Thursday, July 04, 2019
Right-Wing Extremism in Law Enforcement, Part I
Monday, April 15, 2013
Initial Thoughts on Boston
A few things that the investigators are almost certainly working on:
- April 15: Tax Day, hated by many far-right-wing anti-government extremists
- Patriot's Day: another potential "inspiration" if this were, in fact, a right-wing "Patriot" whackjob
- Boston: where the Tea Partiers got their inspiration, from the "patriots" who took part in the Boston Tea Party
- Massachusettes has fairly tough gun registration laws
- The race was dedicated to the victims of the Newtown shootings, which instigated nation-wide calls for effective gun control
- Massachusettes has a black governor
- The US has a black President
I also noticed that during the second, prime-time special on NBC, anchor Bryan Williams said, "For all the wrong reasons, we've been fighting two wars for the past ten years," referring to the fact that many returning combat medics have seen these horrific injuries before.
My personal bet is some far-right-wing whacko like Eric Rudolph, Jared Loughner, McVeigh... One of those losers.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Obviously, the easiest way for the Cheneyites to retain power would be to have some sort of terror attack which would -- at least in their minds -- justify the imposition of martial law.
In discussing this with some friends, one pointed out that even Cheney and bush wouldn't have the gall to try such a move. Then, I found this video from C-Span:
"...There would be martial law in America if we voted no..." (Money quote starts at 00:25)
Now granted, Congressman Sherman was discussing the ramifications of the bailout bill, but this shows that the idea of imposing martial law is starting to percolate through the administration.
This is a terrifying thought.
My friend also said that even if they try martial law, the government wouldn't allow it. I fear that is wishful thinking. Congress hasn't stood up against this administration since Day One, not against the Patriot Act, the suspension of habeus corpus, Gitmo or any of the other schemes Cheney and bush have come up with. The legal system wouldn't be of much use either, since Cheney and bush have ensured that only loyal bushies are installed as US Attorneys... and they're the ones who would have to act (assuming that Congress is effectively neutralized, as I fear it is).
She also claimed that during the final days of Nixon's implosion, military and law enforcement units were placed on alert, just in case Tricky Dick tried to impose martial law to remain in power; she said the same thing would happen now. I'm not so sure. In the first place, Nixon's downfall took place at the tail end of Vietnam, by which time the military had lost all confidence in their Commander in Chief; I'm not sure that applies now. This time, one could argue that the military supports the administration's "efforts" to root out terrorists. Furthermore, Cheney and bush have been pretty damned effective in purging the military of "disloyal" commanders.
And let us not forget that after 9-11, Federal law enforcement, with the exception of the FBI, was concentrated in the Department of Homeland Security. I've written many times about DHS, often comparing the agency to the gone-but-not-forgotten KGB, the "sword and shield" of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. DHS is completely under the thumb of the administration, and Michael "Skeletor" Chertoff doesn't strike me as the kind who would move against his superiors, especially not to defend a "goddamned piece of paper." I say it is entirely possible that any attempt to protest an imposition of martial law would be met by heavily armed DHS storm troopers fanatically loyal to Cheney and bush. The FBI would be equally useless, for under this administration, they have been given powers that they have only dreamed of, much more power than they held even under Hoover's heyday. Besides, the United States Secret Service -- formerly part of the Treasury Dept, and now, of course, an entity of DHS -- is the most professional, most competent executive protection organization on the face of the earth, and like the rest of DHS, would probably be loyal to the current regime.
Cheney and bush would have no problem inventing a disaster: another attack, "warnings" of an "impending" attack (and we've seen how often those crop up when the administration's in trouble), or even using the current economic meltdown. Cheney and bush would use bush's claim of "unitary executive power" and Cheney's position as "part of the legislative branch" to squelch any opposition.
Okay, maybe I'm paranoid, but -- as Henry Kissinger said, "Even a paranoid can have enemies."
It will be interesting to see if the United States of America still exists as a free nation on January 21, 2009.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Schticks of One, Half a Dozen of the Other
According to AP…
A motorist who paid a speeding ticket he got from a state trooper who used out-of-state license plates on his unmarked patrol car wants his money back “What gives police the right to drive illegally on the highway?” said Dave Milbrandt, a company finance manager. “Do they have a special exemption?”
It appears Washington State Patrol Trooper Bradford A. Moon was driving an unmarked Dodge Charger with Oregon plates. Moon had removed the plates from a personal vehicle (presumably his, although the article didn’t specify it) after he moved to Washington from Oregon.
