In the ongoing effort to keep public places clear of intoxicated citizens and drunk drivers, some police agencies are using a controversial tactic – going directly into bars and restaurants in order to make arrests.

Such is the situation in northern Virginia, where Fairfax County Police are targeting patrons suspected of having one too many.

"[Officers] were talking to one of the guests, then physically pulled him off the barstool," Richie Prisco, general manager at Champps bar told the Reston Times.  "They were really aggressive and nasty."

According to the report, police are hauling customers outside of establishments to conduct sobriety tests, then arresting them for public drunkenness should they fail.

Tavern owner Jimmy Cirrito says it was intimidating and unnecessary to have some ten officers show up in SWAT-like attire.  He notes police seemed to be tagging people at random, despite their telling bar owners they had undercover agents inside, calling in to provide specific descriptions of certain individuals.

"They tapped one lady on the shoulder – who was on her first drink and had just eaten dinner – to take her out on the sidewalk and give her a sobriety test," Cirrito told the paper.  "They told her she fit the description of a woman they had complaints about, and that they heard she was dancing topless."

Cirrito said the woman passed the test and was allowed back in, but soon after, police pulled another woman outside who had arrived shortly before officers did.

"They made her count backward, say the alphabet, tell them where she lived, how she got there, how she was getting home," he said.  "She had just gotten there five minutes ago in a cab."

Authorities say such methods are not new, despite protests from bar owners that they've never heard of police coming inside their establishments to enforce drinking laws.

"I've been an officer for over 17 years, and we've been doing it on and off over my entire career,"
police spokeswoman Sophia Grinnan told the Times.  "As much as officers hate to spoil a good time, they hate even more to go out at 2 a.m.  and work a death of anybody that is alcohol-related."

Virginia statutes say any business with a liquor license is considered a public place; therefore, police are allowed free access.  If they find someone over the legal alcohol limit of .08, or suspect a customer of being intoxicated while still being served or present in an establishment, police can issue a ticket for public intoxication.

In response to complaints the raids were overly aggressive, Grinnan said, "I've had bar owners come up to me [and] ask what is going on, but I've also had some approach me aggressively, telling me I couldn't be there and I was violating their constitutional rights.  We love to give explanations of what we're doing because it has an impact, but officers don't have to give up their game plan.  That is just a courtesy."

In the wake of the published report, citizens appear to be siding with the bar owners and patrons, gauging from posts in an online messageboard.

"The way police are handling the drink situation is the biggest B.S.  I have ever heard of," wrote Ray Williams.

"I lost a son (at age 16) a few years ago, and I most certainly support stopping anyone from drinking and driving.  However, this police raid that seems to take place at some local bars is just totally crazy.  ...
Are we now living in a communist environment where we are not allowed to do anything without being harassed by the military/police?"

Russ Heisinger of Northport, N.Y., asked: "What is next, the alcohol police entering your home on Super Bowl Sunday, and inviting you outside to take a breath test?  A solution would be for all the bar and restaurant owners to become 'private clubs,' and charge a very nominal fee for membership.  However, the true solution is for the 'Barney Fifes' there to uphold the part of the Constitution about unlawful search, and to remember that we are after all, a free society, unless the cops think this is Baghdad!"

Others, like Don Armstrong, urged people to reject field sobriety tests, and request a blood-alcohol test at a local hospital.

"I have a form of arthritis that often affects my speech patterns and walking abilities," he wrote.
"Under their standards of an acceptable set of motor functions, I would fail even if I never had an alcoholic drink."

THE WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON, Dec.  1 — The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects — U.S.  citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say.

THE ELEMENTS of this new system are already familiar from President Bush’s orders and his aides’ policy statements and legal briefs: indefinite military detention for those designated “enemy combatants,” liberal use of “material witness” warrants, counterintelligence-style wiretaps and searches led by law enforcement officials and, for noncitizens, trial by military commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.

Only now, however, is it becoming clear how these elements could ultimately interact.
For example, under authority it already has or is asserting in court cases, the administration, with approval of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, could order a clandestine search of a U.S.  citizen’s home and, based on the information gathered, secretly declare the citizen an enemy combatant, to be held indefinitely at a U.S. military base.  Courts would have very limited authority to second-guess the detention, to the extent that they were aware of it.

Administration officials, noting that they have chosen to prosecute suspected Taliban member John Walker Lindh, “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and alleged Sept.  11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in ordinary federal courts, say the parallel system is meant to be used selectively, as a complement to conventional processes, not as a substitute.

But, they say, the parallel system is necessary because terrorism is a form of war as well as a form of crime, and it must not only be punished after incidents occur, but also prevented and disrupted through the gathering of timely intelligence. “I wouldn’t call it an alternative system,” said an administration official who has helped devise the legal response to the terrorist attacks of Sept.  11, 2001.  “But it is different than the criminal procedure system we all know and love.  It’s a separate track for people we catch in the war.” U.S.  CITIZEN ALREADY AFFECTED At least one American has been shifted from the ordinary legal system into the parallel one: alleged al Qaeda “dirty bomb” plotter Jose Padilla, who is being held at a Navy brig, without the right to communicate with a lawyer or anyone else.  U.S.  officials have told the courts that they can detain and interrogate him until the executive branch declares an end to the war against terrorism.

The final outlines of this parallel system will be known only after the courts, including probably the Supreme Court, have settled a variety of issues being litigated.  But the prospect of such a system has triggered a fierce debate.
Advertisement Civil libertarians accuse the Bush administration of an executive-branch power grab that will erode the rights and freedoms that terrorists are trying to destroy — and that were enhanced only recently in response to abuses during the civil rights era, Vietnam and Watergate.

They are trying to embed in law a vast expansion of executive authority with no judicial oversight in the name of national security,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington-based nonprofit group that has challenged the administration approach in court.  “This is more tied to statutory legal authority than J.  Edgar Hoover’s political spying, but that may make it more dangerous.  You could have the law serving as a vehicle for all kinds of abuses.” Administration officials say that they are acting under ample legal authority derived from statutes, court decisions and wartime powers that the president possesses as commander in chief under the Constitution.

When you have a long period of time when you’re not engaged in a war, people tend to forget, or put in back of their minds, the necessity for certain types of government action used when we are in danger, when we are facing eyeball to eyeball a serious threat,” Solicitor General Theodore B.  Olson, who leads the administration’s anti-terrorism legal team in the federal courts, said in an interview.

Broadly speaking, the debate between the administration and its critics is not so much about the methods the government seeks to employ as it is about who should act as a check against potential abuses.

EXECUTIVE DECISIONS Civil libertarians insist that the courts should searchingly review Bush’s actions, so that he is always held accountable to an independent branch of government.  Administration officials, however, imply that the main check on the president’s performance in wartime is political — that if the public perceives his approach to terrorism is excessive or ineffective, it will vote him out of office. ‘I wouldn’t call it an alternative system. But it is different than the criminal procedure system we all know and love.’ Bush administration official “At the end of the day in our constitutional system, someone will have to decide whether that [decision to designate someone an enemy combatant] is a right or just decision,” Olson said.  “Who will finally decide that?  Will it be a judge, or will it be the president of the United States, elected by the people, specifically to perform that function, with the capacity to have the information at his disposal with the assistance of those who work for him?” Probably the most hotly disputed element of the administration’s approach is its contention that the president alone can designate individuals, including U.S.  citizens, as enemy combatants, who can be detained with no access to lawyers or family members unless and until the president determines, in effect, that hostilities between the United States and that individual have ended.

