years that does the same to American sovereign citizens.
'the CIA’s long history of using covert means to justify hostile actions against foreign powers – typically in the name of national security – once again seems to be in play'.
Wikileaks Exposes CIA Exploit Capable Of Cyber "False Flag" Attack To Blame Russia
by Tyler Durden
Mar 8, 2017 3:00 AM
Via Whitney Webb of TheAntiMedia.org,
Earlier today, Wikileaks once again made headlines following its release of the “largest ever publication of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents.” The massive release – just the first batch in a trove of documents code-named “Vault 7” by Wikileaks – details the CIA’s global covert hacking program and its arsenal of weaponized exploits.
While most coverage thus far has focused on the CIA’s ability to infiltrate and hack smartphones, smart TVs and several encrypted messaging applications, another crucial aspect of this latest leak has been skimmed over – one with potentially far-reaching geopolitical implications.
According to a Wikileaks press release, the 8,761 newly published files came from the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI) in Langley, Virginia. The release says that the UMBRAGE group, a subdivision of the center’s Remote Development Branch (RDB), has been collecting and maintaining a “substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states, including the Russian Federation.”
As Wikileaks notes, the UMBRAGE group and its related projects allow the CIA to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks by “leaving behind the ‘fingerprints’ of the very groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.”
In other words, the CIA’s sophisticated hacking tools all have a “signature” marking them as originating from the agency. In order to avoid arousing suspicion as to the true extent of its covert cyber operations, the CIA has employed UMBRAGE’s techniques in order to create signatures that allow multiple attacks to be attributed to various entities – instead of the real point of origin at the CIA – while also increasing its total number of attack types.
Other parts of the release similarly focus on avoiding the attribution of cyberattacks or malware infestations to the CIA during forensic reviews of such attacks. In a document titled “Development Tradecraft DOs and DON’Ts,” hackers and code writers are warned “DO NOT leave data in a binary file that demonstrates CIA, U.S. [government] or its witting partner companies’ involvement in the creation or use of the binary/tool.” It then states that “attribution of binary/tool/etc. by an adversary can cause irreversible impacts to past, present and future U.S. [government] operations and equities.”
While a major motivating factor in the CIA’s use of UMBRAGE is to cover it tracks, events over the past few months suggest that UMBRAGE may have been used for other, more nefarious purposes. After the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election shocked many within the U.S. political establishment and corporate-owned media, the CIA emerged claiming that Russia mounted a “covert intelligence operation” to help Donald Trump edge out his rival Hillary Clinton.
Prior to the election, Clinton’s campaign had also accused Russia of being behind the leak of John Podesta’s emails, as well as the emails of employees of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Last December, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – a man known for lying under oath about NSA surveillance – briefed senators in a closed-door meeting where he described findings on Russian government “hacks and other interference” in the election.
Following the meeting, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, remarked: “After many briefings by our intelligence community, it is clear to me that the Russians hacked our democratic institutions and sought to interfere in our elections and sow discord.”
Incidentally, the U.S. intelligence community’s assertions that Russia used cyber-attacks to interfere with the election overshadowed reports that the U.S. government had actually been responsible for several hacking attempts that targeted state election systems. For instance, the state of Georgia reported numerous hacking attempts on its election agencies’ networks, nearly all of which were traced back to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Now that the CIA has been shown to not only have the capability but also the express intention of replacing the “fingerprint” of cyber-attacks it conducts with those of another state actor, the CIA’s alleged evidence that Russia hacked the U.S. election – or anything else for that matter – is immediately suspect. There is no longer any way to determine if the CIA’s proof of Russian hacks on U.S. infrastructure is legitimate, as it could very well be a “false flag” attack.
Given that accusations of Russian government cyber-attacks also coincide with a historic low in diplomatic relations between Russia and the U.S., the CIA’s long history of using covert means to justify hostile actions against foreign powers – typically in the name of national security – once again seems to be in play.
When putting all these Congressional laws and Presidential Executive Orders together we are seeing every door of opportunity opening in which sovereign citizens in nations having a far-right, authoritarian, militaristic DEEP STATE governance sees those agencies use powers to frame citizens selectively or as a group. WE KNOW THIS IS WHAT OCCURS---HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.
