Homeless in Arizona

Judge asked to prove collection of phone records justified to stop terrorists

Judge asked U.S. in 2009 to prove collection of phone records was justified to stop terrorists

By Carol D. Leonnig, Published: September 11

A federal judge overseeing U.S. surveillance programs raised doubts in the spring of 2009 about whether the massive, secret collection of Americans’ daily phone calls was all that important to protecting the country from terrorists.

Newly declassified records show that four years before the American public would learn that the National Security Agency had created a vast database of all its phone calls, a conservative jurist with detailed knowledge of the program was far from convinced that it led to the identification of terrorist plots.

“The time has come for the government to describe to the Court how . . . the value of the program to the nation’s security justifies the continued collection and retention of massive quantities of U.S. person information,” U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton wrote in March 2009.

It is the same question that several members of Congress have been asking since the classified program was disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in leaks to The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

In early 2009, as a member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Walton raised questions about the program’s true utility. He had just learned that, over the three previous years, the NSA had scrutinized the records of Americans’ phone calls on a daily basis in violation of court orders to protect the privacy of people who were not the targets of investigations.

In a strongly worded opinion, Walton pointed out that, while the government repeatedly claimed the phone program was critical to its effort to spot terrorist activity, a submission from NSA Director Keith Alexander showed that it had helped launch only three preliminary national security investigations by the FBI.

“However, the mere commencement of a preliminary investigation, by itself, does not seem particularly significant,” Walton wrote. He added that it would be valuable if it could be shown that the probes uncovered previously unknown terrorists plotting on U.S. soil.

Walton noted that he had to rely on the government claims that the record collection was critical to national security and being used legally. But because of a pattern of misstatements and chronic violations, the court “no longer has such confidence,” he wrote.

After Snowden disclosed the collection of Americans’ phone records, among other surveillance programs, government officials have waged a public campaign to stress that they are essential to counter­terrorism efforts.

In mid-June, Alexander said domestic phone data and another program focused on the surveillance of foreign communications had together helped foil more than 50 terrorist plots.

Critics of the domestic program immediately rebutted Alexander, saying the collection of Americans’ phone records, unlike the surveillance of foreigners overseas, had no such impact. With the release of more documents, U.S. intelligence officials testified before Congress in July that the program focused on Americans provided useful assistance in 12 cases but was pivotal in identifying one.

The case that the NSA points to as its primary example of the phone program’s usefulness is that of Basaaly Moalin, a San Diego cabdriver from Somalia who sent $8,500 to a terrorist group in his home country. Skeptics in Congress say the government could have easily sought court permission for Moalin’s phone records without vacuuming up tens of million of U.S. phone records.

Two key critics of the program, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), have pushed for the Obama administration to end the collection of Americans’ records.

The senators have pointed to the government’s earlier insistence that a parallel program that allowed the collection of Internet data from Americans was also a vital safeguard.

As with the phone program, top intelligence community officials privately asserted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and congressional intelligence committees that data on Internet use was key to tracing terrorists and stopping plots in real time. Wyden and Udall, who were receiving those private briefings, demanded that the government show proof.

Instead, the Obama administration shuttered the Internet program in 2011. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. publicly confirmed to Congress in a July 27 letter that the government “terminated this collection program in 2011 for operational and resource reasons.”

A 2009 intelligence agency document indicated that the program was not that helpful in detecting terrorists, in part because it was so expansive: “Although the programs collect a large amount of information, the vast majority of that information is never reviewed by anyone in the government, because the information is not responsive to the limited queries that are authorized for intelligence purposes.”

An NSA spokesman declined to comment for this article.

Wyden said he sees no evidence that the collection of Americans’ phone data provided critical information that the government could not have gotten in other ways and said he is disturbed by the privacy violations disclosed Tuesday.

“Considering its lack of value and the significant privacy violations that are inherent in the bulk collection program, I can’t find any reason why this program should continue to exist at all,” he said.

Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Zuckerberg says U.S. 'blew it' on NSA spying

Zuckerberg says U.S. 'blew it' on NSA spying

By Brandon Bailey

bbailey@mercurynews.com

Posted: 09/11/2013 05:47:38 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg lashed out at the U.S. government Wednesday, saying that authorities have hurt Silicon Valley companies by doing a poor job of explaining the online spying efforts of U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Frankly I think the government blew it," Zuckerberg complained during an onstage interview at the tech industry conference known as Disrupt, a weeklong event where Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Marissa Mayer and other prominent tech executives also spoke out publicly and expressed frustration in person, for the first time, since a series of news leaks revealed the government's controversial surveillance programs.

"It's our government's job to protect all of us and also protect our freedoms and protect the economy, and companies," Zuckerberg told interviewer Michael Arrington, "and I think they did a bad job of balancing those things."

He went on to say: "They blew it on communicating the balance of what they were going for."

Facebook and other Internet companies have been under intense pressure in recent months after a series of news reports that suggest U.S. intelligence agencies have gained access to the online activities and communications involving users of Facebook and other popular services. Some of those reports have suggested that unnamed companies have cooperated with the U.S. efforts, although the details are unclear.

Analysts say those reports could hurt the companies financially, especially overseas, if consumers and business customers believe their sensitive information isn't safe from government prying.

Along with Google (GOOG), Yahoo and other tech giants, Facebook has insisted it doesn't give the government free rein to tap into its servers. But the companies also say they comply with legal requests to turn over user information. And they have chafed at national security rules that prohibit them from discussing the details of their actions.

Mayer, who was interviewed on stage shortly before Zuckerberg, said Wednesday that she was proud of her company for waging an early, unsuccessful court battle against government requests for Internet user data, a fight that predated her time at Yahoo.

But she said of those battles, "When you lose and you don't comply, it's treason."

Mayer also indicated sympathy for the government's efforts to defend against terrorism -- saying she agreed with earlier comments by PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who said onstage this week that government cryptographers and other intelligence workers should not be reviled and deserve respect for trying to keep the country safe.

Arrington had warned tech executives that he planned to ask them about government spying efforts during this year's Disrupt conference, which is organized by the blog TechCrunch. His onstage interviews during the conference are always closely watched industry events.

Zuckerberg, who was clearly prepared for the question, noted that Facebook joined Google, Yahoo and Microsoft in filing lawsuits this week that seek permission to disclose the number and nature of the user data requests they receive from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Facebook CEO said the numbers would show that the social network has only provided information about a tiny number of the social network's 1.1 billion users worldwide. But he complained that the government has not explained its efforts clearly.

It didn't help the interests of U.S. companies in overseas markets, Zuckerberg added, when the government said, "Don't worry, we're not spying on Americans." He added sarcastically, "Oh wonderful. That's really helpful" for companies that do business around the world. "I think that was really bad."

Most of Zuckerberg's remarks, however, focused on Facebook's progress over the past year. His appearance was a triumphant milestone of sorts for the 29-year-old CEO, who chose the same conference last year to break a lengthy public silence after the social network's lackluster stock market debut.

At the time of his 2012 appearance, Facebook's stock was floundering at nearly half the company's initial public offering price of $38, as critics questioned whether Facebook could adapt to the mobile Internet trend. Zuckerberg was forced to concede then that Facebook's stock performance had been "disappointing," but he vowed the company's nascent mobile business "will make a lot of money."

In the year since, Zuckerberg has followed through on that prediction, while presiding over a resurgence in Facebook's stock. After developing new kinds of advertisements to show within each user's stream of posts and updates from friends, the company is expected to see more than $2.5 billion in mobile ad sales for 2013, according to research firm eMarketer.

Facebook's stock hit an all-time high of $45.09 on Monday, before closing at $45.04.

Zuckerberg acknowledged Wednesday that he worried about the company's initial public offering last year, especially after the stock price plunged. He said he feared that talented employees would become demoralized and leave the company.

They didn't, he said, adding that the experience "has made our company a lot stronger."

Facebook's success has also enabled Zuckerberg to increasingly flex his wealth and clout on public issues: He's launched a political advocacy group to campaign for new immigration laws and announced a campaign with mobile tech firms to expand Internet access in undeveloped countries. He reportedly is scheduled to meet next week with congressional Republican leaders in Washington, D.C.