Padilla was held as a material witness for a month after his May 8 arrest in Chicago before he was designated an enemy combatant.  He is one of two U.S.  citizens being held as enemy combatants at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. The other is Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Saudi Taliban fighter who was captured by American troops in Afghanistan and sent to the U.S.  prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until it was discovered that he was born in Louisiana.
Attorneys are challenging their detentions in federal court.  While civil libertarians concede that the executive branch has well-established authority to name and confine members of enemy forces during wartime, they maintain that it is unconstitutional to subject U.S.  citizens to indefinite confinement on little more than the president’s declaration, especially given the inherently open-ended nature of an unconventional war against terrorism.

The notion that the executive branch can decide by itself that an American citizen can be put in a military camp, incommunicado, is frightening,” said Morton H.  Halperin, director of the Washington office of the Open Society Institute.  “They’re entitled to hold him on the grounds that he is in fact at war with the U.S., but there has to be an opportunity for him to contest those facts.” However, the Bush administration, citing two World War II-era cases — the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding a military commission trial for a captured American-citizen Nazi saboteur, and a later federal appeals court decision upholding the imprisonment of an Italian American caught as a member of Italian forces in Europe — says there is ample precedent for what it is doing. ‘They are trying to embed in law a vast expansion of executive authority with no judicial oversight in the name of national security.’ — KATE MARTIN Center for National Security Studies Courts traditionally understand that they must defer to the executive’s greater expertise and capability when it comes to looking at such facts and making such judgments in time of war, Bush officials said.  At most, courts have only the power to review legal claims brought on behalf of detainees, such as whether there is indeed a state of conflict between the United States and the detainee.

In a recent legal brief, Olson argued that the detention of people such as Hamdi or Padilla as enemy combatants is “critical to gathering intelligence in connection with the overall war effort.” Nor is there any requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant, Olson argues.
“There won’t be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this,” Olson said in the interview.  “There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances.” The federal courts have yet to deliver a definitive judgment on the question.  A federal district judge in Virginia, Robert G.  Doumar, was sharply critical of the administration, insisting that Hamdi be permitted to consult an attorney.  But he was partially overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond. The 4th Circuit, however, said the administration’s assertion that courts should have absolutely no role in examining the facts leading to an enemy combatant designation was “sweeping.” A decision from that court is pending as to how much of a role a court could claim, if any.  The matter could well have to be settled in the Supreme Court.

SECRET SURVEILLANCE The administration scored a victory recently when the U.S.  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled 3 to 0 that the USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress shortly after the Sept.  11 terrorist attacks, gives the Justice Department authority to break down what had come to be known as “the wall” separating criminal investigations from investigations of foreign agents.
‘The notion that the executive branch can decide by itself that an American citizen can be put in a military camp, incommunicado, is frightening.’ — MORTON H.  HALPERIN Open Society Institute The ruling endorsed the administration’s view that law enforcement goals should be allowed to drive Justice Department requests for special eavesdropping and search warrants that had been thought to be reserved for counterintelligence operations.  But the court went further, agreeing with the administration that “the wall” itself had no real basis in pre-Patriot Act law.  Instead, the court ruled, “the wall” was a product of internal Justice Department guidelines that were, in turn, based partly on erroneous interpretations of the law by some courts.
There is no clear line between intelligence and crime in any case, the court said, because any investigation of a spy ring could ultimately lead to charging U.S.  citizens with crimes such as espionage.

The decision overruled an earlier one by the lower-level Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in which seven judges sharply criticized past Justice Department misstatements in applications for permission to do secret surveillance.
Administration officials say that the ruling permits what is only sensible — greater sharing of information between federal prosecutors and federal counterintelligence officials.

Thanks to enforcement of “the wall” by FBI lawyers, they note, pre-Sept.  11 permission to search Moussaoui’s computer was not sought, a crucial missed opportunity to prevent the attacks.

In practical terms, the ruling means that the attorney general would still have to convince the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that he has probable cause to believe that a given subject of a wiretap or search is an agent of a foreign terrorist group, a standard that is not dissimilar to the one required for warrants in ordinary criminal cases.
Yet civil libertarians say that targets of such investigations who end up being ordered out of the country or prosecuted would lose a crucial right that they would have in the ordinary criminal justice system — the right to examine the government’s evidence justifying the initial warrant.

“So the government starts off using secret surveillance information not to gather information upon which to make policy, but to imprison or deport an individual, and then it never gives the individual a fair chance to see if the surveillance was lawful,” Martin said.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

A physicians' group is among a growing number of critics imploring the Senate to scrap portions of a proposed homeland security bill they say will seriously undermine civil liberties and grant the federal government unprecedented – and unconstitutional – power.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons said yesterday that one section of the legislation would allow the head of the Health and Human Services department to order Americans to receive potentially deadly smallpox vaccines against their will.

The bill gives "the HHS secretary virtually unlimited powers to declare an emergency and order smallpox treatment that could include forced immunizations, detainment and quarantines," said AAPS.

The 480-page bill passed the House Wednesday night on a 299-121 vote and is currently on the fast track to Senate passage.  But as more details of the bill become known, the number of critics who oppose all or part of it also increase, including members of both parties as well as liberal and conservative analysts.

New York Times columnist William Safire, in an editorial Thursday entitled, "You Are a Suspect,"
attacked the entire measure, claiming a provision in the bill that establishes a broad Defense Department-administered database of information on every American is akin to author George Orwell's book "1984."

"To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you – passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the FBI, your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance – and you have the supersnoop's dream: a 'Total Information Awareness' about every U.S.  citizen,"
Safire wrote.

Called the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program, it would be administered by a totally new department called the Security Advanced Research Projects Agency.

AAPS said the dubious medical emergency language is contained in Section 304, titled, "Administration of Counter Measures Against Smallpox."

The bill gives HHS authority to declare an actual or potential bio-terrorist incident while giving the secretary the power to "administer 'countermeasures'" – like forced immunizations – to "a category of individuals or everyone." Also, the bill gives HHS the power to "continually extend"
the emergency declaration indefinitely, without Congress' consent.

"Also, if you are harmed" by the countermeasures, "you cannot sue or take any other civil remedy,"
AAPS said.

"This section will give the [HHS] secretary unlimited power to define a real or potential threat, to take any measures he decides and to do it for as long as he wants," said Kathryn Serkes, a spokeswoman for the group.  "It's 'Alice in Wonderland' time again – an emergency is just what [the secretary] says it is."

Some lawmakers are also alarmed at the scope of the bill.

The legislation "gives the federal government new powers and increases federal expenditures, completely contradicting what members were told about the bill," said Rep.
Ron Paul, R-Texas, on the House floor before the vote Wednesday.

"Furthermore," he continued, "these new power grabs are being rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to debate, or even properly study, this proposal.

"I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same," he said.

Sen.  Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., also opposes the legislation.

"We're making a huge mistake passing the bill at this time," he said Thursday.  "There has not been a single hearing" on its contents.

Expressing concern about the manner in which the bill was being fast-tracked, Byrd added: "If necessity is the mother of invention, then politics is the mother of bureaucracy."

Other problems with the bill, AAPS says, "include centralized database provisions, airport security, unchecked power to Cabinet officials, extent of the new bureaucracy, concentration of power in the Executive Branch, suspension of the rule that prohibits secret advisory committee meetings, limited public access to information and failure to address border security and immigration issues, such as [the] tracking of foreign students."

Serkes said the provision dealing with HHS reminds her of similar emergency legislation directed at empowering governors.

The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, WorldNetDaily reported in January, gives governors the power to order the collection of all data and records on citizens, ban firearms, take control of private property and quarantine entire cities, under the auspices of protecting "the health and safety of citizens from epidemics and bioterrorism,"
according to one analysis.