We now have a CIA using FALSE FLAGS for whatever reason they want to try to legitimize this at the same time OBAMA and Congress pass NDAA allowing the US government to arrest and detain without legal justification. There is no way for a US citizen or an immigrant inside America to protect themselves from these kinds of actions. THIS CREATES FEAR. What does MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE need of US citizens? It needs fear and compliance in installing infrastructure and industry all with goals of killing freedom, liberty, choice----and yes, meaningful employment for 99% of US and global labor pool citizens brought to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones.
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
December 31, 2011FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.
“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”
The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.
We can believe the Congressional pols speaking of OUTRAGE against this NDAA are posing conservative if Republican or posing left social progressive if Democrat because any Congressional laws designed to protect WE THE PEOPLE and our rights as citizens INSIDE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES would not hold up in global corporate tribunal courts recognizing no nation's sovereign laws inside these FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
A Feinstein in CA has CA as ONE BIG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE-----so she is not fighting against NDAA and detainment. Neither are any of these pols in the video.
This is what we mean when asking 99% of citizens to EDUCATE BROADLY----understand what all these policies---all this restructuring of agencies---all these changes to our US public schools and public universities and course emphasis means.
As well, please think what far-right Libertarian policy stances have been these several decades---it is that individuals have the rights to accumulate wealth anyway they can. Civil liberties for far-right Libertarians have always protected those already having wealth as Rand and Ron Paul.
We would ask a Ron and Rand Paul and Feinstein where have you been these few decades as citizens in US cities LIKE BALTIMORE have been subjected to just this----indefinite detention in jails across the nation?
With the corruption of such powerful agencies like the CIA these other assaults on civil liberties are DEEP, DEEP STATE. Notice as well NDAA brought women into the draft-----I posted a video of a friend giving a very good argument about how this has more to do with a coming WW 3 then anything having to do with feminism. All are tied to increasing authoritarianism and all occurred under CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----Trump will simply MOVE FORWARD.
WE ARE SEEING THAT GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% MOVING FORWARD TO THROWING THAT 5% UNDER THE BUS-----BECAUSE DEEP STATE CENTRALIZES POWER TO GLOBAL 1%.
NDAA 2017 Includes Draft for Women, Indefinite Detention of American Citizens
TOPICS:Civil LibertiesDerrick BrozeMilitaryNDAAJune 16, 2016
By Derrick Broze
The U.S. Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2017 with provisions that will force women to sign up for potential military draft and continues the practice of indefinite detention.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate approved a $602 billion annual defense budget that President Obama has promised to veto because the bill does not allow for the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Senate Bill 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, passed with a vote of 85 Senators in favor and 13 against.
Before the vote, Senator John McCain tweeted that “It’s never been more urgent to give our troops the resources they need to succeed.” The majority of Congress have no issue taking money from the American people and redistributing it to fund their empire. The conflict arises when lawmakers begin debating whose pet projects are going to get a boost. The major conflicts in passing the bill stemmed from various amendments dealing with how the military budget will be spent.
One issue the entire Congress seemed to agree on was voting against closing military bases around the world. While the Pentagon called for budget cuts stating that the military has more space than they need, Congress refused to go along with the cuts. “Besides, several lawmakers have argued that the Pentagon has cooked the books to justify its conclusions or at least didn’t do the math completely,” the Associated Press reports. The Senate also voted against an amendment to close the infamous military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Another contentious area of debate was the mandate to force women who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018 to register for Selective Service. Males are already required register within 30 days of their 18th birthday. The United States has maintained a volunteer military force since 1973, but through Selective Service the military could reinstate a draft and call upon registered males and females. Those who do not register could face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, although the penalty has rarely been enforced.
The most horrendous part of the NDAA 2017 is that that the annual military budget continues to include a provision which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to trial. Many of you may remember that President Obama had no problem signing the NDAA 2012 in 2011, which legalized the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of ties to terrorism. The indefinite detention provision is still contained in the NDAA, and has been approved by Congress and signed by President Obama every year since it first passed.
On Thursday June 9, Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Dianne Feinstein of California spoke on the floor of the Senate in support of an amendment bill which would have removed the indefinite detention clause from NDAA 2017 and offered protections to American citizens weary of a federal government with too much power.