Contact Brandon Bailey at 408-920-5022; follow him at Twitter.com/BrandonBailey.

Saving lazy Libertarians

Robert Robb demonizes Libertarians by calling them "Lazy Libertarians"

First the Libertarians didn't pass the existing laws which set the requirements for signatures. That was done years ago by the Democrats and the Republicans. Just like the latest law which makes it almost impossible for Libertarians and Greens to run for office was passed by the Republicans.

Second the signature requirements don't let you get in the GENERAL election. They are to allow you to enter YOUR parties PRIMARY election. Making a Libertarian get 5,000+ signatures to get on the Libertarian Party primary and run for governor doesn't make any sense where there are only something like 25,000 registered Libertarian voters in Arizona.

And remember that unlike the Republicans and Democrats only LIBERTARIANS can vote in the LIBERTARIAN primary elections.

Third, the Libertarians have said for years that it is time to end the taxpayer financed primary elections and let the political parties pay for their primary elections. Of course Robert Robb didn't mention that because it wouldn't help his rant to demonize the Libertarian Party. Now if that was true then it should be the PARTIES, not the STATE that decides who can run in their primary election.

Source

Posted on September 12, 2013 4:25 pm by Robert Robb

Saving lazy Libertarians

Opponents of the Legislature’s omnibus election law, House Bill 2305, appear to have enough signatures to suspend its provisions and put it on the 2014 ballot.

That should be enormous relief to lazy Libertarians planning to run for office in 2014. Otherwise, it’s a lot of sound and fury over not much. The actual provisions of HB 2305 hardly warrant the outrage being expressed.

Let’s start with the lazy Libertarian provision and begin by conceding the cynical motivation of legislative Republicans in enacting it. Republicans believe that Libertarians can cost them close elections and want to make it more difficult for Libertarians to get on the ballot.

Currently, it is ridiculously easy for small-party candidates to get on the ballot because the signature requirement is expressed as a percentage of party registration. Instead, Republicans would require all candidates to meet the same signature requirement based on total voter registration.

The new requirements aren’t that daunting. To qualify for statewide office would take around 5,400 signatures. For Congress, 1,200. For the Legislature, 360. Since Libertarian and Green Party candidates can get signatures from independents, that’s not a killer obstacle for a candidate who’s in it for more than giggles.

And despite the cynical motivation, there’s sense in making the signature requirement the same for all candidates irrespective of party. Why should candidates from parties with less support, as measured by voters willing to affiliate with them, have easier ballot access than candidates from parties with more support?

Opponents are also exercised by HB 2305’s provision requiring that initiative and recall petition drives strictly comply with all constitutional and statutory requirements. The courts already require strict compliance for efforts to refer a legislative act to a vote. But they have allowed initiatives to just substantially comply.

This is entirely a judge-invented distinction. The Arizona Constitution treats initiatives and referendums exactly the same. Moreover, the substantial compliance standard gives judges too much power to decide which measures get to the ballot and which do not. Why should a judge get to decide which legal requirements are important and which are not, or what constitutes “close enough” to complying?

If modern-day populists think Arizona’s requirements for direct democracy are too tough, the answer is to change them, not to empower judges to ignore them.

The heart of the outrage, however, is over two provisions dealing with early ballots. The first would clean up the permanent early ballot list by sensibly assuming that if someone doesn’t vote by early ballot in four consecutive elections, that person isn’t really an early voter. Those not on the permanent list can still vote in person, or request an early ballot for any particular election, or sign up for the permanent list again at any time.

Before anyone’s name was removed from the list, the voter would receive a notice and could remain on the list simply by mailing back a postcard. And that somehow constitutes voter suppression.

The second provision would prohibit organized drives to collect early ballots and delivery them to the polls. People could ask a relative, friend or neighbor to drop off their ballot. But political groups couldn’t do it on a broad or systematic basis.

It seems that certain Democratic and Latino political activists are aspiring ward heelers. They want to sign people up for early ballots and then collect and deliver their ballots.

Early ballots, however, are meant to be mailed. Delivering them by hand in bulk quantities on or near Election Day exacerbates the delay in counting the vote that caused such heartburn last election.

Moreover, having hundreds or thousands of ballots outside the custody of either the voter or election officials is a disturbing security breach. In the last election, there were credible reports of people going door to door falsely claiming to be election officials collecting early ballots.

While the outrage over HB 2305 is grossly overdone, I suppose I shouldn’t complain. There are worse liberal causes than rescuing lazy Libertarians.

(column for 9.13.13)

New York claims Muslim surveillance warranted

New York claims Muslim surveillance warranted

Associated Press Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:05 PM

NEW YORK — The New York Police Department had legitimate reasons to put specific mosques and Muslim worshippers under surveillance as part of its counterterrorism efforts, a city lawyer said Thursday at the first court date in a civil rights lawsuit accusing the NYPD of religious profiling.

Peter Farrell of the city Law Department argued that before the case goes forward, the city should be allowed to present evidence specific to the six plaintiffs that he said would prove police were acting with legitimate law enforcement purposes. If the judge agrees, “then this case is over,” he said.

An American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Hina Shamsi, countered that her clients already had sufficient legal standing to sue the city and that the NYPD should be ordered to begin turning over sensitive reports and documents detailing the alleged spying on Muslims.

U.S. Magistrate Joan Azrack said she would rule at a later date.

The suit was filed in June following a series of Associated Press reports, detailing the NYPD’s Muslim surveillance programs. It alleges that the programs undermined free worship by innocent people and asked the court to halt the surveillance.

In a letter filed on Tuesday, city lawyers outlined evidence they say shows that a security team at a mosque named as a plaintiff in the suit sponsored survival training outings and referred to team members as “jihad warriors.” Another plaintiff mosque was frequented by a man convicted earlier this year of lying to the FBI about plans to team up with the Taliban or al-Qaida, the letter said.

An NYPD investigation of a third plaintiff, college student Asad Dandia, “is based on information that he has made statements and conducted activities in support of violent jihad,” the letter said. Dandia also “attempted to organize a trip to Pakistan in 2011 to train and fight alongside extremist elements there,” it added.

An NYPD informant acknowledged last year in an interview with the AP that he had spied on Dandia and others.

The NYPD didn’t target particular mosques “simply because the attendees were Muslim,” the letter said. “Rather, the NYPD followed leads suggesting that certain individuals in certain mosques may be engaging in criminal and possibly terrorist activity.”

In response, the ACLU accused the city of vilifying its clients “through inflammatory and insinuation and innuendo, suggesting (they) are worthy of criminal investigation on the basis of First Amendment-protected speech, activities or attenuated — and unwitting — association alone.”

It added: “This strategy is a deliberate distraction at best. At worst, it verges on the very type of discriminatory and meritless profiling at the heart of this case.”

Last month, the AP reported that confidential documents show that the NYPD has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorist organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on worshippers. Police officials have insisted that the department only acts on legitimate leads about terror threats.

Detective ordered to hack iPad of officer's wife

Source

Lawsuit: Will Co. detective ordered to hack iPad of officer's wife

By Andy Grimm Tribune reporter

9:37 a.m. CDT, September 13, 2013

A former Will County sheriff's detective claims a top deputy ordered him to hack the deputy's wife's iPad to look for evidence that she was cheating and then demoted the detective when he complained about it to a supervisor.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Will County, Josh Fazio says Deputy Chief Ken Kaupas in 2012 told him to crack the pass code on Kaupas' wife's computer to investigate "whether she was cheating on (Kaupas)." When Fazio asked his superior, Sgt. Dan Troike, about it, Troike told him to do as he was asked.

"I can't imagine in what universe that is legitimate police work," said Michael Booher, Fazio's attorney.

Fazio is suing Kaupas and Will County.

Ken Kaupas has announced he is running for sheriff in 2014, hoping to succeed his cousin, Paul Kaupas, who is retiring. Ken Kaupas, who often acts as spokesman for the sheriff's department, declined comment on the lawsuit Thursday.

Paul Kaupas said the suit was filed to damage his cousin politically.

"Anybody can say anything they want in a lawsuit and the newspaper, and it will go into print," Paul Kaupas said. "The knowledge I have of the case, in my opinion, I know this is being done for political purposes. None of the accusations are true."