The version of the bill either under consideration or adopted by the majority of states thus far was drafted in October 2001, just a month after the Sept.  11 terrorist attacks, by The Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, in collaboration with several other organizations.

"Just remove 'governor' from the old bill and insert 'secretary' and magically you have a federal bill that was firmly rejected by voters across the country," said Serkes.

Of the homeland security measure, Serkes added:
"We need an honest accounting of how this will work.  It's too frightening to allow it to be rammed through."

In response to some of the concerns, Senate Democrats are proposing amendments to the bill that would eliminate the liability protections in the House version for vaccine makers.  The White House says it supports the amendments to an extent.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday there are provisions in the bill that "still allow people the right to compensation or the right to sue if they believe they've been harmed by the use of a particular vaccine." But, he said, the provisions "only require that individuals seeking compensation begin by seeking resolution through the Vaccine Injury and Compensation Program."

"If an individual is not satisfied with the award that is offered through that system, then they always have the right to proceed and sue the manufacturer," he said.  "But, in short, the vaccine manufacturers will still be subject to liability.  We just want to close loopholes, where people can circumvent that process."

Police are sweeping poor, mostly African American neighborhoods, jumping from unmarked vans to stop people caught in infractions like loitering or drinking in public.

They don't charge many of the violators.  Instead, they snap offenders' pictures and collect their personal information for placement in the database.

"They were warned," said Sgt.  Kyle Rogers, a team leader at the site of a recent "jump out" who identified several violators, as well as one person who was arrested on an outstanding police warrant.  "That's the reason why we took their information down and took their photographs."

Since police created the database in June, they have taken more than 600 photos, adding 40 to 50 new ones each week.  The idea is to prevent crime by predicting who might commit it, a concept not far from the premise of the recent movie Minority Report.  In the film, psychics see into the future and identify who is planning to commit a crime.

Deterring Crime In this real-world attempt at crime-fighting, the jump-out technique is a strong deterrent for criminals and potential criminals because they never know when a van might pull up next to them, police say, and are thus less likely to risk getting caught in an illegal act.

John Rago, director of communications for Wilmington Mayor James M.
Baker, says reported incidents of serious crime - murder, rape, burglary, robbery, arson, and drugs - dropped 16 percent in 2001 and is down another 8 percent in the first six months of 2002.  But that was largely before the photo intelligence system was created.  Rago says the city will have additional statistics in about six months to ascertain whether the photograph and information files have had an affect on crime.

But absent any hard statistics, does collecting photographs of suspected criminals on neighborhood corners help reduce crime?

"We think it does," Rago said.  "We think it makes a person think twice before coming back to that corner to involve themselves in criminal activity in a neighborhood."

Going Too Far?

Critics of the Delaware program are outraged, saying the stops and database take the concept of crime prevention too far.

"Hitler did this stuff, too," said Theopalis Gregory, a city councilman and a former federal prosecutor.  "The [stopping of an individual by the police] of itself is unconstitutional.  You cannot stop and put your hands on them, give them a command, and then take their photograph - you can't do that."

He adds, "What are they doing?  They want to intimidate and harass people to stay out of those neighborhoods."

Still, he and many residents acknowledge the program is working.

"I've said on national television that it's effective and it works," Gregory said.
"But we don't justify the constitutionality of something because it's effective and it works."

Calvin Butler, a resident of one neighborhood targeted for a "jump out," said, "Yeah, I'm seeing a whole lot less crime." Still, like some residents, he worries the practice could degenerate into harassment if not monitored.

Police insist they are not harassing anyone, or targeting anyone illegally.

"The open container, the loitering, the open-air drug sales - that's the stuff that we target," Rogers said.  "As far as we're concerned, it's a zero tolerance - so if we see people, we're stopping them."

Gregory says he predicts the practice will be declared unconstitutional soon in a future court case.  He plans to call for oversight hearings on the system in city council.
 

Copyright 2002 TechTV, Inc.  All rights reserved.

Police have waited nearly three years to begin the collection process because under previous legislation criminals who had served their sentence or were not jailed could refuse to provide a sample.

But under the new act, arrest warrants will be issued if the convicted criminals fail to meet the four-week deadline.  Those arrested will be given a second chance to provide a sample.

If the offender again refuses, a specially trained police unit - the cell extraction team - can physically restrain the subject while a nurse takes a blood sample.

Under the new laws, efforts to extract a sample forcibly must be videotaped.  All police are banned from forcibly taking mouth swabs.

Those subjected to the orders are people convicted of any of 36 serious offences, including murder, arson, burglary, serious assault, rape and drug offences.

The collected samples will be crosschecked against records of Victorian and national unsolved crimes.

While the new DNA law was passed in May, police have spent the past three months training uniformed officers in the collection procedure and distributing forensic kits to stations.

Those providing a sample will be given a wooden spatula with a cotton bud to scrape the inside of their mouths in the presence of police.

The sample will then be placed on blotting paper in a tamper-proof container and sent to the Victorian Forensic Science Centre.

Head of state intelligence operations, Detective Inspector Doug Cowlishaw, said that "due to the large numbers of orders it will take six months to process the backlog".

Law Institute of Victoria chief executive John Cain said he was disturbed by the police mass mail-out.  "I am concerned that 3800 letters will be sent out," he said.  "Police may have the power but it would appear that they are being particularly strident at the first opportunity."

Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the strengthened law would assist police investigations.

"DNA is a revolution in fighting crime," he said.  "It stacks the odds against the criminals.  It also helps clear people who may have been under suspicion of committing offences."

He said the DNA laws would catch habitual criminals.  "About 85 per cent of crime is committed by between 5 and 10 per cent of offenders," he said.

The samples will be tested against the Victorian DNA database of unsolved crimes and then provided to the Federal Government's CrimTrac system.

The federal project is designed to provide a national database of fingerprints, DNA, intervention orders and child sex offenders.

Police have already gathered samples from 3775 prisoners in Victoria's jails and have linked 178 inmates with 431 unsolved crimes including murders, rapes and abductions.

Another 465 matches on the database are being investigated.

There are 5400 samples from crimes and more than 5000 tests from suspects and convicted criminals on the Victorian DNA database computer.

By Clint Parker The Asheville Tribune “We get an administrative search warrant, and then they have to let us in…” A move by two area municipalities to inspect the inside of residents' homes has opened Constitutional questions about how much authority local governments have to enforce zoning and building codes.

The town of Montreat, NC is considering "periodic safety inspections" of "all homes"
along with a long list of other requirements for residences.

At the same time, the Hickory Daily Record reported, the city of Hickory, NC will soon be sending inspectors to more than 300 homes and businesses with broken windows, ripped awnings, battered fences or other maintenance code violations The inspections come as a result of a land-use plan adopted by Hickory in May 2001 which included the new rules on property maintenance.

City officials in Hickory held off on any immediate crack down on violations to give homeowners a chance to make repairs.  A citywide survey began last August using a college student intern from Lenoir-Rhyne College who drove street by street through Hickory and noted potential problems.  The survey was completed earlier this month.

Armin Wallner, Hickory's building inspections director, said the ordinance mainly covers the exterior of the home.  "If your buffer area died .  .  .  we'd say you’ve got to fix those buffers.  Or if your sidewalk was breaking up or if your driveway was breaking up or your fences are looking in disrepair or the outside of your building needs a little paint or you’ve got broken windows, we would be notifying owners of those conditions and asking if they would voluntarily fix those," said Wallner.

While the ordinance deals mainly with outside appearances, Wallner said that they have had the right since the 1960s to inspect the inside of the home if they had a petition that was signed by five neighbors.

"The only time we go in the inside of a house is when we get a petition filed by five residences," said Wallner.  According to Wallner, city building inspectors would then inspect the inside of the house in question.