The “Due Process Guarantee Amendment to the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017” would have clarified “that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”
“This amendment addresses a little known problem that I believe most Americans would be shocked to discover even exists,” Senator Mike Lee said from the floor of the U.S. Senate. “Under current law, the federal government has proclaimed the power, has arrogated to itself the power to obtain indefinitely without charge or trial U.S. Citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended on American soil. Let that sink in for just a minute.” Senator Lee also reminded the Congress that the last time the U.S. federal government detained Americans was the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War.
Senator Rand Paul noted that President Obama recognized the danger of granting the federal government the power to indefinitely detain Americans. Upon signing the bill in 2011 President Obama added a signing statement promising not to use the power. “He said, this is a terrible power and I promise never to use it. Any president who says a power is so terrible he’s not going to use it should not be on the books,” Paul stated. “Someday there will be someone in charge of the government that makes a grievous mistake, like rounding up the Japanese. So we have to be very, very careful about giving power to our government.”
Senator Feinstein, Paul, and Lee attempted to pass an earlier version of this amendment in the 2012 before the amendment was taken out of the NDAA. The dangerous language within the NDAA comes from Sections 1021 and 1022, which include language that allows the government to detain anyone so charged “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” Thankfully, localities and states like Virginia are fighting back against the NDAA’s indefinite detention clause.
Unfortunately, the federal government will continue to have the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens. This is especially worrisome going into 2017 when a new president, one who hasn’t promised not to detain you, will be claiming the Oval Office. What will he or she do with the power to indefinitely detain Americans? Only time will tell.
Please consider what these Trump vs global Wall Street pols-----all being on the same team global Wall Street 1% may be doing. Obama and Congress sent billions of dollars to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones and their police departments these several years to build DEEP STATE infrastructure. Never have our US city police departments been funded so well. What we have to do is look to what FUNDING STREAMS TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENTS are being cut by Trump-----if we know DEEP STATE seeks to privatize our public police and fire departments to global corporations tied to CIA-----then cutting funding directed to POLICE DEPARTMENT SALARIES-----ergo forcing cuts in police STAFFING would be the goal.
'A closer look, though, shows that 93% of that $549 million covers the most basic, essential expenses: payroll, utilities, and vehicle and building maintenance. Hoggan compares this to the immovable expenses of a person’s life, like rent, food, insurance, and gasoline. That leaves just about $40 million for the department to spend on public safety initiatives, new equipment, new hires, and technological upgrades'.
Trump is one great big AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC kind of guy so he is not working to cut salaries and police officers from our city police -----he is giving local US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones which happen to be those CLAIMING SANCTUARY CITY STATUS-----a reason to get rid of public police department employees to privatize our police to global corporations.
We are not trying to trivialize what we all know is very frightening for our Latino immigrants ------what we are shouting is the goal of DEEP STATE and privatizing our police to global military policing corporations will be WORSE and this is indeed the goal with all this PHONY TRUMP ATTACK ON IMMIGRANTS. These SANCTUARY CITY POLS KNOW THIS.
Trump’s War On Sanctuary Cities Threatens To Gut Police Funding
The president-elect’s threat to crack down on sanctuary cities leaves him in an uncomfortable spot: caught between vows to kick out undocumented immigrants and promises to protect law enforcement authorities.
BuzzFeed News Reporter
posted on Jan. 9, 2017, at 11:43 a.m.
Cops who viewed Donald Trump as their law-and-order ally could now lose essential funding if the new president carries out his threat to crack down on cities that protect undocumented immigrants.
“Terrifying,” said New Haven police officer David Hartman. “This is something that’s terrifying.”
Their fear is rooted in a memo sent by the Department of Justice last summer to hundreds of law enforcement agencies, warning that they would be ineligible for large slices of federal funding if they violated a vaguely written law passed 20 years ago: Title 8, Section 1373 of United States Code.
Simply put, Section 1373 bars police departments and other government entities from withholding information about a person’s immigration status from federal officials. Scores of cities, like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New Haven, have countered Section 1373 with their own policies that aim to protect undocumented immigrants from the reach of federal deportation efforts.
No court has ruled on whether these so-called sanctuary cities are actually violating the law, and the Justice Department has not made a determination. The July memo didn’t clarify things, so officials in New Haven — a city on the forefront of sanctuary policies, according to Police Chief Anthony Campbell — weren’t worried at first.
“We understand that the federal government can say, ‘you’re a sanctuary city’ and turn the tap off.”