Fazio also claims in the lawsuit that Lt. Jeff McKenzie in 2010 ordered Fazio to send him a pornographic DVD while McKenzie was attending the FBI academy in Virginia "because (McKenzie) apparently had no Internet there."

When Fazio complained about both the DVD and iPad requests two years later, he claims he was chewed out by Ken Kaupas and McKenzie, then demoted to patrol duty, despite receiving numerous commendations for his work during seven years as computer forensics expert for the department.

Fazio resigned rather than take the demotion and is now working in the private sector, Booher said. Booher said he had contacted the department about resolving Fazio's complaint before filing the lawsuit, which seeks damages in excess of $50,000.

"Will County had ample time to resolve this, but they didn't respond to us," the attorney said.

The suit claims that Fazio met with Paul Kaupas before resigning and that Kaupas told Fazio he "should have just kept his mouth shut and did what he was told."

In a meeting before he was demoted, Fazio contends, Ken Kaupas told him that Fazio "broke his trust" by complaining to Troike about the iPad and that McKenzie said the complaint about the DVD could "ruin (McKenzie's) career."

Fazio also claims in the lawsuit that Ken Kaupas told other police and government officials that Fazio was not trustworthy, "a thief, a fake, and could not do his job."

agrimm@tribune.com

Twitter @agrimm34

NSA secretly kept encryption standards weak

The rumor then was that the government wanted to be able to break any data easily that was encrypted with the DES Standard.

That was probably 20 to 30 years ago and the DES Standard was mostly used by large businesses in mainframe to mainframe computer transactions. Personal computers were just getting started and the Internet didn't exist.

Source

NSA secretly kept encryption standards weak

Records reveal agency's dual role as locksmith and lock-picker

Sep. 11, 2013

WASHINGTON — Years ago when computer users were dialing up the Internet, civilian government scientists already expressed concerns about the National Security Agency’s role in developing global communication standards, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

The records mirror new disclosures, based on classified files 24 years later, that the NSA sought to deliberately weaken Internet encryption in its effort to gather and analyze digital intelligence.

This week, the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology sought to shore up confidence in the important behind-the-scenes role it plays in setting standards that are used by consumers to make purchases online, access their bank accounts, digitally sign legal documents or file their income taxes electronically. The agency said it “would not deliberately weaken a cryptographic standard” and would continue to work with experts “to create the strongest possible encryption standards for the U.S. government and industry at large.”

It also noted that, under federal law, it was required to consult with the NSA on its computer standards.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that “it should hardly be surprising that our intelligence agencies seek ways to counteract our adversaries’ use of encryption.”

That office criticized recent disclosures — based on classified records revealed by NSA leaker Edward Snowden — that the NSA for years has used computing power, legal instruments and its role as adviser to NIST to undermine encryption technologies that protect consumers but also could make digital surveillance more difficult for the U.S. government.

NSA dominated encryption

Historical NIST records released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act more than two decades ago show that tensions over security software arose in the early 1990s between the NSA and other scientists in the government who had been working together since 1989 to develop the Digital Signature Standard, a way to electronically sign documents and guarantee their authenticity. That became a federal processing standard by 1994 and was most recently updated in July.

“It’s increasingly evident that it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the concerns and requirements of NSA, NIST and the general public using this approach,” the government experts, who included NSA representatives, wrote in a January 1990 memorandum.

Then, in 1992, Stanford University Professor Martin Hellman wrote in an industry journal that the then-proposed standard, eventually embraced by NIST and the NSA, had such serious weaknesses that it undermined NIST’s credibility among civilian cryptography experts.

Additionally, the NSA wanted details of its decisions kept secret. Even the NSA’s reasoning for selecting an algorithm was closely held, stamped “classified” and accessible only to officials with a top secret security clearance. The documents the AP reviewed had been turned over to David Sobel, now senior counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group.

“This was really the first opportunity the public had to learn of the dominant role that the NSA played in the realm of civilian cryptography and security,” Sobel told the AP.

The recent disclosures by Snowden, he said, “demonstrate that dynamic has not changed over the past 20 years — and, if anything, NSA might have become more dominant since those original disclosures were made.”

On one hand, the NSA is responsible for being the Internet’s chief digital locksmith, helping the U.S. government devise standards that have for years protected e-commerce, sensitive documents and citizens’ privacy. On the other, the agency is charged with being cyberspace’s chief electronic lock-picker, capable of stealing the world’s most closely guarded secrets.

“If you wanted to put it in exaggerated terms, the fox is in charge of henhouse,” said Richard Aldrich, whose study of Britain’s signals intelligence agency GCHQ details how it and the NSA worked together to weaken the quality of the encryption used by international diplomats in the 1960s, ’70s and beyond.

But even if the NSA’s campaign to loosen the world’s digital locks has a long pedigree, experts say the fact that encryption has moved out of embassy cypher rooms and into the mainstream means there’s much more at stake. Cryptographers say that the weaknesses left by the NSA might one day be used by America’s rivals in Moscow or Beijing — or even savvy cybercriminals, if the loopholes aren’t being used already.

“What one person can discover, another person can discover. In the end, somebody will figure it out,” said Ben Laurie, a core developer behind OpenSSL, a protocol that helps protect a big chunk of the world’s Internet users from fraudulent websites, credit-card scams and identity theft. “If you deliberately weaken stuff, it will come back to bite you.”

---

BACK DOORS

Cryptographers generally accept that the National Security Agency devotes an enormous amount of time and money cracking enemies’ and others’ codes.

• But the tactics exposed in the newly revealed classified documents — deliberately weakening or installing hidden “back doors” in widely-used encryption protocols — have distressed academics and practitioners alike.

• “We’re both surprised and disappointed in the way that they’re doing it,” said Matthew Green, a professor of cryptography at Johns Hopkins University.

Bloated nuclear spending comes under criticism

As H. L. Mencken said:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Bloated nuclear spending comes under criticism

By Jeri Clausing and Matthew Daly Associated Press Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:32 PM

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, a seven-year, $213 million upgrade to the security system that protects the lab’s most sensitive nuclear bomb-making facilities doesn’t work. Those facilities, which sit atop a fault line for potential earthquakes, remain susceptible to collapse and dangerous radiation releases, despite millions more spent on improvement plans.

In Tennessee, the price for a new uranium processing facility has grown nearly sevenfold in eight years, to beyond $6 billion, because of problems that include a redesign to raise the roof.

And the estimated cost of an effort to refurbish 400 of the country’s B61 bombs has grown from $1.5 billion to $10 billion.

Virtually every major project under the National Nuclear Security Administration’s oversight is behind schedule and over budget — the result, watchdogs and government auditors say, of years of lax accountability for the agency responsible for maintaining the nation’s nuclear stockpile.

The NNSA has racked up $16 billion in cost overruns on 10 major projects that are a combined 38 years behind schedule, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports. Other projects have been canceled or suspended, despite hundreds of millions of dollars already spent, because they grew too bloated.

Advocates say spending increases are necessary to keep the nation’s nuclear arsenal operating and safe, and to continue cutting-edge research at the nation’s nuclear labs. But critics say the nuclear program — run largely by private contractors and overseen by the NNSA, an arm of the U.S. Energy Department — has turned into a massive jobs program with duplicative functions.

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security financial and contracting oversight subcommittee, said a key problem is the Energy Department’s reliance on private contractors to carry out its mission. The DOE has fewer than 16,000 employees and more than 92,000 contractors.

The retired head of one of those contractors, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, told Congress this spring that the absence of day-to-day accountability and an ineffectual structure at the NNSA pose a national security risk.

DOE and NNSA officials agree there are problems. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said this month that addressing the cost overruns and the embarrassing security breaches at some facilities is a top priority. A congressionally appointed panel, co-chaired by Augustine, recently began studying a potential overhaul of the NNSA.

Moniz acknowledged some projects had seen “substantial cost overruns.”

An NNSA spokesman referred a reporter to congressional testimony by the agency’s project and acquisitions manager, Bob Raines, who said projects completed in the past two years had met cost goals and finished under budget.

