TresSugar

Michelle Visits Homeland Security, Which Has Its Eye on Right-Wing Radicals

CitizenSugar — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:00:33 -0700

First Lady Michelle Obama made a stop at the Department of Homeland Security today to thank federal workers there for all the hard work.

So what have Secretary Janet Napolitano and DHS been up to these days? Well, the Department just warned law enforcement officials about a rise in "right-wing extremist activity." The recession, the election of a black president, and the return of disgruntled war veterans could cause a rise in influence for white-power militias.

The DHS report explains it's not just about race: "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Hmm . . . what about opposition to taxes? One neo-Nazi message board claims that the tea party movement is the "white revolution we've been waiting for," since (according to them) it's the whites who are taxed to support worthless social programs.

Let's hope Homeland Security protects Americans from radical criminals, while peaceful protectors are allowed to exercise their rights!

View 5 Photos ›

Source

Two Out of Three Americans Living in Constitution-Free Zone

CitizenSugar — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:00:50 -0700

Welcome to the border - where anyone can be stopped and searched. It used to be just the point of entry along Canada and Mexico, but Homeland Security has taken an increasingly loose - or wide - interpretation of it. Now? It's a 100-mile radius that wraps around the border of the United States.

Oh yes. It’s called the Constitution-Free Zone by the ACLU. The concern is that it erodes the rights of the Fourth Amendment - the one that protects against unreasonable searches and seizes - for two-thirds of Americans. That's 197.4 million people, and pretty much all of New England.

Authority that the Constitution would have prohibited can now be exercised by the US Customs and Border Protection. It’s been setting up inland checkpoints where it typically questions citizenship; however, people have reported extended questioning and increased pressure to permit searches.

Many are calling for congress to investigate and pass new laws to protect Americans before things go too far. Do you fear it will? Or are you glad to see a protective barrier ringing the country regardless?

Clothes Call? Woman Kicked Out For Lesbian T-Shirt

CitizenSugar — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:10 -0700

Normally a woman entering a federal building to pick up a social security card for her son wouldn't end up in controversy. Unfortunately for Lapriss Gilbert, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, wearing the wrong t-shirt. When she arrived at the government complex sporting a t-shirt with the words “lesbian.com” on the front, a private security officer hired by the Homeland Security Department stopped her and demanded she leave the premises.

The guard, an employee of Paragon Security, cited The Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property to support his claim that he is able to decide which articles of clothing are acceptable and which are not. Unfortunately, the document does not offer such guidance.

According to a witness, the hired guard’s “loud, unreasonable, aggressive and angry approach to the situation almost caused chaos.” Gilbert says of the incident, "As an African-American and a lesbian, I haven't been through one day without facing some sort of discrimination . . . but this is just shocking." The ACLU is looking into the case they call the most blatant discrimination they've seen in a federal office building.

Heightened Terror Alert Coming to an America Near You

LibertySugar — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:00:07 -0700

The Department of Homeland Security is getting ready to declare August 2008 through July 2009 a "Period of Heightened Alert" - that is, a timeframe in which terrorists would have a greater incentive to attack. Concerns about high profile events like the Olympics, the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and the transition out of the Bush Administration have prompted the change, which requires Homeland Security to redouble its efforts to study terrorism leads, according to ABC News.

US officials are keeping the color level at yellow instead of orange, because they don't want to be accused of interfering with the presidential campaign, a concession which suggests awareness that raising fears of terrorism can serve political ends.

Some critics joke that the heightened alert is in response to Republican efforts to maintain hold on presidency. (Remember when John McCain's adviser said an attack would help his candidate?) What do you think? Couldn't antiterrorism workers do their jobs of protecting potential target events without blanketing the whole country with a scary term like "Heightened Alert" for an entire year; or is this just the way to keep the whole country watchful?

Source

Doctors List Who Should Die in a Pandemic

LibertySugar — Tue, 06 May 2008 10:00:37 -0700

If a global and deadly pandemic hits, doctors will have to chose who to save, and thus, who to let die. Prominent doctors have now put out a definitive list of who is in and who is out.

They made the list at the behest of prominent universities and military and US governmental agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. The list specifically articulates who should not get medical attention in a widespread emergency.

People older than 85.
Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
Severely burned patients older than 60.
Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.
Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.

Do you make the cut? Are you happy to see governmental agencies and physicians getting organized, since preparation could save more lives? Even so, does this godlike list - of who should live and who should die - make you uncomfortable? Does it amount to unfair discrimination?
Source

War of the Words - Don't Call It Jihad Anymore!

CitizenSugar — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:30:50 -0700

The war on terror just got a new front: the dictionary. This week, the language officials from the State Department and the Department of Homelands Security use to describe the war is set to get a makeover.

Out: Jihadists; Mujahdeen; Islamo-fascism. In: Violent extremist; Terrorist

Some crack linguists realized that some words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by admitting religious credibility or by offending moderates.

To see a sample from the memo, which is way more interesting than its title, Words That Work and Words That Don't: A Guide For Counterterrorism Communication, read more.