Then, in August, candidate Trump declared that he would “end sanctuary cities” within his first 100 days in office by barring them from federal funding. Three months later, he was elected president, and now, the July memo has taken on a new and ominous meaning. If Section 1373 is enforced, sanctuary cities stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal law enforcement grants — grants that “mean the world to us,” said Campbell.
“We understand that the federal government can say, ‘you’re a sanctuary city’ and turn the tap off,” Campbell said.
The bureaucracy of government funding is complicated, sprawling, and slow, and Trump’s administration would have to overcome a series of legal hurdles before it could dry out every bit of federal money to every sanctuary city. The hurdle is lowest, though, when it comes to more than $600 million in Justice Department funding. On the day he steps into office, Trump will immediately have the power to begin the process of draining police departments nationwide of many of the grants, subgrants, and other DOJ funds that they depend on for everything from hiring to training to equipment purchases.
“If those jurisdictions have not complied with the new policy by Inauguration Day, then our new president can throw the switch that I’ve created and turn off all their federal law enforcement funding,” Republican Rep. John Culberson of Texas, who orchestrated the DOJ policy change behind the July memo, told BuzzFeed News. “They can lose all their money at noon on Jan. 20.”
This would put the new president on a collision course with the law enforcement authorities he has vowed to protect. Trump, who has said “police are the most mistreated people in this country” and “we have to give power back to the police,” finds himself caught between his vow to rid the country of undocumented immigrants and his vow to strengthen the forces who maintain law and order.
Culberson usually doesn’t support the imposition of federal power into local policy. A vocal proponent of state’s rights, he recently proposed a bill that would give state officials “special standing in court” to challenge any federal regulation that they deem unconstitutional. Another bill he proposed would give governors the power to reject refugees sent to their state by the federal government. “It is unbelievable that the power for governors to choose what happens within their own state has been stripped by the federal government,” Culberson stated in a press release. His website puts his philosophy this way: “Simply put, John Culberson believes in ‘Letting Texans Run Texas.’”
His reverence for the 10th Amendment, however, stops at the borders of cities, counties, and states who, in his mind, “interfere in any way with the sharing of information regarding criminal illegal aliens in their custody.”
To those places, he said, “if you want federal money, follow federal law.”
“I’ve had my eye on this law for a long time,” said Culberson, who was elected in 2000. He gained the power to give Section 1373 some teeth when, in 2014, he was named chairman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, which controls how much money the DOJ gets every year. Culberson reminded Attorney General Loretta Lynch of this in a February 2016 letter. “I expect your office to enforce Section 1373,” he wrote, “in the course of the upcoming 2016 grant application process.”
“If you want federal money, follow federal law.”
In his letter, he attached a list of cities, counties, and states that he claimed were violating this law — around 300 jurisdictions in all, compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank dedicated to supporting immigration restrictions.
Five months later, the DOJ had implemented Culberson’s policy in at least three major grant programs: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which gives around $200 million to local correctional agencies that house undocumented immigrants; the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, which sends out more than $100 million, mostly to pay for new police hires; and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, the department’s largest, an annual pot of more than $300 million that gets doled out to local law enforcement agencies.
“This is just beginning,” Culberson said. “You have to start somewhere. I found a way to enforce that law, and I intend to expand this to every annual federal grant under my jurisdiction.”
For now, it is law enforcement agencies facing the most pressing questions over the future of their budgets and initiatives. Applications for Byrne and other DOJ grants open in January. The deadline to apply is March. The grants are announced in the summer. Yet departments remain in the dark over how the Justice Department’s new policy might apply to them.
“We don’t know,” said Hartman. “That’s the problem.”
DOJ officials declined to comment for this story, responding to BuzzFeed News’ questions with only a link to the new policy guidelines sent out in July.
Rahm Emanuel said that Trump is bluffing about defunding sanctuary cities. The Chicago mayor served in the White House under two administrations, he reminded reporters during a December press conference, and based on that experience, he predicted that the incoming president “will not threaten all those cities.”
“When they look at all their priorities and the things they have to tackle, this is not where they are gonna go,” he said. “Because in governing, you have to make choices.”
A reporter asked: What’s the plan if Trump does go through with it?
“I’m not gonna get into hypotheticals because I don’t believe he’ll do it,” Emanuel shot back. “Because that will mean every major city in the United States will be targeted, and that is not what an administration will do.”