Now, when I was a cop, using license plates on a vehicle other than that for which they were issued was called “Misuse of Marker Plates.” In Connecticut, that was an arrest, rather than a ticket. Also, the plates were to be seized, and the car was to be towed. In addition, the car was considered to be (a) unregistered, and (b) uninsured. Operating an unregistered vehicle was a ticket, operating uninsured was another arrest offense. Generally, the penalties were fines: $250 for misuse of plates, $250 for operating uninsured, $50 for operating unregistered, and a one-year drivers license suspension, plus towing and storage charges. Oh, and you didn’t get your vehicle back until you showed up with valid plates, which meant paying the registration fee and buying insurance. Subsequent violations generally doubled all the fines.
So, if there were any justice in the world, the state of Washington would refund Milbrandt’s money, charge Moon with the appropriate violations, and fire his ass.
National Security Trumps All. Well, Almost All…
The telecommunications companies have justified their participation in NSA’s warrantless wiretapping on the basis of “national security.” And I’m willing to admit that national security is important, although not to the extent of sacrificing our liberties.
Unfortunately, a blogger at CSO Magazine found a little monkey wrench in the works:
Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau’s repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.
A few of the juicy details:
- A wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigation “was halted due to untimely payment,” the audit found. “We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence.” [The blogger, Jeff Bardin, commented, “chain of custody and rules of evidence don’t mean squat if you can’t pay”]
- The ACLU also took a swipe at the telecommunications companies: “It seems the telecoms, who are claiming that they were just being ‘good patriots’ when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind in its bills,” and “To put it bluntly, it sounds as though the telecoms believe it when FBI says the warrant is in the mail but not when they say the check is in the mail.” [Bardin has another pointed comment: “We’ll violate laws as long as you pay for us to violate them.”]
Now remind me again why the telecoms are saying they should be granted retroactive immunity for engaging in national security investigations?
No More Good Hands in Florida…
This just in from Business Insurance Magazine:
Florida’s insurance commissioner said on Wednesday that he had suspended Allstate from writing auto insurance policies in the state because it had not complied with a subpoena to testify about its property insurance business.
State officials called off the hearing… when the company officials refused to answer questions and to provide specific documents.
We all know bush, Cheney and their sycophantic thugs are doing everything they can to turn the United States into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate Thieves R Us, so I’m thrilled that Florida (now that Jebbie is gone, thank God) is telling Allstate to stuff their good hands.
Some Future Date in Fire History…
Via the Washington Post, we learn that the brand-spanking new Baghdad embassy is a fire trap:
The firefighting system in the massive $736 million embassy complex in Baghdad has potential safety problems that top U.S. officials dismissed in their rush to declare “mission accomplished”, err... construction largely completed….
“[No] one has ever inspected the electrical system, the power plant” and other parts of the embassy complex….
The Justice Department, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton, is investigating.
For all the good that will do…
The fire system was installed by First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting (probably a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton). The pipes burst during a routine test. The State Department, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton, turned to “an outside consulting firm,” which although unidentified, is almost certainly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton.
The Justice Department “probe” is said to focus on James L. Golden, a contract employee (probably from Halliburton or one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries) and Mary M. French, the project coordinator based in Baghdad.
Once again, corporate profits come ahead of life safety.
Republicans: The Party of Honesty. Aw, BULLSH*T…
Those friggin’ Republicans – the ones who claimed to have restored “dignity” to the White House and the rest of the government – just cannot resist being sleazy and pulling sleazy tricks, no matter how unnecessary:
A mailer from a congressional candidate’s campaign contains a photo of his head attached to an image of a different body that makes him look thinner.
The photo is presented as a true image of Dean Hrbacek, a Republican former mayor of Sugar Land.
Campaign manager Scott Broschart acknowledged to The Houston Chronicle that the
image is a fake.
Is there anything about which a Republican would be truthful?
To borrow Great Orange Satanist Bill in Portland, Maine’s one-word answer…
NO.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
New "Terror Warning"
Coincidentally, this warning was released just as we head into a holiday shopping season... a season with the busheviks at incredibly low popularity ratings, and a season where bush's economic miracles -- gas and energy prices -- mean families will have less to spend on things like gifts. It's also the last shopping season before the campaigns get up to full speed. As a result, the mouth-breathin', Bible'thumpin', hooker-humpin', sister-marryin', rifle-rack-in-the-pickmup neocon wingnut idjits have to terrify us now so they can continue their efforts to gut everything the US stands for.