Asked if a warrant was needed by the inspectors to enter the house, Wallner first said, "No.  We've been doing that since the 1960s." Asked what would happen if a homeowner refused to allow inspectors into the house without a warrant, Wallner replied, "We get an administrative search warrant.  Then they have to let us in, but that never happens."

Wallner used a broken window as an example of the new property maintenance ordinance.  "If we see a broken window, we're going send you a letter asking you to fix it."

Fines for violations are $50 per day until the problem is fixed.  Wallner added that "at some point" if the problem were not fixed, a violator would have to go in to see a magistrate.

Asked what would happen if a person didn't have the money to fix something such as an elderly woman on a fixed income.  "Well, we have neighborhood associations.  So we would probably go to the neighborhood association and see if there's any help." Asked what would happen if there were no help available from the association, Wallner said, "Then we would ask then to get in touch with...  We would do what we could, but at some point someone's got to fix the broken window."

After a pause, Wallner said, "You'll always have those situations that are tough, you know, and we realize that too." He then sighed and said, "Ordinances were made to be followed.  They're not all good."
He then immediately corrected himself and said, "I mean they're not all bad."

In Montreat, the planning and zoning board is conducting three hearings on new regulations the board wants to impose on homeowners.  The list of regulations includes:

* Mandating that "every homeowner be required to provide an off-street parking space for every bedroom in the house."

* "...periodic safety inspections of all [privately owned] homes by the Black Mountain Fire Dept., especially those which are rented."

* Requiring all "property owners who rent housing to obtain a rental privilege license from the Town of Montreat, and that provision of such license be worked out..."

* Requiring the use of only natural materials for homes and structures, to include "wood, stone and natural materials."

* Regulating what "proper landscaping" on private property would be; to include what type of bushes, trees and plants are appropriate in a personal flower bed or private garden.

* Using the Land of Sky Regional Council as a resource to help develop "alternatives to paved parking...  to minimize storm water run-off."

* Limit the amount of vehicles traveling through the valley "thus decreasing the dangers of air pollution damage to humans, animals and plants."

* Incorporating shuttle buses to run people into Montreat from external parking facilities.

* Regulating noise from automobiles, summer conferences and heating and cooling equipment.

* Obtaining "a minimum of 3,000 acres (to be preserved) in order to provide a large enough un-fragmented preserve to maintain biodiversity and to off diversity of wilderness recreational experiences."

* Conducting a "full inventory of plant and animal species" in Montreat to see if there are any species that would need to be titled as "threatened" or "endangered" within the "Montreat Wilderness" area.

* Placing "platted lots which are adjacent to the Montreat Wilderness boundary, into the Montreat Wilderness, thus adding additional wilderness acreage closer and more accessible."

* Closing any additional hiking trails or hiking shelters within the Montreat Wilderness "in order to protect and preserve the wilderness environment from user impact."

* Requiring any "large groups" holding public events to "provide a plan for traffic control and parking and demonstrate means of implementation to the Town for approval."

Montreat Town Administrator Pam Snypes said she doesn't know exactly what the zoning board is proposing because she is not involved in the meetings.  "That's not anything I attend, and I'm not sure what their agenda is for each meeting,"
said Snypes.

Asked who could answer some questions on the new regulations, Snypes told the Tribune to call the Mayor of Montreat, Letta Jean Taylor.  Asked if she was on the zoning board, Snypes said, "No." Asked if it would be better to call someone on the zoning board, Snypes replied, "Well, I think first of all, you need to speak, like I said, with the mayor.  According to our personnel policy, when it's a media contact it's usually the mayor or the town administrator or the department head who speaks with the media."

The Tribune tried to reach Mayor Taylor, but she did not return our call by deadline.

Anna Cannon, a Montreat resident, has been to one of the meetings and plans to attend the other two.  She told the Tribune after hearing the proposals she got up at the first meeting and said, "I don't understand why you all are not outraged at some of those proposals because they're draconian in their nature and they're unconstitutional."

Cannon said the problem the town is trying to fix is not with the homeowners, but with the conferees at Montreat College, "but they want to punish the homeowners...  It's the conference that brings in the majority of people."

Cannon said that the town already tries to manage homeowners down to the most minute detail explaining that when she needed to repair the roof on her 100-year-old home the construction company had to obtain a $30 permit from the town and approve the plans for repair.  The approval took two weeks.  During which time it rained.  The rain caused water damage to the inside of her home.

When asked why she had to get approval from the town to fix her roof, Cannon said she was told that the town has to maintain the "character" of the community.  However, Cannon explained, the town approved a variance for an Asheville doctor who moved to Montreat and asked for a 2000 square foot addition to the home he bought.  "The additions came within inches of the property line," said Cannon.

It seems no town is immune to the micro-management from town and city.

Hendersonville has ordinances requiring that "every habitable room shall have at least one window or skylight facing directly toward to the outdoors," "all exterior openable windows and doors" will have screens, and even that hot water heaters have "a temperature of not less than 120 degrees."

Asheville is noted for its strict zoning regulations, even Hickory's building inspections director Wallner made mention of it in his conversation with the Tribune.  Asked if he was envious of the Asheville regulations, Wallner said, "No, too much work."

Sexual offense suspects in Texas will soon be the first in the nation forced to give DNA samples to authorities before they are convicted and without a court order.

Some law enforcement officials are giddy with the prospect of catching sexual offenders in more cases by retrieving genetic material from a greater pool of suspects and comparing it to DNA found at other crime scenes.

But criminal defense lawyers and even conservative jurists are alarmed by what may be serious constitutional problems with the new law.

Police now have to show probable cause and get a warrant to extract a suspect's DNA.

The new law would make the collection of a mouth swabs a routine event once someone suspected of certain sexual offenses or burglaries with a prior conviction is arrested, or suspects in such crimes without a record are indicted.

This statute, sponsored by Austin legislators and championed by the Austin Police Department, passed through the Legislature this year without much fanfare.  But it is guaranteed to create extensive legal battles once it takes effect Feb.  2.

"It's Orwellian.  It infringes on the assumption of innocence,"
Houston criminal defense lawyer Stanley Schneider said.  He expects a constitutional challenge soon after police start following the new law.

Great Britain collects DNA from suspects, and in the United States, Louisiana has passed such a law but never fully implemented it because of funding problems.

The law requires that mouth swabs be taken and tested for a DNA profile, something like a sophisticated fingerprint, that will be entered into a national database.

"It's very important to try to find a way to stop the cycle of sexual assault," said state Rep.  Ann Kitchen, D-Austin, who co-sponsored the bill with state Sen.  Gonzalo Barrientos, also an Austin Democrat.

"I'm a pretty strong privacy advocate, too.  I think we struck a good balance.  There's a cost to every kind of law enforcement,"
Kitchen said.

The DNA sample will be taken upon arrest for people accused of one of a series of sex offenses who also have a prior conviction or deferred adjudication for sex-related crimes or for burglary of a home.

The DNA sample will be taken after grand jury indictment for people accused of one of the sexual offenses but who have no sex-related prior convictions.

The sexual offenses targeted include sexual assault, possession of child pornography and aggravated kidnapping with intent to sexually assault.

"Every city has the same plague of a serial rapist at some time or another," said Mark Gillespie, director of forensic science at the Austin Police Department and a strong backer of the pre-conviction testing.  "If we test only those convicted, we solve some cold cases but we don't go as far as we'd like to go."

Only sexual offenses were targeted in this bill in part because citizens already tolerate fewer civil rights for these criminals, who already must register with local law enforcement upon conviction, and because there is often more DNA evidence in sex cases.

Gillespie said burglary is included in the targeted crimes because statistics show burglars often graduate to sexual crimes.