“We are making progress,” Raines testified in March before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

The problems have resulted in renewed scrutiny and changes in leadership at the NNSA over the past year. In August, President Barack Obama nominated retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz as its next head. He’s awaiting Senate confirmation.

Will Humble's convoluted cockamamie definition of medical marijuana

Last while I think Will Humble is full of BS on this issue, you have to remember that Will Humble's thugs who are called police, have guns and will arrest and jail you if you don't obey the law in the convoluted, cockamamie way that Will Humble views it.

[Will Humble] warned Friday that medical marijuana soda pop or hard candy you bought may still land you ... in jail.

Humble cautioned that the law is crafted to require that the food products contain actual pieces of the marijuana plant [just where does it say that in the law Mr. Humble???]

he said the statute is very clear that only "useable marijuana'' is legally protected and not the extracts minus the plant [just where does it say that in the law Mr. Humble???]

possessing — the brewed [marijuana] tea in a bottle, with no plant material, could be a felony [could be??? It is, or it isn't Mr. Humble!!! Please give us some solid answers, not drug war propaganda designed to scare off medical marijuana patients.]

Humble said the 2010 law did not legalize cannabis [gee Mr. Humble, just what part of a marijuana plant isn't cannabis???? All my life I thought it was the same stuff!!!!! Of course under Arizona criminal law technically cannabis is hashish. But under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act I would say hashish is just another form of medical marijuana which is legal only for medical marijuana patients]

Hashish is ... not protected under the medical marijuana law [Again Prop 203 seems to say that any form of marijuana can be used by medical marijuana users which would include hashish, hash oil and other concentrated forms of marijuana]

Are Marijuana and Cannabis the same thing when it comes to Arizona Law? The short answer is no [Well Mr Humble that certainly is true. BUT!!!! I am sure that the folks that wrote Prop 203 intended for medical marijuana users to be covered by the definition in Prop 203, not the definition in the criminal code. After all, any form of marijuana is legal only for a person with a medical marijuana prescription or recommendation.]

An issue the Department has been wrestling with for some time is how the definition of “Marijuana” and “Usable Marijuana” in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the definition of “Cannabis” and “Marijuana” in the Criminal Code fit together. [Again Mr. Humble if you weren't so busy trying to flush Prop 203 down the toilet with lame excuses such as in this blog, it should be perfectly obvious to you that the definition of marijuana in Prop 203 applies to people with medical marijuana prescriptions or recommendations. And the definition of marijuana in the criminal code applies to people who DON'T have a medical marijuana prescription or reccommendation]

Marijuana regulations might not cover all food products

Marijuana regulations might not cover all food products

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — You may have a state-issued card allowing you to buy and use marijuana for medical purposes. But the state's top health official warned Friday that medical marijuana soda pop or hard candy you bought may still land you — and the dispensary owner who sold it to you — in jail.

State Health Director Will Humble said the 2010 voter-approved law clearly contemplates that those authorized to sell and use marijuana for medical reasons need not smoke it. Food products are legal.

But Humble cautioned that the law is crafted to require that the food products contain actual pieces of the marijuana plant. He said anything that contains only an extract remains a felony in Arizona.

Humble said he's not an attorney and cannot define exactly when preparing marijuana for brownies, sodas or lollipops crosses the line. But he said the statute is very clear that only "useable marijuana'' is legally protected and not the extracts minus the plant.

What that means, he said, is someone with a medical marijuana card could legally make, sell or possess a tea bag with marijuana. But selling — or even possessing — the brewed tea in a bottle, with no plant material, could be a felony.

Attorney Ryan Hurley, whose clients include dispensary owners, acknowledged that Arizona law does make a difference between marijuana as defined in the 2010 law and what he called an “archaic” definition of marijuana extracts that are illegal under the criminal code. And he conceded the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does not include extracts.

But Hurley said he believes it was always the intent of those who crafted the law to allow food products made from extracts.

That's also the contention of Morgan Fox, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project which crafted the Arizona law. He said the statute allows use of not only marijuana but also any “preparation” of the drug, which he said includes extracts.

“I have no doubt that the state will be challenged if it tries to exclude edible marijuana products from protection,” he said.

By contrast, Jeffrey Kaufman, who also represents dispensary owners, said the issue may come down to how the THC — the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana — was extracted.

On one hand, he said it's illegal to make hashish or hash oil, the concentrated resins containing the THC, using a butane extraction process. And that would make any food products made with those items illegal.

But Kaufman said he believes there's nothing wrong with extracting THC through a freezing and filtering process and then using what's produced in recipes.

Humble isn't ready to make that kind of distinction, calling it one of the “gray area” in the law. But he said state health inspectors will soon be taking a closer look at the recipes of the food products being sold at marijuana dispensaries and advising operators when they think the items are not protected by the law.

The 2010 laws says those with a doctor's recommendation can get 2 1/2 ounces of “useable marijuana” every two weeks. And the law defines that as being the plant, minus the stems and seeds.

But the criminal code has two definitions.

The first is for “marijuana” which includes the plant “from which the resin has not been extracted.” But there is a separate definition of “cannabis” which includes the resin extracted from the plant.

And Humble said the 2010 law did not legalize cannabis.

“You can produce edibles,” he said. “But you'd better make sure it's made of 'useable marijuana' as covered under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and not extracts and resins,” which remain illegal under the state's criminal code.

The problem is where to draw that line.

“Hashish is clearly a resin or extract,” Humble said, and not protected under the medical marijuana law. But he said that, in making food products, there be “a shade of gray that's up to somebody's interpretation of the law.”

“What we're trying to do is to let folks know to stay away from those shades of gray because it could be problematic for them,” Humble said.

“Avoid using extracts in your recipes and stick to what you believe is 'useable marijuana' as defined under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,” he continued. “If you can do that, you're probably going to be OK.”

Humble said the initial offerings at the approximately 80 dispensaries now open were pretty much limited to various varieties of the flowers and leaves of marijuana plants.

“What we're starting to see is more diversification in the product mix,” he said.

Humble said inspectors will now start to take closer looks at the various food products being sold. If they conclude the items were made with extracts, they will advise dispensary owners of the possibility of winding up facing criminal charges

At the very least, he said dispensaries that do not come in line could eventually face having their licenses to sell marijuana revoked.

Will Humble's blog at the Arizona Department of Health Services

Source

Marijuana v. Cannabis

August 30th, 2013 by Will Humble

Are Marijuana and Cannabis the same thing when it comes to Arizona Law? The short answer is no- and the distinction may be an important one for Qualified Patients.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act provides registry identification card holders and dispensaries a number of legal protections for their medical use of Marijuana pursuant to the Act. Interestingly, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act definition of “Marijuana” in A.R.S. § 36-2801(8) differs from the Arizona Criminal Code’s (“Criminal Code”) definition of “Marijuana” in A.R.S. § 13-3401(19). In addition, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act makes a distinction between “Marijuana” and “Usable Marijuana.” A.R.S. § 36-2801(8) and (15).

The definition of “Marijuana” in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is “… all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.” The definition of “Usable Marijuana” is “… the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant and does not include the weight of any non-marijuana ingredients combined with marijuana and prepared for consumption as food or drink.” The “allowable amount of marijuana” for a qualifying patient and a designated caregiver includes “two-and-one half ounces of usable marijuana.” A.R.S. § 36-2801(1).

The definition of “Marijuana” in the Criminal Code is “… all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis, from which the resin has not been extracted, whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant.” “Cannabis” (a narcotic drug under the Criminal Code) is defined as: “… the following substances under whatever names they may be designated: (a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin. Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except the resin extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination; and (b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol.” A.R.S. § 13-3401(4) and (20)(w).

An issue the Department has been wrestling with for some time is how the definition of “Marijuana” and “Usable Marijuana” in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the definition of “Cannabis” and “Marijuana” in the Criminal Code fit together. This confusion, which appears to be shared by dispensaries and registered identification card holders alike, is not easy to clear up and has resulted in the Department receiving numerous questions regarding the interplay between the protections in A.R.S. § 36-2811 and the Criminal Code. While we can’t provide legal advice as to whether a certain conduct is punishable under the Criminal Code (only an individual’s or entity’s legal counsel can do this), “Cannabis” is defined as the “resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis” and “Cannabis” is listed as a narcotic drug according to the Criminal Code in A.R.S. § 13-3401(4) and (20)(w).