Many red states, Emanuel added, rely on the money brought into big blue cities, through property taxes and sales taxes, tourism and business. Residents of the Atlanta metropolitan area, for instance, account for more than half of Georgia’s tax revenues. Would lawmakers really be willing to damage the “economic interests” of their own constituencies?
The Trump administration “will make a choice that this is not the battle they wanna take on because they have bigger fish to fry,” Emanuel said. “Just mark my words.”
His confidence seemed to conceal the stakes. The mayor had come to the press conference straight from a city council meeting in which he had warned that Chicago had to restructure its budget to avoid sweeping public sector cuts, including, by his estimate, a 20% reduction of the police force — a dangerous proposition for a city whose murder rate had increased by 58% from 2015 to 2016.
A recent review by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General calculated that the ten biggest cities and counties on Culberson’s list of 300 sanctuary jurisdictions received $1.7 billion in federal law enforcement funding over the last decade.
During Emanuel’s tenure, which began in the wake of the last recession, the Chicago Police Department has lost around 800 officers and civilian employees. Those cuts would have been deeper if not for federal funding. The city received $2.6 million in Byrne grants in 2016. Since 2011, its police department has received $15 million for 115 new hires through the COPS program.
Hundreds of police departments in cities big and small have relied on Justice Department funding to rebuild their ranks following the deep cuts of the recession years — a 2011 DOJ analysis found that 12,000 officers were laid off and 30,000 police positions went unfilled in the three years following the 2008 economic collapse.
The Los Angeles Police Department received $3.8 million in 2016 Byrne funding, and $3.1 million more in COPS grants to hire 25 officers. Oakland police received $1.9 million in COPS funding to hire 15 officers, and its county got $2.4 million in 2016 Byrne grants. Police in Hartford, Connecticut, have received $10.5 million in COPS grants since 2012 to hire 52 officers. Police in Wichita, Kansas, got $875,000 for new hires through COPS. Byrne grants in 2016 awarded police in Portland, Maine, $700,000; in Allentown, Pennsylvania, $100,000; and in Las Vegas $1.2 million. A recent review by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General calculated that the 10 biggest cities and counties on Culberson’s list of 300 sanctuary jurisdictions received $1.7 billion in federal law enforcement funding over the last decade.
“For most law enforcement agencies across the nation, federal funding is very significant,” said Rich Hoggan, chief financial officer for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. “We otherwise don’t have the money we need without the grants.”
On first glance, federal funding seems like a drop in the bucket of a police department’s budget. Of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s $549 million in spending during the most recent fiscal year, just $13 million came from the federal government.
A closer look, though, shows that 93% of that $549 million covers the most basic, essential expenses: payroll, utilities, and vehicle and building maintenance. Hoggan compares this to the immovable expenses of a person’s life, like rent, food, insurance, and gasoline. That leaves just about $40 million for the department to spend on public safety initiatives, new equipment, new hires, and technological upgrades.
“We just don’t have a lot of discretionary dollars,” Hoggan said.
“We can try to go without the extra funding, but it makes things safer.”
Most police department budgets look like this. And by these measures, federal funding can make up more than a quarter of a law enforcement agency’s actual “capital,” as Hoggan put it — the chunk of flexible money they can use to pay for things that could not otherwise fit into the budget, the things “we’re in need of” in any given year, said New Haven Police Chief Campbell.
New Haven police received $1.2 million in 2016 Byrne grants to pay for body cameras, Tasers, use-of-force training, and overtime for its depleted staff — “that’s an enormous sum of money,” Campbell said, noting that his department’s discretionary spending is around $4 million.
“The bulk of our budget, there’s no wiggle room,” said Campbell. “We can try to go without the extra funding, but it makes things safer. It lets us do our jobs better and fills the gaps for what we aren’t able to fit into our budget every year. When you see the impact of federal funding, it’s huge.”
Policing has gotten more expensive over the years. When Hartman began as a New Haven officer 22 years ago, “the most expensive thing a cop carried was a gun and a radio,” he said. These days, police departments aiming to keep up with technological developments accrue new, hefty expenses: mobile data terminals inside patrol cars, computerized crime statistical analysis, terabytes of data storage for all this new digital information, cloud software to hold the many hundreds of hours of body camera footage accumulating each day — all adding hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars to the annual budget. “This is a different day and age, and everything costs a lot of money now,” Hartman said.