The Texas law allows someone exonerated by dismissal or acquittal to seek a court order to have the DNA sample, the resulting DNA file and their entry in the national database destroyed.

There is no penalty in this law if police fail to do so.  It is a felony for police to misuse the DNA sample, however.

The law was toned down from an original version that would have required blood samples from people arrested for a broader list of felonies.

But even Harris County state District Judge Ted Poe, a Republican jurist with a decidedly conservative reputation, said he finds the law troublesome.

It may conflict, he said, with constitutional guarantees of the presumption of innocence and due process in searches and seizures.

"We have to be careful in our zeal to convict and bring sex offenders to justice that we don't stuff the Constitution down an abandoned oil well in West Texas," Poe said.

Keith Hampton, legislative director for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said it is not yet clear how the government could use a person's genetic information.

"It was hard to make arguments against this bill, because you sounded like Chicken Little saying the sky was falling and looked like you didn't care about rape victims and opposed womanhood,"
Hampton said.

He said he is concerned with the lack of time limits on the government holding this information and that innocent people wind up in a national database.

"I predict that prosecutors in the future will make the argument that presence in a database could be the basis of probable cause to detain and arrest someone," Hampton said.

The Texas Department of Public Safety is charged in the law with collecting and testing the DNA samples.

The DPS also can give local police agencies a list of approved labs where samples can be tested at the cost of the local police if they want speedier service.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Saddled with massive debt and widespread tax cheating, Argentina is about to go where no other modern nation has gone: It is trying to eliminate cash from its economy.

After a run on banks Friday by Argentines fearing a currency devaluation, Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo responded over the weekend with harsh measures that froze most bank accounts and made it a crime for Argentines to enter or leave the country with more than $1,000.
But the most far-reaching step was a requirement that Argentines get bank debit cards to transact most of their business, even small business such as buying a newspaper or a bunch of flowers.
The plastic cards have two purposes.

They should prevent future runs on banks by making it impossible to hoard cash.  And, by creating a paper trail of business transactions, they make it much more difficult for Argentines to cheat on sales, business and income taxes.

In just a few days shock has given way to anger and resignation as crisis-weary citizens scramble to get the new cards.

By Wednesday, banks reported tens of thousands of new accounts.

"It is a trampling on our liberties.  The government has gone too far promoting the benefits of the free market, of supply and demand, of deregulation, and now they are taking it out on the poorest and the weakest," complained Federico Winter, 48, a businessman.  "I feel my civic rights, my private rights, have been violated."

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled the new banking restrictions illegal.  The government will appeal.

Argentina announced late Tuesday a package of measures to widen the tax net even more.  Employers who hired illegal immigrants or workers they did not claim on taxes, for example, are to be forgiven.  That could catch an estimated 4 million people working in Argentina's informal economy, where taxes are not collected and wages are never reported.

Consumers aren't the only ones adjusting.  Because cash transactions are discouraged, small businesses are scrambling to rent debit card processing machines and complain they cost up to $100 a month.  They also fear that older Argentines are afraid of technology and will simply spend less rather than buy with debit cards.

"Our politicians, especially Cavallo and company, apply First World policies.  But this is not the First World, it is the Third World and then some," said Pedro Jaworksy, a neighborhood grocer in Buenos Aires.

Argentina's most immediate challenge is securing an additional $1.3 billion this month from the International Monetary Fund so it can exchange short-term debt for long-term instruments.

Copyright 2001, The Arizona Republic.  All rights reserved.

In the aftermath of the tragic September 11 attacks on our nation, many organizations and levels of government are developing plans to address future threats, particularly biological and chemical attacks against our public health.

It has come to ALEC’s attention that The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in conjunction with the CDC-funded Center for Law and the Public Health, has drafted model legislation to provide a framework for addressing future attacks.  This model legislation, on which CDC collaborated with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the National Governors Association (NGA), the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the National Association of City and County Health Offices, has a number of provisions which raise some concern. Below is a brief synopsis of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA)

Synopsis of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA):
 

Grants governors broad authority to declare a state of emergency given an occurrence or imminent threat of an illness or health condition caused by bioterrrorism, epidemic, or biological toxins Allows public health officials, among others, broad, unfettered access to personal health information without patient consent Requires pharmacists and physicians to report “unusual” health patterns, including personal information about persons exhibiting “unusual” patterns Grants public health officials broad quarantine powers and allows public health officials to require medical examinations or vaccinations, under penalty of committing a misdemeanor offense Allows public health officials to seize and control personal property and access to communications, and to engage in any necessary rationing, quota-setting, or price-fixing Grants governors exclusive power over the expenditure of funds appropriated for emergencies Requires the development of a comprehensive plan to coordinate attack response

ALEC Concerns about the MEHPA:
 

1. Strips individuals and families of their rights and liberties at the expense of government
2. Represents unnecessary and duplicative legislation given existing state natural disaster statutes
3. Provides a number of potential legal loopholes for trial lawyers to extort
4. Grants overly sweeping takings rights to the government Fails to consider individual state needs
5. Consolidates broad power to Public Health Officials, most of whom are unelected Erects barriers to states’ ability to respond, slowing down response times
6. Utilizes vague language to define key concepts, including when an emergency can be declared
7. Grants additional, duplicative due process rights for quarantined persons
8. Allows public health authorities to ration drugs and other items, but does not specify the manner in which these items would be rationed
9.  Ignores potential costs, both dollar and human.
 

Please contact Sandy Bourne at (202) 466-3800 ext.  245 or Jennifer King at (202) 466-3800 ext.  229 for additional information.

The White House Virtual Library
 

Executive Orders
NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
 

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release                                  June 6, 1994
 
 

NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (64 Stat.  798; 50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
PART I - PURPOSE, POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION
Section 101.   Purpose.  This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense industrial resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (“the Act”), except for the amendments to Title III of the Act in the Energy Security Act of 1980 and telecommunication authorities under Executive Order No. 12472.
Sec. 102.  Policy.  The United States must have an industrial and technology base capable of meeting national defense requirements, and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to all threats to the national security of the United States.
Sec. 103.  General Functions.  Federal departments and agencies responsible for defense acquisition (or for industrial resources needed to support defense acquisition) shall:
(a) Identify requirements for the full spectrum of national security emergencies, including military, industrial, and essential civilian demand;
(b) Assess continually the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of adequate industrial resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) Be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate industrial resources and production capability, including services and critical technology for national defense requirements;

more
(OVER)

2
(d) Improve the efficiency and responsiveness, to defense requirements, of the domestic industrial base; and
(e) Foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Sec. 104.  Implementation.      (a)  The National Security Council is the principal forum for consideration and resolution of national security resource preparedness policy.
(b) The Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency
(“Director, FEMA”) shall:
(1) Serve as an advisor to the National Security Council on issues of national security resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) Provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance and procedures approved by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs to the Federal departments and agencies under this order;
(3) Establish procedures, in consultation with Federal departments and agencies assigned functions under this order, to resolve in a timely and effective manner conflicts and issues that may arise in implementing the authorities and functions delegated under this order; and
(4) Report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.

(c) The head of every Federal department and agency assigned functions under this order shall ensure that the performance of these functions is consistent with National Security Council policy and guidelines.

PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
Sec. 201.  Delegations of Priorities and Allocations.
(a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) The Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) The Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) The Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

more

3
(5) The Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) The Secretary of Commerce for all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the heads of those departments and agencies specified in subsection 201(a) of this order, shall administer the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (“DPAS”) regulations that will be used to implement the authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act as delegated to the Secretary of Commerce in subsection 201(a)(6) of this order.  The Secretary of Commerce will redelegate to the Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other departments and agencies as appropriate, authority for the priority rating of contracts and orders for all materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.  The Secretary of Commerce shall act as appropriate upon Special Priorities Assistance requests in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand.
(c) The Director, FEMA, shall attempt to resolve issues or disagreements on priorities or allocations between Federal departments or agencies in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the issue at hand and, if not resolved, such issues will be referred to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs for final determination.
(d) The head of each Federal department or agency assigned functions under subsection 201(a) of this order, when necessary, shall make the finding required under subsection 101(b) of the Act.  This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.  Upon such approval the head of the Federal department or agency that made the finding may use the authority of subsection 101(a) of the Act to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
(e) The Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs is hereby delegated the authority under subsection 101©(3) of the Act, and will be assisted by the Director, FEMA, in ensuring the coordinated administration of the Act.
Sec. 202.  Determinations.  The authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(a) By the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, stockpiling, outer space, and directly related activities;
(b) By the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(c) By the Director, FEMA, with respect to essential civilian needs supporting national defense, including civil defense and continuity of government and directly related activities.

more
(OVER)

4
Sec. 203.   Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies.  The authority of the President to perform the functions provided by subsection 101© of the Act is delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, who shall redelegate to the Secretary of Energy the authority to make the findings described in subsection 101©(2)(A) that the materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential.  The Secretary of Commerce shall make the finding described in subsection 101©(2)(A) of the Act that the materials (including equipment), services, or facilities are scarce, and the finding described in subsection 101©(2)(B) that it is necessary to use the authority provided by subsection 101©(1).
Sec. 204.  Chemical and Biological Warfare.  The authority of the President conferred by subsection 104(b) of the Act is delegated to the Secretary of Defense.  This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.
PART III  -  EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND
SUPPLY
Sec. 301.  (a)  Financing Institution Guarantees.  To expedite or expand production and deliveries or services under government contracts for the procurement of industrial resources or critical technology items essential to the national defense, the head of each Federal department or agency engaged in procurement for the national defense (referred to as “agency head” in this part) and the President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (in cases involving capacity expansion, technological development, or production in foreign countries) are authorized to guarantee in whole or in part any public or private financing institution, subject to provisions of section 301 of the Act.  Guarantees shall be made in consultation with the Department of the Treasury as to the terms and conditions thereof.  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) shall be informed when such guarantees are to be made.
(b)  Direct Loan Guarantees.  To expedite or expand production and deliveries or services under government contracts for the procurement of industrial resources or critical technology items essential to the national defense, each agency head is authorized to make direct loan guarantees from funds appropriated to their agency for Title III.
(c) Fiscal Agent.  Each Federal Reserve Bank is designated and authorized to act, on behalf of any guaranteeing agency, as fiscal agent in the making of guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act.
(d) Regulations.  The Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System is authorized, after consultation with heads of guaranteeing departments and agencies, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director, OMB, to prescribe regulations governing procedures, forms, rates of interest, and fees for such guarantee contracts.
Sec. 302.  Loans.  (a)  To expedite production and deliveries or services to aid in carrying out government contracts for the procurement of industrial resources or a critical technology item for the national defense, an agency head is authorized, subject to the provisions of section 302 of the Act, to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury or the President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (in cases involving capacity expansion, technological development, or production in foreign countries) applications for loans.
more

5
(b) To expedite or expand production and deliveries or services under government contracts for the procurement of industrial resources or critical technology items essential to the national defense, each agency head may make direct loans from funds appropriated to their agency for Title III.
(c) After receiving a loan application and determining that financial assistance is not otherwise available on reasonable terms, the Secretary of the Treasury or the President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (in cases involving capacity expansion, technological development, or production in foreign countries) may make loans, subject to provisions of section 302 of the Act.

Sec. 303.  Purchase Commitments.  (a)  In order to carry out the objectives of the Act, and subject to the provisions of section 303 thereof, an agency head is authorized to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for government use or resale.
(b)  Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if such transfer is determined by the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager to be in the public interest.
Sec. 304.  Subsidy Payments.  In order to ensure the supply of raw or non-processed materials from high-cost sources, an agency head is authorized to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director OMB, and subject to the provisions of section 303© of the Act.
Sec. 305.  Determinations and Findings.  When carrying out the authorities in sections 301 through 303 of this order, an agency head is authorized to make the required determinations, judgments, statements, certifications, and findings, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy or Director, FEMA, as appropriate.  The agency head shall provide a copy of the determination, judgment, statement, certification, or finding to the Director, OMB, to the Director, FEMA, and, when appropriate, to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Sec. 306.  Strategic and Critical Materials.  (a)  The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager and subject to the provisions of section 303 of the Act, is authorized to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of critical and strategic materials and other materials.
(b) An agency head is authorized, pursuant to section 303(g) of the Act, to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other industrial resources to aid the national defense.
(c) An agency head is authorized, pursuant to section
303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to make provisions to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of critical and strategic materials and other materials.
more
(OVER)

6
Sec. 307.  Government-owned Equipment.  An agency head is authorized, pursuant to section 303(e) of the Act, to install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to facilities owned by the government and to install goverment-owned equipment in industrial facilities owned by private persons.
Sec. 308.  Identification of Shortfalls.  Except during periods of national emergency or after a Presidential determination in accordance with sections 301(e)(1)(D)(ii), 302©(4)(B), or 303(a)(7)(B) of the Act, no guarantee, loan or other action pursuant to sections 301, 302, and 303 of the Act to correct an industrial shortfall shall be taken unless the shortfall has been identified in the Budget of the United States or amendments thereto.
Sec. 309.  Defense Production Act Fund Manager.  The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, and shall carry out the duties specified in that section, in consultation with the agency heads having approved Title III projects and appropriated Title III funds.
Sec. 310.  Critical Items List.  (a)  Pursuant to section 107(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the Secretary of Defense shall identify critical components and critical technology items for each item on the Critical Items List of the Commanders-in-Chief of the Unified and Specified Commands and other items within the inventory of weapon systems and defense equipment.
(b) Each agency head shall take appropriate action to ensure that critical components or critical technology items are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency.  “Appropriate action” may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.
Sec. 311.  Strengthening Domestic Capability.  An agency head, in accordance with section 107(a) of the Act, may utilize the authority of Title III of the Act or any other provision of law, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.
Sec. 312.  Modernization of Equipment.  An agency head, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, may utilize the authority of Title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act.
PART IV - IMPACT OF OFFSETS
Sec. 401.  Offsets. (a)  The responsibilities and authority conferred upon the President by section 309 of the Act with respect to offsets are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, who shall function as the President’s Executive Agent for carrying out this authority.
more

7
(b) The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare the annual report required by section 309(a) of the Act in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense, Treasury, Labor, State, the United States Trade Representative, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the heads of other departments and agencies as required.  The heads of Federal departments and agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.
(c) The offset report shall be subject to the normal interagency clearance process conducted by the Director, OMB, prior to the report’s submission by the President to Congress.