In other words, registered identification card holders and dispensaries may be exposed to criminal prosecution under the Criminal Code for possessing a narcotic drug if the card holder or dispensary possesses resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus Cannabis or an edible containing resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus Cannabis. If you’re concerned that your conduct may expose you to criminal prosecution, you may wish to consult an attorney. We’ll be providing some specific guidance for dispensaries licensed by the ADHS next week.

Laws from the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act

Source

SNIP

8. "Marijuana" means all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, and the seeds of such plant. [And that should included hashish, hash oil, marijuana pollen and other concentrated forms of marijuana]

SNIP

15. "Usable marijuana" means the dried flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof [again usable marijuana seems to mean any part of the marijuana plant which contains the THC - for anybody who is not making a living using the war on drugs to jail people that should include hashish, hash oil, marijuana pollen and other concentrated forms of marijuana]

Laws from the Arizona Criminal Code

Source

4. "Cannabis" means the following substances under whatever names they may be designated:

(a) The resin extracted from any part of a plant of the genus cannabis, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or its resin. Cannabis does not include oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any fiber, compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks of such plant except the resin extracted from the stalks or any fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

(b) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such resin or tetrahydrocannabinol.

Watching the watchers

Watching the watchers

By Alessandra Soler Viewpoints Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:05 PM

Many Americans were shocked earlier this year to learn that the National Security Agency has engaged in massive, sustained and systemic surveillance of millions of people. Unfortunately, the ACLU was not surprised to learn how the NSA has abused the law and its authority to invade the privacy of countless Americans.

Government tracking of Americans’ daily activities and movements is not limited to the federal level. Indeed, many state and local agencies track our day-to-day activities, such as our driving habits and how we use our cellphones. We should be concerned about how these bodies intrude upon our privacy rights.

But the media explosion around the NSA’s big-brother behavior has stimulated a necessary and long-overdue conversation about how this one federal agency spies on innocent Americans all too easily. So, it’s worth taking a look at what the NSA says it’s doing, what it’s actually doing and what it has no business even trying to do.

The Patriot Act grants dangerously broad surveillance powers to the federal government. Various entities within the federal government, including the NSA, have relied specifically on Section 215 of the act to justify spying on innocent Americans. Now, the American Civil Liberties Union believes Section 215 is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment. Ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to show probable cause and obtain a warrant before it can conduct a search. Section 215, however, allows the government to conduct such searches without showing probable cause and without bothering to get a warrant.

But even if Section 215 is constitutional, the NSA is still taking things way too far. The NSA conducts a domestic call-tracking program wherein it eavesdrops on people’s phone calls as a matter of routine. The NSA claims that this program is targeted, the implication being that you have nothing to worry about if you’re behaving yourself.

Not true.

How NSA operates

The program is not limited to terrorists or those associated with foreign powers. On the contrary, the NSA uses this program to collect “on an ongoing daily basis” the records of every call made in the United States, even those by innocent Americans. And congressional intelligence committees have confirmed that the government has been collecting the phone records of practically all Americans for at least seven years. In doing so, the NSA has developed a database filled with revealing information about every American’s associations and affiliations.

Think about the sweeping breadth of information being collected. Every time a resident of the United States makes a phone call, the NSA knows who he or she called, when the call was placed and how long the conversation lasted. The NSA knows if that resident called a doctor, a pastor, a political party, an addiction support group or a romantic interest. Calling patterns can indicate when we are asleep and when we are awake, our work habits and the number of friends we have. How many people would be comfortable with the government knowing this kind of information about their private lives?

Also, the NSA claims that the domestic call-tracking database is examined only sparingly. More specifically, the executive branch has stated that the database was “queried” only 300 times last year. But again, the truth is more complicated and far more alarming because these queries aren’t limited to a single person or phone number.

Instead, NSA analysts can examine the phone information of people within three “hops”— or degrees of separation — from the initial target. If each person has only 50 telephone contacts, applying this three-hop approach to even a single individual could implicate the phone records of more than 125,000 people. So, those 300 queries last year could have actually yielded information on more than 37 million people.

Even worse, the NSA aggregates these records to construct social graphs and to study their development and communications patterns over days, week, months and even years. This information can reveal the rise and fall of intimate relationships, the diagnosis of a serious illness, the identity of a potential government whistle-blower and even the signs of a corporate merger or acquisition.

Congress can fix this

Security is important, and so is privacy. One does not have to be sacrificed in order to guarantee the other. The ACLU recently supported bipartisan congressional legislation, the Amash-Conyers amendment, which would have ensured the government’s ability to protect Americans while limiting the government’s power to overreach.

The amendment would have changed Section 215 to require that requests for private records be targeted at those who are actually the subject of an investigation. This change would prevent the NSA from collecting, storing and using the records of all Americans. The amendment would not hinder the government’s ability to gather information about terrorists — it would just limit the government’s ability to spy on the rest of us in the process.

And, of course, the government would still enjoy considerable authority under many other laws and programs to pursue important intelligence leads. While Democrats and Republicans broke party lines to support the Amash-Conyers amendment, the legislation fell short of passage by just 12 votes.

The NSA and the Obama administration dismiss legitimate concerns about our privacy rights by regurgitating half-truths and tired talking points. Their response to our concerns seems to be, “Don’t worry, just trust us.” But given how the NSA has betrayed Americans’ trust by spying on all of us, whether we’re implicated in a crime or not, it’s difficult and unwise to maintain that trust.

The government may have genuine concerns about protecting our security, but it can’t use them to steamroll our genuine concerns about our privacy. And while the ACLU strongly believes that Americans’ privacy rights must be respected for constitutional and policy reasons, don’t think that this is a purely academic exercise. After all, the NSA has been spying on the ACLU’s phone calls, too.

Alessandra Soler is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

You think your going to get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!!

Debra Milke - Alex Garcia - Detective Armando Saldate - Detective Louis Scarcella

In the Buddhist Temple murders, first the 4 kids from Tucson was framed for murder by the Maricopa County Sheriff. They were Mike McGraw, Leo Bruce, Mark Nunez, 19, and Dante Parker.

After it was discovered they were innocent Alessandro Garcia and Johnathan Doody had their civil rights violated, and may have also been framed for the murder.

Next we have the Debra Milke case. Even if she is guilty she was framed by crooked Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate who seems to have made up an imaginary confession out of thin air.

Last in New York City we have Brooklyn homicide detective Louis Scarcella. He is suspected of framing 50 people for murder. He uses the same techniques of Phoenix Detective Armando Saldate. Make up confessions out of thin air. Beat up people to get confessions. Bribe criminals with drugs, special favors and reduced prison sentences to make up imaginary evidence to help him frame real people for murder.

Temple witness has history of lying

Temple witness has history of lying

By Laurie Merrill The Republic | azcentral.com Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:40 PM

The state’s key witness in the retrial of a man accused of being his accomplice in the 1991 Buddhist temple massacre admits a history of lying about the case.

Ultimately, it will be up to the jurors to decide whether Alessandro “Alex” Garcia is now being honest about Johnathan Doody’s involvement in the murders.

Doody and Garcia were convicted more than 20 years ago in the fatal shooting of six Thai monks, two acolytes and a nun in the temple’s sitting room.

Doody’s retrial is in its second month, and closing arguments may take place as early as Thursday.

Defense attorney Mark Rothschild had his first chance on Monday to question Garcia, who began testifying last month. His cross-examination was postponed because of a defense attorney’s personal emergency.

Garcia testified on Monday that, when police first interrogated him, he lied and said he had nothing to do with the brazen robbery and murder of nine people at the Wat Promkunaram temple in Waddell.

He again lied to investigators when he falsely implicated four men from Tucson, known at the time in the media as the Tucson Four, and two others, even though they had nothing to do with the state’s largest massacre on record, Garcia testified.

Additionally, Garcia admitted that he lied by initially withholding information that he had committed a 10th murder about two months after the temple slayings.

Garcia pleaded guilty in 1993 in a deal that allowed him to avoid the death penalty. Doody was convicted by a jury the same year. Garcia was sentenced to 271 years and Doody to 281 years in prison.