Regarding "jihad," even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damages relations with Muslims around the world.

A HSA version called, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims says that the US may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims."

Words are absolutely a potent tool - just consider the dubbing of "prochoice" and "prolife." Who's against either choice or life? But used in context they imbue the adherents of each with a certain credibility. Is it right to eliminate words like jihad because they could have positive connotations for some? Do we need to be careful not to give bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders legitimacy by characterizing them as religious figures? Should the war on terror become a war of words?

Source

Two Tales of "Good Enough For Government Work"

CitizenSugar — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:00:05 -0700

Well, the US government might be taking that old chestnut a tad too literally today. Check out these two blunders of bureaucratic proportions.

Over at the Department of Homeland Security, the top immigration enforcement official ordered the destruction of photographs of an office Halloween party. The pictures showed a white agency employee dressed as a black detainee. The staff member who won the “most original costume” prize wore a dreadlock wig, what looked like a prison jumpsuit and black face paint. The employee said, “I’m a Jamaican detainee from Krome - obviously, I’ve escaped,” referring to a detention center in Miami.

Julie L. Myers, the assistant secretary of Homeland Security For Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ordered that the photos be removed from a digital camera in a “coordinated effort to conceal” her role in awarding one of the top costume prizes to the employee.

Want to see who's spending government money on Internet dating services? read more.

An audit by the Government Accountability Office released by Senate lawmakers yesterday found that nearly half the "purchase card" transactions it examined were improper, either because they were not authorized correctly or because they did not meet requirements allowing the bucks to be spent.

Federal employees forked over government credit cards to pay for lingerie, gambling, iPods, Internet dating services, and a $13,000 steak-and-liquor dinner. The GAO also found that agencies could not account for nearly $2 million worth of items identified in the audit - including laptop computers, digital cameras, and, at the Army, more than a dozen computer servers worth $100,000 each.

Well, shoot. Those certainly aren't the most flattering government stories I've heard today. Are you going to call them up and ask for the iPod your tax money purchased? How do you think these stories of government corruption stack up against those around the world?

Source

Border Fence Going Forward, Bypassing Regulations

CitizenSugar — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:00:25 -0700

Government regulations don't always apply to the government. The US government has waived environmental and other regulations that stood as a barrier to the completion of nearly 500 miles of a planned barrier fence along the border with Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff slammed the gate on delays the regulations presented to the controversial barrier project.

Chertoff issued the waivers for stretches of land in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Emphasizing the importance of the project, he said, "criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation, Congress and the American public have been adamant that they want and expect border security. We're serious about delivering it."

Why is it endless debate or protracted litigation when it's a project the government wants? Could we be doing harm by ignoring potential environmental impacts? Or is overlooking the regulations the responsible action in the face of insecure borders? Are you pro-fence?

Source

304,000 US Prisoners Eligible For Deportation

LibertySugar — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:00:09 -0700

304,000 criminals sitting in US jails are eligible for deportation. The problem? It will cost $2 billion a year to find them and deport them. Immigrant convicts, whether legal or illegal, must serve out their sentences in the US before they are deported.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to find a way to streamline the process. By connecting the FBI's records with antiterrorism and immigration records of the Homeland Security Department, it believes that state, county, and federal prisons will have an easier time identifying and deporting immigrants convicted of the most serious crimes. Immigration lawyers worry that untrained law enforcement officers may get a little deportation happy and focus on immigrants who committed minor violations that do not warrant deportation. Why is it so complicated? To find out, read more.

An elaborate maze of bureaucracies makes it easy for dangerous individuals to remain in the US. Think of all the parties involved: counties, states, the FBI, Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the municipal, state, and federal courts. Having too many departments may actually hinder them from carrying out their purpose!

According to these figures, it costs about $7,000 for each criminal deportation. Plus think of the cost of making sure they serve the punishments before sending them back. Do you think this is money well spent? Is it important to you to make sure dangerous illegal immigrants are sent packing?

Source

More Biometrics? Should Your Fingerprint Be Your ID?

CitizenSugar — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:00:10 -0700

If you're a foreign traveler heading into JFK airport, be ready to have all ten digits scanned. As part of a heightened security plan, the Department of Homeland Security just announced an upgrade from a two-finger scan to ten. Officials say,

"Biometrics have revolutionized our ability to prevent dangerous people from entering the United States since 2004. Our upgrade to 10-fingerprint collection builds on our success, enabling us to focus more attention on stopping potential security risks."

It's not just in the name of safety, however. Businesses like Dunkin' Donuts are increasingly using the scan-erators to keep tabs on employee whereabouts. Companies claim they use them to streamline administration, though employees resent the biological intrusion. Ed Ott, executive director of the New York City Central Labor Council of the AFL-CIO says, "They don't even have to hire someone to harass you anymore. The machine can do it for them. The palm print thing really grabs people as a step too far."

Is the use of biometrics too prevalent and James Bond-esque? Do you worry about your civil liberties?

Source