During the Obama administration, many of these new expenses were aimed at reducing excessive use of force. In New Haven, more than $1 million dollars of federal funding has paid for scores of Tasers, de-escalation training for officers, and the costs of sending command-level staff to travel the country to study the tactics of other departments. “They’ve helped us reduce the likelihood of deadly force,” Campbell said.
One of the models for implementing these new tactics is the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which saw police shootings decline by more than a third from 2010 to 2015. Over that stretch, the number of times an officer shot an unarmed suspect dropped from six to one.
Las Vegas police CFO Hoggan worries the department could be set back without federal funding, which helped pay for body cameras and training. It would be an especially unfair setback because, he said, his department does not consider Las Vegas a sanctuary city, even though it is cited on Culberson’s list. While the department’s policy does not explicitly prohibit officers from cooperating with federal immigration agents, Hoggan acknowledged that the new administration has the power to interpret the law as it pleases.
If Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions decide that Las Vegas is a sanctuary city, and if they decide to cut their federal funding, Hoggan said the department’s plan is simple: “We’re flat out saying you have the wrong guy.”
America’s criminal justice system is fragmented — a network of fiefdoms, each with its own laws, chains of command, constituencies, and rulers with the authority to make near-unilateral decisions. Police chiefs, appointed by mayors, can decide which laws to enforce strictly and which to turn a blind eye to. District Attorneys, elected by counties, can decide which types of criminals to throw the book at and which to go easy on. Police and prosecutors in San Francisco, for instance, have chosen to make arrests for weed possession a low priority, while the sheriff’s office in Maricopa County, Arizona, has chosen to make immigration law infractions a high priority.
“It’s a local system, and reform is based on the effort of local folks,” said Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, who has pushed to reduce the number of people locked up in Chicago’s jail only because they could not afford bail. “The local level is where you’re gonna find the innovations.”
Obama has made strides in rolling back the tough-on-crime policies that sent incarceration rates skyrocketing in the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s, but his executive powers are mostly limited to the federal level — and less than 10% of all prison inmates are locked up in federal facilities.
Presidents do have certain tools to influence local enforcement policy. In the most extreme circumstances, a president can deploy armed forces, as John F. Kennedy did to ensure safe passage for James Meredith, the first black student to attend the University of Mississippi, in 1962. In less extreme circumstances, the president can use the courts, as Obama has done by levying consent decrees against police departments with a history of civil rights violations.
But outside of armed forces and legal action — tools used only in a narrow range of situations — a president’s most effective tool is power over the purse strings.
With so many law enforcement agencies relying on federal funding, a president can try to influence policy by setting certain conditions on the money the Justice Department gives out. The US Supreme Court has described these legal incentives as “relatively mild encouragement.”
One recent initiative, in February 2016, allocated $500 million to law enforcement agencies working to reverse policies that cause “unnecessarily long sentences and unnecessary incarceration.” Overseeing a time of record-low crime rates and the public scrutiny of the post-Ferguson era, Obama “focused on law enforcement interacting more with the community,” Las Vegas police CFO Hoggan said. Facing the terrorism fears after Sept. 11, 2001, George W. Bush emphasized surveillance and militarization. In the wake of record-high murder rates, Bill Clinton pushed forward hiring initiatives that put more cops on the street. Ronald Reagan’s administration incentivized police departments to intensify the War on Drugs by distributing money based on a formula that rewarded agencies for high volumes of arrests and drug seizures.
Outside of armed forces and legal action, a president’s most effective tool is power over the purse strings.
“When local law enforcement agencies look at these performance measurements, they see it as a how-to guide,” said Lauren-Brooke Eisen, a lawyer for the Brennan Center For Justice, a policy institute that aims to reduce incarceration rates. Or as Hoggan put it, “federal grants can swing policy.”
What is the difference between those funding incentives and Trump’s proposal to cut off sanctuary cities?
The Supreme Court may have left legal clues in its 2012 ruling on the Affordable Care Act. One point of debate in that case concerned whether the law violated the 10th Amendment by withholding Medicaid funding from states that did not change certain health care policies.
A seven-justice majority ruled that this was unconstitutional because the “threats to terminate” funding amounted to a “gun to the head.” States, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, must have a “genuine choice” about whether to accept federal funding.
Though other variables may come into play — most crucially, allegations that sanctuary cities violate federal law — this precedent suggests that Trump’s threat to end funding is unconstitutional.