But Doody’s conviction was overturned when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that his confession, elicited over 12 hours of questioning, was illegally coerced.

Doody’s was not the only confession found to be false. There were six false confessions in the case obtained under tactics by investigators under then-Maricopa County Sheriff Tom Agnos.

There was Garcia’s initial false confession implicating the “Tucson Four”; four false confessions from each of the Tucson suspects, who later won lawsuits over the ordeal; and Doody’s confession, which was later thrown out by an appeals court.

Garcia’s testimony in the retrial gives an eyewitness account placing Doody at the scene of the slayings and putting the murder weapon — a Marlin .22-caliber rifle — in Doody’s hands. It was Doody who insisted there be no witnesses and insisted that all victims must die, Garcia testified.

Defense attorney Maria Schaffer said before Doody’s retrial that the defense would attempt to show that Garcia is an unreliable witness and that Doody was not at the temple that night.

Under redirect testimony from Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Jason Kalish, Garcia said jurors should believe his account.

“It is the truth,” he said.

Bill Montgomery takes 9th Circuit to woodshed over Milke decision

Posted on September 16, 2013 4:58 pm by Laurie Roberts

Bill Montgomery takes 9th Circuit to woodshed over Milke decision

So, it seems the Phoenix police detective who put away Debra Milke — a woman once considered Arizona’s most notorious baby killer — now has a sudden bout of … well, let’s just call it shyness.

Former Detective Armando Saldate doesn’t want to testify against Milke.

This, after sending her to prison 23 years ago in a case that was basically his word that she confessed to setting up her four-year-old son’s murder against her word that she didn’t.

The jury went with his word and Milke went to death row.

In March, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her conviction due to substantial and alarming questions about the detective’s character. Saldate, a three-judge panel wrote, had a “long history” of trampling people’s Miranda rights and lying under oath – something that should have been, but never was, disclosed to the Milke jury.

The opinion painted a scathing and scary portrait of police and prosecutors who abused their power to send a woman to death row. Or, as Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery sees it, a doctored photo.

Montgomery took the 9th Circuit to the woodshed on Friday, saying basically that the appellate court was out to get Saldate and misrepresented his work in eight previous cases in order to discredit the detective.

“In a rush to draw a conclusion that would support the 9th Circuit’s apparent desire to take out the detective, they glossed over all the facts,” Montgomery said, in summarizing one of those cases cited by appellate judges as evidence of “the detective’s lack of compunction about lying” and his tendency to violate suspects’ rights.

In one case, for example, the appellate court pointed out that Saldate got a confession from a murder suspect who was in intensive care and drifting in and out of consciousness. A judge, the appellate court noted, tossed out the confession as “involuntary and inadmissible” due to a violation of the suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights.

Montgomery acknowledges that the suspect confessed as he drifted in and out of consciousness. But he says Saldate stopped that interview because of the suspect’s condition and never submitted that confession. Instead, he came back 10 days later, after the suspect’s condition had improved, and interviewed him again. The resulting confession was suppressed, Montgomery says, not due to Fifth Amendment concerns but because the man hadn’t been properly given an initial court appearance.

“It is safe to say that any unbiased third party reviewing this distortion of the facts would wonder whether the appellate court had an agenda which was not supported by the truth,” according to an analysis of the case by Montgomery’s office.

Montgomery says that Saldate was never accused of misconduct in any of the eight cases cited by the 9th Circuit and faces no possibility of prosecution.

Which brings us to the curious decision by ex-Detective Saldate.

Mum’s apparently the word with this guy as his attorney, Larry Debus, said last week that he’s advising his client to take the Fifth if he’s called to testify. On Monday, Saldate will have to appear in court and tell Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz whether he intends to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination.

If he does, that presumably would mean that he’s done something for which he needs protection from prosecution.

It almost certainly would mean that Debra Milke would not be retried for the 1989 murder of her son, Christopher.

Saldate’s no saint. Montgomery raises sizable questions about the 9th Circuit’s grasp of events — though, interestingly, he didn’t bring up the appellate court’s revelation of the 1973 incident when Saldate pulled over a woman for a traffic stop, took “liberties” with her and later lied about it to internal affairs investigators.

The question now is this: Was he corrupt enough to invent a mother’s confession to murdering her son, as the appellate court suggests? If so, then silence is golden.

But if not, is he honorable enough to let a jury decide – his word against hers, with all the information out there this time?

That is something for Saldate to consider, as he ponders his reputation and Milke’s future.

If he lied, then a potentially innocent woman was robbed of her life.

But if he was telling the truth, then by his silence he’s now letting a murderer go free.

NYPD Detective Louis Scarcella may have framed 50 people for murder???

Several Murder Confessions Taken by Brooklyn Detective Have Similar Language

By FRANCES ROBLES

Published: June 12, 2013

As the Brooklyn homicide detective Louis Scarcella told it, the suspect in a ruthless home invasion that left one man dead and two more people in a coma started talking after just a few minutes of questioning.

A confession by Jabbar Washington in his 1997 murder trial uses phrases found in other confessions recorded by Mr. Scarcella.

“You got it right,” the suspect, Jabbar Washington, said. “I was there.”

The phrase was straightforward and damning, introducing the central piece of evidence that sent him to prison for 25 years to life. At the 1997 trial, Mr. Scarcella told the jury that it was the easiest confession he had obtained in more than two decades working for the Police Department.

But if the interrogation was unique for him, the wording was not. In at least four more murder cases, suspects questioned by Mr. Scarcella began their confessions with either “you got it right” or “I was there.”

Mr. Scarcella, 61, was a member of the Brooklyn North Homicide squad who developed a reputation for eliciting confessions when no other detective could. But questions about his credibility have led the Brooklyn district attorney’s office to reopen all of his trial convictions.

The similarity of the confessions, which was discovered in a review of cases by The New York Times, raises new doubts about the statements that Mr. Scarcella presented and that the prosecutors used to win convictions in dozens of murder cases. One of the men, David Ranta, who had spent more than two decades arguing that he never made the confession attributed to him that began “I was there,” has already been released from prison.

Defense lawyers fighting the convictions say the resemblance of statements attributed to inmates who shared nothing in common makes it more likely that Mr. Scarcella fabricated evidence, laying the groundwork for cases to be dismissed and millions to be paid in wrongful conviction lawsuits.

“It’s sort of beyond belief that it would be coincidental,” said Steven Banks, chief lawyer for the Legal Aid Society, which is reviewing 20 cases handled by Mr. Scarcella.

Mr. Scarcella, a 26-year veteran who retired in 1999, stood by his record, saying he was one of the best detectives in the department. As for the similarities, he said: “I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. I will say this again: I have never fabricated a confession in my life.”

In a previous interview, Mr. Scarcella said that because of Mr. Ranta’s recent exoneration, inmates now considered him a “get-out-of-jail-free key.”

However, records show that in many cases, the allegations of misconduct and manufactured confessions are not new.

Mr. Washington, who is still in prison for the 1995 killing of Ronald Ellis, took the stand in his trial and testified that Mr. Scarcella provided the script for the confession. The detective, he said, grabbed him by the neck and testicles and forced him to sign his name to a document the detective wrote. “He always said the cop fed him what to say,” said Mark Pollard, who was Mr. Washington’s lawyer at the trial.

Mr. Washington, who was 23 during the trial, had an alibi, and the survivors of the shooting were unable to identify him in court, leaving the confession as the crux of the prosecution’s case. Mr. Washington’s claim of a forced confession was undermined, prosecutors wrote in response to his appeal, by a video of the confession that showed he did not appear to be looking to Mr. Scarcella for cues.

“The D.A. broke the confession down and tried to show it was extemporaneous,” Mr. Pollard said. “But I would not accept these similarities as coincidence. It definitely doesn’t smell right.”

By then the language had already appeared in several other cases. One of them centered on a 1994 arson in Williamsburg in which two people died. The suspect, Hector Lopez, had been entangled in a dispute with his former girlfriend and her new boyfriend, both of whom survived, and was accused of setting the man’s building on fire.

After about 12 hours in custody, Mr. Scarcella said that Mr. Lopez began to weep and said: “You guys got it right.”