PART V - VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Sec. 501.  Appointments.   The authority of the President under sections 708© and (d) of the Act is delegated to the heads of each Federal department or agency, except that, insofar as that authority relates to section 101 of the Act, it is delegated only to the heads of each Federal department or agency assigned functions under section 201(a) of this order.  The authority delegated under this section shall be exercised pursuant to the provisions of section 708 of the Act, and copies and the status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Director, FEMA.
Sec. 502.  Advisory Committees.  The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act and delegated in section 501 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.
PART VI - EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL
Sec. 601.  National Defense Executive Reserve.  (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, there is established in the Executive Branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (“NDER”) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from government (except full-time federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of an emergency that requires such employment.
(b)  The head of any department or agency may establish a unit of the NDER in the department or agency and train members of that unit.
(c) The head of each department or agency with an NDER unit is authorized to exercise the President’s authority to employ civilian personnel in accordance with section 703(a) of the Act when activating all or a part of its NDER unit.  The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of subsections 601(d) and (e) of this order and shall not be redelegated.
(d) The head of a department or agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination that an emergency affecting the national security or defense preparedness of the United States exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the department or agency.

more
(OVER)

8
(e) At least 72 hours prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the department or agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs of the impending activation and provide a copy of the determination required under subsection 601(d) of this order.
(f) The Director, FEMA, shall coordinate the NDER program activities of departments and agencies in establishing units of the Reserve; provide for appropriate guidance for recruitment, training, and activation; and issue necessary rules and guidance in connection with the program.
(g) This order suspends any delegated authority, regulation, or other requirement or condition with respect to the activation of any NDER unit, in whole or in part, or appointment of any NDER member that is inconsistent with the authorities delegated herein, provided that the aforesaid suspension applies only as long as sections 703(a) and 710(e) of the Act are in effect.

Sec. 602.  Consultants.  The head of each department or agency assigned functions under this order is delegated authority  under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations.  The authority delegated by this section shall not be redelegated.
PART VII - LABOR SUPPLY
Sec. 701.  Secretary of Labor.  The Secretary of Labor, identified in this section as the Secretary, shall:
(a) Collect, analyze, and maintain data needed to make a continuing appraisal of the nation’s labor requirements and the supply of workers for purposes of national defense.  All agencies of the government shall cooperate with the Secretary in furnishing information necessary for this purpose, to the extent permitted by law;
(b) In response to requests from the head of a Federal department or agency engaged in the procurement for national defense, consult with and advise that department or agency with respect to (1) the effect of contemplated actions on labor supply and utilization, (2) the relation of labor supply to materials and facilities requirements, and (3) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
(c) Formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting defense and essential civilian labor requirements;
(d) Project skill shortages to facilitate meeting defense and essential civilian needs and establish training programs;
(e) Determine the occupations and skills critical to meeting the labor requirements of defense and essential civilian activities and, with the assistance of the Secretary of Defense, more
 

9
the Director of Selective Service, and such other persons as the
Director, FEMA, may designate, develop policies regulating the
induction and deferment of personnel for the armed services,
except for civilian personnel in the reserves; and
(f) Administer an effective labor-management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order with the cooperation of other Federal agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

PART VIII - DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE INFORMATION AND REPORTS
Sec. 801.  Foreign Acquisition of Companies.  The Secretary of the Treasury, in cooperation with the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence, shall complete and furnish a report to the President and then to Congress in accordance with the requirements of section 721(k) of the Act concerning foreign efforts to acquire United States companies involved in research, development, or production of critical technologies and industrial espionage activities directed by foreign governments against private U.S. companies.
Sec. 802.  Defense Industrial Base Information System.
(a) The Secretary of Defense and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, shall establish an information system on the domestic defense industrial base in accordance with the requirements of section 722 of the Act.
(b) In establishing the information system required by subsection (a) of this order, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, as determined by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, shall consult with each other for the purposes of performing the duties listed in section 722(d)(1) of the Act.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall convene a task force consisting of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of each military department and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, as determined by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to carry out the duties under section 722(d)(2) of the Act.
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall report to Congress on a strategic plan for developing a cost-effective, comprehensive information system capable of identifying on a timely, ongoing basis vulnerability in critical components and critical technology items.  The plans shall include an assessment of the performance and cost-effectiveness of procedures specified in section 722(b) of the Act.
(e) The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Bureau of the Census, shall consult with the Secretary of Defense and the Director, FEMA, to improve the usefulness of information derived from the Census of Manufacturers in carrying out section 722 of the Act.

more
(OVER)

10
(f) The Secretary of Defense shall perform an analysis of the production base for not more than two major weapons systems of each military department in establishing the information system under section 722 of the Act.  Each analysis shall identify the critical components of each system.
(g) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, and the heads of other Federal departments and agencies as appropriate, shall issue a biennial report on critical components and technology in accordance with section 722(e) of the Act.

PART IX - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901.  Definitions.   In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, the following definitions apply throughout this order:
(a) “Civil transportation” includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and, without limitation, related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities.  However, “civil transportation” shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.  As applied herein, “civil transportation” shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership.
(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), and atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.
(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.
(d) “Fertilizer” means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements—nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium—for use as a plant nutrient.
(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, simple, mixed, or compound, or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption.  “Food resources” also means all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool, mohair, hemp, flax fiber, and naval stores, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on-farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including more
 

11
cold storage) of food resources, livestock and poultry feed and seed, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).
(g) “Functions” include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.
(h) “Head of each Federal department or agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” means the heads of the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Commerce, as well as those departments and agencies listed in Executive Order No. 10789.
(i) “Heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies” as used in part VIII of this order means the heads of such other Federal agencies and departments that acquire information or need information with respect to making any determination to exercise any authority under the Act.
(j) “Health resources” means materials, facilities, health supplies, and equipment (including pharmaceutical, blood collecting and dispensing supplies, biological, surgical textiles, and emergency surgical instruments and supplies) required to prevent the impairment of, improve, or restore the physical and mental health conditions of the population.
(k) “Metals and minerals” means all raw materials of mineral origin (excluding energy) including their refining, smelting, or processing, but excluding their fabrication.
(l) “Strategic and Critical Materials” means materials
(including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national security emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.
(m) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, which can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements.

Sec. 902.  General.  (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 902© of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act may be exercised and performed by the head of each department and agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order.
(b) The authorities which may be exercised and performed pursuant to subsection 902(a) of this order shall include (1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities, to departments and agencies, officers, and employees of the government, and (2) the power of subpoena with respect to authorities delegated in parts II, III, and IV of this order, provided that the subpoena power shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in subsection 902(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.
more
(OVER)

12
(c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by subsection
902(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts V, VI, and VIII of this order and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703(a) of the Act.
Sec. 903.  Authority.  All previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority.  Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.
Sec. 904.  Effect on other Orders.  (a) The following are superseded or revoked:
(1) Section 3, Executive Order No. 8248 of September 8,
1939, (4 FR 3864).
(2) Executive Order No. 10222 of March 8, 1951 (16 FR 2247).
(3) Executive Order No. 10480 of August 14, 1953
(18 FR 4939).
(4) Executive Order No. 10647 of November 28, 1955
(20 FR 8769).
(5) Executive Order No. 11179 of September 22, 1964
(29 FR 13239).
(6) Executive Order No. 11355 of May 26, 1967 (32 FR 7803).
(7) Sections 7 and 8, Executive Order No. 11912 of
April 13, 1976 (41 FR 15825, 15826-27).
(8) Section 3, Executive Order No. 12148 of July 20,
1979 (44 FR 43239, 43241).
(9) Executive Order No. 12521 of June 24, 1985
(50 FR 26335).
(10) Executive Order No. 12649 of August 11, 1988
(53 FR 30639).
(11) Executive Order No. 12773 of September 26, 1991
(56 FR 49387), except that part of the order that amends section 604 of Executive Order 10480.
(b) Executive Order No. 10789 of November 14, 1958, is amended by deleting “and in view of the existing national emergency declared by Proclamation No. 2914 of December 16, 1950,” as it appears in the first sentence.
(c) Executive Order No. 11790, as amended, relating to the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, is amended by deleting “Executive Order No. 10480” where it appears in section 4 and substituting this order’s number.

more

13
(d) Subject to subsection 904© of this order, to the extent that any provision of any prior Executive order is inconsistent with the provisions of this order, this order shall control and such prior provision is amended accordingly.