“Cities would have standing to sue,” ACLU lawyer Jonathan Blazer said. That would leave courts to define the practical applications of Section 1373 and whether following this law is a valid condition for receiving federal money.
Law enforcement agencies have a deep interest in this legal battle. From Los Angeles to Madison, Wisconsin, to New Haven, police chiefs have spoken out about the importance of sanctuary policies. It is the job of federal agencies to apply immigration law, they say, and it is the job of police departments to maintain public safety for all local residents — two necessarily separate duties.
“If people are afraid to talk to us, now our relationship with the community breaks down, and without information, without communication, we cannot get the job done,” said New Haven chief Campbell. “We can only police a community as much as our community allows us to police it.”
If some residents believe that local police are working to deport them or their loved ones or neighbors, “I think you’ll see crime go up,” Campbell said. “It endangers the community and it will endanger the officers. The law is meant to serve humanity, and as long as you are serving humanity, I think the federal government should acknowledge that.” ●
This would be the next stage of DEEP STATE----privatizing our local police to global security corporations tied to CIA-----as exist in Foreign Economic Zones around the world. Yes, this is what Trump and Sanctuary city pols are doing pretending to be against or protecting immigrants which both are bringing to US cities to enslave in the global human capital distribution system. US citizens to follow.
'Hakim: I believe it's true. The police is a monopoly. It's less innovative than the private sector that is under the gun of competition. A police department will never go bankrupt; private company could go bankrupt. So private companies adopt more technology. I expect we may find contracting out of small police department, 'cause a lot of small police departments really don't have the justification, in many cases, to exist. And for the consumers, they get better service in much lower costs'.
This is our former PUBLIC MEDIA telling us that is exactly what all this Trump and sanctuary city defunding of police departments is about.
Can you imagine global Wall Street players like Haskim----we know Temple University is a great big global Wall Street------worried about MONOPOLIES IN US? CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA killed free market these few decades of global Wall Street with MONOPOLIES.
Should police depts be privatized?
Simon Hakim - astro.temple.edu
Listen To The Story
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Tess Vigeland: We were talking earlier about the government's gradual relinquishment of ownership in General Motors. In these days of government intervention in private industry it might be hard to imagine, but one public sector is undergoing radical privatization. Police departments across the country are finding themselves supplemented, and in some cases supplanted, by private security firms.
Simon Hakim of Temple University has studied the issue and says in the early 90s, there were seven police officer for every four private security guard. Today, it's one officer for every three private guards.
Simon Hakim: The main reason is that the police, at state and local level, the budget pretty much stayed fixed over time. Now, the demand for security have grown, even by municipalities. And municipalities start to feel the budget crunch. So the result of it is that a lot of security that governments require, governments started to contract it out to private agencies. For example, guarding prisoners, guarding even police station and the other type of installations.
Vigeland: I know in the article that you talk about how part of the problem is that traditional police forces aren't quick enough to react to new threats, for example, identity theft.
Hakim: That's right. In other words, up to now, we talked about the lower-level security that private security guards enter into. Now, we have more sophisticated crime, like identity theft, like Internet crime. The police doesn't deal with it anymore at all. So, private security forces got into it, but it's further. A lot of those investigations require high caliber professionals -- accountants, IT people, lawyers, etc. -- that the police have difficulty recruiting, because of limited budget. And it can never pay the high salary that the private sector does.
Vigeland: But there are still a lot of crimes that private security forces certainly cannot tackle -- I mean murder, breaking and entering, that sort of thing.
Hakim: In the last 20 years, we've seen a drop of 25 percent in property and violent crime. That's traditionally being handled by our police departments. So what you're really facing is that the traditional work of the police has been going down because they have less crime to deal with.
Vigeland: So where does this go from here? Would you predict, based on your research, that we will see more and more police forces going into private hands?
Hakim: I believe it's true. The police is a monopoly. It's less innovative than the private sector that is under the gun of competition. A police department will never go bankrupt; private company could go bankrupt. So private companies adopt more technology. I expect we may find contracting out of small police department, 'cause a lot of small police departments really don't have the justification, in many cases, to exist. And for the consumers, they get better service in much lower costs.
Vigeland: Simon Hakim is a professor of economics at Temple University and the co-author of "Privatizing the Police" in the third quarter edition of the Milken Institute Review. Thank you so much for your time.
Hakim: Thank you very much for inviting me.