Mr. Lopez, who was confronted with other evidence like a gas can in his car, is serving 25 years to life at the Sullivan Correctional Facility in Fallsburg, N.Y. But his lawyer, William Loeb, wrote in an appeal that discrepancies between the confession and evidence suggested “the disturbing likelihood” that Mr. Scarcella had made up the confession.

Pierre Sussman, Mr. Ranta’s lawyer, said that was precisely what Mr. Scarcella did with Mr. Ranta, who in 1990 was an unemployed drug addict when the detective questioned him for the killing of a Hasidic rabbi. Mr. Scarcella testified that he was at central booking with Mr. Ranta when his prisoner did an about-face and decided to come clean about the robbery and shooting.

Mr. Scarcella said he scribbled the man’s exact words on the back of a manila envelope, starting with “I was there.”

Mr. Ranta, who has frequently said he never confessed to the detective, was exonerated in March after 23 years in prison. “If you take a look at statements given to Detective Scarcella, and they start out the same way — ‘I was there’ — and then follow with a narrative, that’s a huge problem,” Mr. Sussman said. “It’s a sign that it may be Scarcella’s words, and not the suspects’.”

Scholars who study police interrogations say it is not uncommon for confessions to include traces of the detective’s speech, particularly law enforcement jargon the suspect was unlikely to have used without prompting. In addition, sometimes a detective will prompt a person to admit being present at the crime scene, while still playing down the role in the crime, a technique known as minimizing, which has been cited as sometimes leading to false confessions.

“It’s hard to imagine all five people used the same exact words,” said Richard Leo, a University of San Francisco law professor who specializes in confessions. “It almost sounds like a template.”

The phrases still seemed etched in Mr. Scarcella’s memory. Even in spontaneous retellings of various confessions in recent years, he has reached for those exact words.

In an interview with The New York Post last month, he said he still remembered Mr. Ranta’s confession from a quarter century earlier: “I said: ‘You come from 66th Street. I come from 66th Street. We’re both Italian. Why don’t you tell me the truth?’ So he says, ‘Yeah, you’re right. I was there.’ ”

And talking about a different case during an appearance on the “Dr. Phil” television program in 2007, where he discussed the tactics he used to get suspects to admit their misdeeds, Mr. Scarcella recalled a similar conversation with a suspect. “He says to me, ‘Louis, you were right. I was there, but he kicked me, and I shot him by accident.’ I said, ‘Don’t you feel better now?’ And he’s now doing 37 ½ years to life.”

Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, has declined to publicly identify the 50 cases that are under review by the office’s Conviction Integrity Unit. So it is unclear how many more may have featured such language.

“We are looking for certain patterns,” said Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for the office. The wording “may be a pattern.”

An earlier examination by The Times also showed that Mr. Scarcella used the same crack-addicted prostitute as a witness in a series of unrelated murder cases.

The Legal Aid Society was informed by the office that 20 of the cases under review involved the agency’s clients. At the request of The Times, the organization’s lawyers reviewed those cases and found two with similar wording at the start of the confession. They declined to reveal the names but said both defendants served about 14 years in prison for shootings that took place in the 1990s, six years apart.

“One of the confessions includes ‘I was there’ and the other says, ‘I want to tell you the truth: you are right,’ ” Mr. Banks said. “Given the patterns that are emerging, clearly that gives great concern about the detective’s techniques.”

Steve Benson - Gun Grabber

Feds want gays bumped from federal juries

Our government masters also hate jurors who can think on their own for the same reason. They would prefer zombie jurors who rubber stamp whatever the prosecutor says.

And in this article it sounds like our government masters also hate the idea of gay folks on juries because they might not agree with the government's religious war against gay folks.

I suspect the government would also love to prohibit people who think that drugs should be legalized. Again for the same reason. Those folks tend to think the government's war on drugs is unjust, unfair, racist, selectively enforced and unconstitutional.

Source

Court to decide whether gays can be bumped from federal juries

By Maura Dolan

September 18, 2013, 8:25 a.m.

SAN FRANCISCO -- An appeals court will consider Wednesday whether gays and lesbians may be struck from federal jury pools because of their sexual orientation.

The issue before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal arose in an antitrust dispute two years ago between two drug makers, Abbott Laboratories and SmithKlineBeecham.

An attorney for Abbott used a peremptory challenge to bump a man who had spoken of his “partner.” Peremptory challenges do not require an explanation.

SmithKline objected to the strike, charging that Abbott did not want gays on a jury that was deciding whether the company improperly raised the price an HIV drug. An Abbott attorney denied removing the man because of his perceived sexual orientation. The trial judge permitted the removal.

The jury rejected most of SmithKline’s claims and decided that Abbott should pay only $3.5 million, a fraction of the damages SmithKline had sought. SmithKline has asked the 9th Circuit to overturn the verdict and grant a new trial based on the removal of the gay panelist.

The Supreme Court has barred the removal of prospective jurors because of their race or gender, but has never extended the prohibition to sexual orientation. Thirteen civil rights groups, citing rulings in gay marriage cases, have urged the 9th Circuit to bar juror strikes based on sexual orientation.

Three liberal 9th Circuit judges — Stephen Reinhardt, Marsha Berzon and Mary Schroeder — will decide the issue. They asked the lawyers to address the effect of the Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act. That ruling required the federal government to give same-sex married couples the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

The outcome of the 9th Circuit case will only affect federal juries. California has long prohibited litigants in state court from striking panelists on the basis of sexual orientation.

Dilbert busted by Homeland Security????

The DEA, CIA, FBI and NSA were reading my email

Of course I was paranoid and wonder was someone else really reading my email.

Of course my first guess was that it was one of my enemies like David Dorn.

And of course the second guess was that it was the government.

Of course now after Edward Snowden released his information that the government was spying on it that I realized that the government probably was involved with illegally reading my emails several times.

I also wondered why on Earth government would waste their time cracking my passwords.

Well again from the recently released information about government spying it turns out that the government wasn't cracking my passwords.

The NSA was simply twisting the arms of Google and Yahoo and getting them to give the government the passwords and email addresses of people the government considers to be criminals like me.

Of course the government's definition of a criminal seems to be any body that "thinks they have Constitutional rights" or anybody that expects the government to obey it's own laws.

And I guess by those definitions I am a criminal because I do think I have "Constitutional Rights" and I do expect the government to obey it's laws.

Of course I an not a criminal by the standards most normal people think of criminals being.

I don't steal stuff. I don't vandalize stuff. I don't destroy property.

Collection of 'suspicious activity' reports is challenged

Surveillance: Civil rights groups seek end to collection of government reports on 'suspicious activity' by Americans

By Thomas Peele and Josh Richman

Posted: 09/19/2013 06:47:05 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO -- Be careful if you're heading out to buy a lot of bottled water or photograph a California landmark. The government is watching, and it may put details about what you're doing into a giant antiterrorism database, especially if you appear to be Arab or Muslim.

More than 1,800 "suspicious activity reports" collected by law enforcement officers and shared with federal agencies through clearinghouses called "fusion centers" that were released Thursday showed for the first time in California that activities like photographing buildings, flying the U.S. flag upside down, or even just giving the cold shoulder to a neighbor may result in the firm rap of FBI agents on your door and demands that you explain yourself.

This is especially true for Arabs, Muslims and people of South Asian descent, who are more often the subject of the secret reports, the value of which are dubious and have never been shown to have resulted in a terrorism-related arrest, members of civil rights groups said Thursday.

The government "should not be putting us in databases as potential terrorists when we have nothing to hide and haven't done anything wrong," said Linda Lye, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "This is wrong and it needs to stop."

A computer analysis by this newspaper of the documents released Thursday showed that about half of the suspicious activity reports resulted in the FBI interviewing the people named in them about their activities.

A U.S. Justice Department spokesman said Thursday the agency would not comment on the release of the reports.

In a letter sent Thursday to Attorney General Eric Holder, the ACLU called for immediate reforms to the post-Sept.11 national "Suspicious Activities Reporting Program," in which activities such as "photography, videography and note taking" are considered "inherently suspicious" and recorded.