This is yet another attempt by the bush junta to distract attention form the administration's illegal actions. I guess LordGodKing Dick'n'George figure if we panic over swarthy A-rabs in the malls, we're less likely to worry about how they are raping the Constitution.
The warning reads:
December 2007 Al-Qa’ida Plan to Target US Shopping Malls in Chicago, Illinois and Los Angeles, California.
As of August 2007, al-Qa’ida planned to strike US shopping malls in Chicago, Illinois and Los Angeles, California during the 2007 Christmas season. Al-Qa’ida hoped to disrupt the US economy and had been planning the attack for the past two years.
FBI Comment: This information was obtained through a lengthy chain of acquisition, and was provided to the source by a sub-source who spoke in confidence. The veracity of the information is uncertain but the threat is being reported due to the nature of the information.
At least this time, the Feds are saying they cannot attest to the veracity of the information. Had the warning come from the Ministry of Homeland Security, of course, it would have been much more alarmist.
This is jusy the first of many warnings, I'm sure. As we get closer to the election, especially if the rethuglicans can't drag their ratings up a bit, we'll see more and more announcements of impending doom, accompanied by the usual bullshit that voting Democratic will allow the "terrists" to win.
Monday, January 15, 2007
On-Line Extortion E-Mail Scam
ONLINE EXTORTION E-Mail Scam Includes Hit-Man Threat
01/15/07
The scam e-mail, which first appeared in December, threatens to kill recipients if they do not pay the sender. It's a scam. FBI officials recommend you don't reply.
A new scam cropping up in e-mail boxes across the country is preying not on recipients’ greed or good intentions, but on their fears. The scam e-mail, which first appeared in December, threatens to kill recipients if they do not pay thousands of dollars to the sender, who purports to be a hired assassin.
About 115 complaints have been filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) since the scam emerged, according to special agent John Hambrick, who heads IC3. He said the extortion scam does not appear to target anyone specifically and that IC3 has not received any reports of money loss or threats carried out.
“This is a hoax, so do yourself a favor and don’t respond,” Hambrick said.
Replying to the e-mails just sends a signal to senders that they’ve reached a live account. It also escalates the intimidation, Hambrick said.
In one case, a recipient responded that he wanted to be left alone and threatened to call authorities. The scammer, who was demanding an advance payment of $20,000, e-mailed back and reiterated the threat, this time with some personal details about the recipient—his work address, marital status, and daughter’s full name. Then an ultimatum:
“TELL ME NOW ARE YOU READY TO DO WHAT I SAID OR DO YOU WANT ME TO PROCEED WITH MY JOB? ANSWER YES/NO AND DON’T ASK ANY QUESTIONS!!!”
Bill Shore, a special agent who supervises the computer crime squad in the FBI’s Pittsburgh field office, said recipients should not be overly spooked when scammers incorporate their intended victims’ personal details in their schemes.
“Personal information is widely available,” he said. “Even if a person does not use the Internet or own a computer, they could still be the victim of a computer crime such as identity theft.”
The extortion scam is a less subtle variation of some other e-mail scams designed to trick recipients into turning over money or personal information. Nigerian Letter schemes, in which recipients are offered the "opportunity" to share in a percentage of millions of dollars if they would first front some of their own money, are among the most prolific, along with phishing scams where recipients are asked in unsolicited e-mails to “update” their personal information.
The new extortion e-mails vary in style and content and generally contain misspellings and some broken English. But the underlying message appears to be the same: pay the sender or risk the alternative. A scam e-mail in December said as much:
“I have followed you closely for one week and three days now … Do not contact the police or F.B.I. or try to send a copy of this to them, because if you do I will know, and might be pushed to do what I have being (sic) paid to do.”
IC3 recently noted a new twist in the scam. Now e-mails are surfacing that claim to be from the FBI in London and inform recipients that an arrest was made in the case. The e-mail says the recipient’s information was found on the suspect and that they should reply to help further the investigation. This, too, is a scam.
The scams, agent Shore said, “are an opportunity to raise awareness about Internet fraud.” The best defense is to protect your personal information as best you can and to delete—unopened—unsolicited SPAM e-mail.
For more information on scams, visit our Common Fraud Schemes page. IC3 also has information on Internet crime schemes and prevention tips.
To report Internet crime, contact IC3 or your local FBI field office.