Always strive to learn something useful. --Sophocles

Words fail me at how wrong this is. The basic concept I like: small law enforcement agencies don't have the resources to have a computer crime unit, a SWAT team, etc., so they pool funds so they can participate in a regional organization that gives them access to resources that they couldn't otherwise afford. I have no problem with that. But now these regional groups have been incorporated as 501(C)(3)'s and claim that as private corporations, they're immune to public records requests.

Even though they're funded by publicly-funded organizations. Even though they carry badges and guns, and the badges are backed by the state government.

The ACLU has been doing a series of investigations in to the militarization of law enforcement, and state chapters have been doing lots of FOIA requests to find out what they're doing with the hardware that they're buying from Homeland Security grants. And they're doing shit like this.

They can kick in your door in the middle of the night. They can throw flashbang grenades around and burn down an apartment complex, or burn a hole in an infant's chest. They can mistakenly or clumsily kill innocent people.

Aren't there laws about government forming private corporations? Shouldn't anyone in that state be able to form a private corporation to provide a for-hire SWAT team? If they are a private corporation, they should have no shields against law suits when they botch a raid, which happens with alarming frequency. The stories mentioned in this article are nothing less than horrific.

I'm SO GLAD that I don't live in Massachusetts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/?tid=pm_pop

and they're now available online.

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-documents-search

David House met (then) Bradley Manning and helped set up financing for his legal defense and also visited him in prison, reporting on the harsh conditions of his jail time. The Feds waited for him to leave the country, in this case going to Mexico for a vacation with his girlfriend, then when he returned in November 2010 and went through Customs at O'Hare they seized all his electronics and subjected him to an extended secondary interrogation.

Since entering the country places you in a Constitution-free zone, the Feds were free to search everything without a warrant.

They kept his electronics for 49 days, almost double the legal max of 30 days, and only released them when the ACLU sent a letter.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/manning-friend-database-stalked/

NY ACLU released one about a month earlier. The important thing about this app is that it directly streams the video to the ACLU's servers, so even if a cop takes your phone and removes the SIM, the video has already been captured.

There have been apps along this line available for a while, but this one doesn't look like your phone is recording something. So theoretically you might be able to record longer.

Going a little further than the NY press release,the NJ ACLU has said that if you record a police incident outside of NJ, they will forward the video to the appropriate ACLU chapter.

Gee, I wonder how many Occupiers are downloading this app right now? Oh, an iPhone version will be available soon, it's currently undergoing Apple's review.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/monitor-police-app/

This is especially useful because in March, the Department of Justice posted a very public-friendly opinion. "The department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division has affirmed the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of citizens to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties. In an opinion letter issued on May 14, 2012 in regard to the ongoing litigation in Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department, the DOJ stated that the individual right to record officers who are publicly executing their duties is a First Amendment right. Relying on Glik v. Cunniffe, the DOJ letter states “Recording governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech through which private individuals may gather and disseminate information of public concern, including the conduct of law enforcement officers.” (DOJ letter, page 2.)"

http://www.avinalaw.com/2012/05/our-first-amendment-right-to-record.html

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself. (emphasis mine)

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor. (emphasis mine)

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

Learn more about detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

McCain really needs to retire. One would hope that Obama would veto this, but I don't bet on anything anymore.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

I really love the article title: Too Scary To Fly, Not Scary Enough To Arrest. "Ten U.S citizens and residents, three of whom are veterans, are stuck abroad or cannot fly within or out of the United States because they are wrongly on a no-fly list, according to a federal lawsuit lodged Wednesday. The suit was filed by the ACLU in Oregon. Senator Ted Kennedy was on the additional screening list.

Here's a list of the names:

* Adama Bah, 22-year-old citizen of Guinea was granted refugee status and lives in New York. She is barred from flying from the United States.
* Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, a 49-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and imam of Oregon, is denied flight to Dubai, where his daughter lives.
* Ayman Latif, a 32-year-old U.S. citizen and disabled Marine veteran residing in Egypt, is denied flight from Egypt to the United States for medical evaluation.
* Steven Washburn, a 54-year-old U.S. citizen and Air Force veteran, is denied flight to United States from Britain.
* Raymond Earl Kneable IV, a 29-year-old U.S. Citizen and Army veteran, recently traveled from United States to Colombia to get married and visit relatives. He is barred from returning to California.
* Halime Sat, a 28-year-old German citizen and U.S. resident, is barred from flying from the United States.
* Nagib Ali Ghaleb, a 39-year-old U.S. citizen, is stuck in Yemen where he traveled from California to visit family.
* Samir Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen, is trapped in Yemen where he traveled from California to visit family.
* Abdullatif Muthanna, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen, is stuck in Yemen where he traveled from New York to visit family members.
* Saleh Omar, a 35-year-old lawful U.S. resident, is denied flight to United States from Yemen, where he was visiting relatives.

A disabled Marine Veteran, injured during their service, not allowed to return to the US for medical treatment. The list has no photographs, no fingerprints, just a name. And if your name is on the list....

One of the commentators suggested they change their name to George Bush.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/no-fly/