The reports, obtained under state Public Records Act and federal Freedom of Information Act requests, came from the so-called fusion centers in central and Southern California. Similar requests to the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, based in San Francisco, were denied, Lye said.

Mike Sena, the Northern California fusion center's director and president of the National Fusion Center Association, said the Suspicious Activity Report initiative is merely a more organized way of organizing and vetting the sort of tips and leads people have been passing along for years.

Sena said his center -- one of 72 across the country -- won't release its data because it could compromise criminal investigations or investigative practices. But he said his center, like all the fusion centers, has a formal privacy policy. In addition, Sena said, he also has a full-time privacy officer.

"We take it very seriously," Sena said. "Our role is protecting public safety, but also protecting privacy, civil rights and civil liberties."

Of about 800 such tips and leads his fusion center receives per year, only about 100 meet the standards for being passed along to the FBI and the area's Joint Terrorism Task Force, Sena said.

He added that others deemed unrelated to terrorism but perhaps related to local crimes are referred to local police. Those that aren't referred are retained for one year, he said, but anything that meets the standard of being criminal intelligence can be kept for up to five years.

A report earlier this year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office ripped the Suspicious Activities Reporting Program, saying that average Americans going about their everyday lives were getting swept up in the program and that their names were being retained in databases.

A bipartisan report issued in October 2012 by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs' Investigations Subcommittee suggested that the fusion centers sometimes forward intelligence of uneven quality -- "oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not, unrelated to terrorism."

The reports the ACLU released Thursday from Southern and central California included details like these:

"Suspicious ME (Middle Eastern) males buying several large pallets of water."

"Female subject taking photos of the Folsom Post Office."

A police officer in the city of Elk Grove "reported on a suspicious individual in his neighborhood" who was a doctor of Middle Eastern ancestry. The officer thought the doctor might be a terrorist because he was "very unfriendly."

"Suspicious photocopy of Folsom Dam by Chinese Nationals."

A man "nonchalantly taking photos" inside a Los Angeles subway car.

A university art professor from San Diego taking photos in an industrial area.

Someone writing anti-government slogans on the wall of a room at UC Davis.

A "noticeable increase" of female Muslims wearing veils and burqas at a shopping mall.

Someone taking photos of the Al Zampa Bridge over the Carquinez Strait between Contra Costa and Solano counties.

A trucker flying the American flag upside down on a big rig.

Four "clean-cut Middle Eastern males speaking excitedly in a foreign language."

"They still think that it is legitimate and constitutional to treat someone as a possible terrorist because of their race" or skin color, said Yaman Salahi, a lawyer with the Asian Law Caucus.

Although suspicious activity reports for the Bay Area were not obtained, he said he routinely hears from Muslims and Asians across the region reporting that they had been questioned by FBI agents.

Hal Bergman, a 29-year-old freelance photographer from Los Angeles, said that he was taking stock photos from a public street of an oil refinery at the port of Los Angeles two years ago when a security guard approached him. After a brief conversation, Bergman continued his work.

Two weeks later, there was a pounding on his door. Two FBI agents, he said, were carrying a stack of documents, a photocopy of his driver's license and were demanding to know what he was doing at the port, who he worked for and why anyone would want a photo of a refinery. The security guard had filed a suspicious activity report.

"It is a permanent record," he said of the inclusion of his name in the fusion center databases. "Who has access to this? Am I going to have a problem flying or getting across the border?

Staff writer Daniel J. Willis contributed to this report. Contact Thomas Peele at tpeele@bayareanewsgroup.com and follow him twitter.com/thomas_peele.

Source

ACLU says domestic spying goes too far

Associated Press Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:24 AM

SAN FRANCISCO — Two men of Middle Eastern descent were reported buying pallets of water at a grocery store. A police sergeant reported concern about a doctor “who is very unfriendly.” And photographers of all races and nationalities have been reported taking snapshots of post offices, bridges, dams and other structures.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several other groups released 1,800 “suspicious activity reports” Thursday, saying they show the inner-workings of a domestic surveillance program that is sweeping up innocent Americans and forever placing their names in a counterterrorism database.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the federal government created a multibillion-dollar information-sharing program meant to put local, state and federal officials together to analyze intelligence at sites called fusion centers.

Instead, according to a Senate report the Government Accountability Office and now the ACLU, the program has duplicated the work of other agencies, has appeared rudderless and hasn’t directly been responsible for any terror-related prosecutions. According to the GAO, the government maintains 77 fusion centers throughout the country and their operations are funded by federal and local sources.

The ACLU obtained about 1,700 suspicious activity reports filed with the Sacramento office through a California Public Record Acts request. Another 100 were submitted as part of a court case in Los Angeles filed by the ACLU on behalf of photographers who say they are being harassed by Southern California law officials.

The documents do not appear to show valuable counterterrorism intelligence.

A report from Bakersfield, phoned in to a police officer by a “close personal friend,” describes two men who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent stocking up on water.

Another report shows a Lodi police sergeant “reporting on a suspicious individual in his neighborhood.” The sergeant, whose name was redacted, said he “has been long concerned about a residence in his neighborhood occupied by a Middle Eastern male adult physician who is very unfriendly.”

A third report states, “An off-duty supervising dispatcher with Sacramento P.D. noticed a female subject taking pictures of the outside of the post office in Folsom on Riley Street this morning. The female departed as a passenger in a silver Mazda.”

The fusion center project was a target of a blistering Congressional report last year complaining that too many innocent Americans engaging in routine and harmless behavior have become ensnared in the program.

The ACLU and others are calling on the Obama administration to make overhauls so that only activities with legitimate links to terrorism investigations are reported.

“We want the administration to stop targeting racial and religious minorities,” ACLU lawyer Linda Lye said.

A Senate report last year concluded that the program has improperly collected information and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism. The report suggested the program’s intent ballooned far beyond anyone’s ability to control.

What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found.

The lengthy, bipartisan report was a scathing evaluation of what the Department of Homeland Security has held up as a crown jewel of its security efforts.

A Homeland Security spokesman countered that the program is “safe and effective.”

“In recent years, reporting of suspicious activity by the public has led to the arrest of multiple individuals planning mass casualty attacks,” Peter Boogaard said. “These programs are governed by robust privacy and civil rights and civil liberty protections.”

Homeland Security Department spokesman Matthew Chandler at the time the Senate report was released called it “out of date, inaccurate and misleading.”

He said it focused entirely on information being produced by fusion centers and didn’t consider the benefit to involved officials from receiving intelligence from the federal government.

Brazilian president, at United Nations, blasts spying by Washington

Brazilian president, at United Nations, blasts spying by Washington

By Carol J. Williams and Vincent Bevins

September 24, 2013, 7:59 a.m.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff used her lead-off speech at the annual United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to blast the United States for operating a worldwide spying network that she said violates the sovereignty of other countries and the civil liberties of their citizens.

Rousseff had already signaled her nation's outrage over reports of National Security Agency data interceptions in Brazil by canceling a summit and state dinner with President Obama that had been set for late October.

"What we have before us is a serious case of violation of human rights and civil liberties," Rousseff told the assembly immediately after opening pleasantries.

She described arguments that the technological surveillance of individuals, businesses and diplomatic missions is necessary in the global fight against terrorism as "untenable" and an affront to the sovereignty of nations.

"Brazil can protect itself," Rousseff declared. "Brazil doesn’t provide shelter to terrorist groups."

Rousseff never mentioned Obama or the NSA by name but said her nation's dismay over "this case of disrespect" had been communicated to Washington, along with its insistence that Brazil "cannot possibly allow recurring and illegal actions to go on as if normal practice."

Since July, Brazilian news organization Globo has published three reports based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, which alleged that the United States had spied on Brazilian citizens, Rousseff herself, as well as important state-run oil company, Petrobras.

Rousseff has strongly denounced the alleged eavesdropping and asked Obama for a public apology and concrete actions to curb it. The decision to cancel the Washington trip, a rare diplomatic snub of the United States, was well received in many parts of Brazil, especially in the base of her left-of-center Workers Party, many of whose members have memories of a U.S.-backed military dictatorship that spied on dissidents.

Previous articles on Edward Snowden NSA Freedom Fighter!!!

More articles on Edward Snowden NSA Freedom Fighter!!!