Sec. 905.  Judicial Review.  This order is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
 
 

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
 
 

THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 3, 1994.
 

                                          #  #  #

Are we to remain a nation convenient to our politicians?  Are we to remain a nation that, according to Bob Dole is "The Land of the Provincial and Home of the Naïve…Thank God"?
In the rush for political expediency, the first two things that are always sacrificed are the hard-won rights and liberties of the people and any notion of fiscal accountability by their government.

It's official.  Tom Ridge has been sworn in as the director of the Office of Homeland Security, as of October 8, 2001.  In his acceptance speech, he said, "Although some sacrifices will have to be made, the essential freedoms of the American people will be protected." And this is a very sinister message.  What he's saying is that there obviously will be "sacrifices" in the civil rights of the people.  And then he's saying the "essential"
civil rights of the people will be maintained.  But who determines what the word "essential" means?  Who determines what "rights" are essential?  Certainly the people are not going to determine that.  And Ridge didn't say who it was who would be doing the determining.  Then Bush spoke for a few more minutes and said that who would be doing the determining would be the "Supreme National Security Council." It will exist above the Homeland Security Directorate, and will be chaired by George Bush, various cabinet members and "certain others who have had long-term political allegiances to my father."

What they're saying is that since this is a super-agency, which is immune from congressional oversight or judicial review, there has to be some regulatory body above it.  That will make this Council extra-legal, extra-constitutional, extra-judicial, and extra-legislative.  And it's even extra-executive.  Bush then is essentially assuming supreme power as Chairman of the Supreme National Security Council.

It's becoming clear how extraordinary the authority that this new agency, the Office of Homeland Security, along with its little brother, the Office of Cyberspace Security, really has.  It means that this agency's authority effectively guts the Whistleblower Act of 1986 and the subsequent Whistleblower Protection Act of 1991.

Government whistleblowers are no longer afforded the same measure of protection that they were before.  Whistleblowers could actually go into court and request federal protection from US Marshals.  They can't do that anymore.

Also the creation of this agency with its vast new powers effectively guts the Freedom of Information Act.  Since this agency is operating under essentially National Security law, as amended 1949-1950, and not regular Title Code 18 law, it can classify all of its operations and documents.  It would be immune from any public request for information.  Virtually all its budget is classified.  It does not have to submit any public accounting for the money it spends - not even to the General Accounting Office.  This is part of the power it will have as a super extra-legal extra-constitutional body.  The only submission to GAO that is required will be total receipts and total expenditures -- what all agencies have to give the GAO even under classified spending, but they don't have to break that spending down at all.

Furthermore (they are preparing the public for this), Bush knows there will be many Supreme Court challenges when we are past this "first blush of patriotism." When the American people have taken off their rose-colored glasses and only have their normal blinders on, there will be many proceedings in the Supreme Court over the authority being given this agency.  That's why Bush is saying that this ruling council, this Supreme National Security Council, has decided that its only judicial accountability will be with the National Security Court in Washington DC, a court which the administration controls.

What does this do?  It not only suspends habeas corpus, but it does so on a virtually unlimited basis.  Even during the Civil War, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, there were still some rules.  For example, you could not hold somebody for more than 90 days without charge.  With this new agency, not only do they act ex post facto vis-a-vis habeas corpus, but there aren't any limits being imposed.  They could literally detain people for years - for as long as they wanted.  There is no limitation.  When people talk about the suspension of habeas corpus, they talk about when Lincoln did it during the Civil War, or when Franklin Roosevelt did it on a limited basis during the Second World War.

Ridge has already said that they have the authority to hold people indefinitely.  In wartime suspension of habeas corpus, there are still rules.  This is not a simple suspension of habeas corpus, but it is in effect an elimination of it.  The power is granted to the Office of Homeland Security by default because it is immune from judicial review.

Likewise, there is a complete suspension of Fourth Amendment privilege of unwarranted search and seizure.  For the first time ever, a US agency is given the power to seize assets without judicial proceeding or review.  In other words, the people whose assets are seized have no recourse.  They are being given no recourses under the law.
This agency doesn't have to claim anything.  Since they are immune from judicial review, they don't even have to come up with a reason.  All they have to say is that, "pursuant to the security of the State, we believe these assets may be used by those who would represent a threat to the security of the State or the domestic tranquility of the people."

Technically the assets of any person or news agency which would attempt to disseminate the truth to the people could be seized --- since under the National Security Act, the truth about government operations can be withheld from the people if the dissemination of said truths is deemed to be injurious to the security of the State or the domestic tranquility of the people.

In other words, if you don't tell the truth to the people, their tranquility will be assured.

Detainees or targets of the new State Security bureau (Office of Homeland Security)
will no longer have the right of Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

In other words, they can be compelled to talk by "any means necessary," i.e., torture, interrogation, etc.  Section 409C of the National Security Act, pursuant to the political and state security acts thereunto, states that a person whom the government believes is involved in an act contrary to the security of the State can be compelled by whatever measures necessary to reveal information.

Furthermore this State Security agency will be given the old FBI power under the
1942 Seditious Publication Act.  This power, formally given to the FBI in the past, was done away with in 1972, when J.  Edgar Hoover died -- because he so abused this power.
The power of this Act will be given to this new State Security.  It will give this agency the ability to label publications as "seditious" and to prevent their publication and transmission thereunto by both print and electronic means.

Previously there was the United States Title Code Statutes 792/793, otherwise known as the "Sedition Acts of 1798," which came right after the Logan Amendments of 1794.
Since the times of George Washington, "sedition acts" have not been used.  And now we are talking about the revival of the Seditious Publication Acts of 1942, which I find particularly sinister, because it gives our new super State Security agency the power to label publications seditious to prevent their transmission and to prevent their printing.
That means they can be prevented from being mailed or being disseminated electronically or otherwise, a power which will undoubtedly be used by the new Office of Cyber Space Security.  In fact, even the truth regarding government activities or operation can be deemed seditious and its dissemination to the public prevented.

In the past, when the government went on a tear to deny the people's rights, even Life Magazine from 1968 to 1972 was formally declared a "seditious publication" by the FBI because of its photo expose' of the horrors of Vietnam.  They were showing a lot of dead and twisted American bodies.  The FBI considered this "anti-patriotic" and "seditious" because it was fomenting unrest and thus aiding those who didn't want to see US involvement in the war.

So far there has been absolutely no congressional or judicial opposition to this.
Public opinion polls state that the American people are willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary in the so-called "New War Against Terrorism." Of course, what they're not saying is that the Bush Administration very craftily says to the people that we need this power to detain terrorists, to freeze assets of terrorists, and to hold terrorists ex post facto of habeas corpus.  What they're not seeing is that in the actual authorization bills, obviously the word "terrorist" is not used.  The word "suspect" or "detainee" is used.  Of course, it's very doubtful that all suspects or detainees will be limited to those who wear turbans.  A "suspect" or a "detainee" can mean anything.

This means that there will be unlimited and virtually unfettered electronic surveillance and eavesdropping.  This will include the unfettered ability to surveil on American people and to intercept communications.  The only lip service paid to this is that finally George Bush made the comment that " we will not diminish the hard-won rights and liberties of the American people" which, of course is precisely what he is setting about doing.

If all bills and measures currently proposed pass, the financial cost to the American people (an increase in federal spending) will be $343 billion over the next three-year period.  The airline bailout measure.  Increases in direct foreign grants.  Increase in rescheduling Russian debt again.  Enormous increases in domestic building programs.

And where is the money coming from?  There are no "surpluses." The "surpluses" are gone.  All of this money will be 100% deficit financed and because the Bush Administration has abandoned its traditional strong dollar policy, this will build a powerful inflationary whammy into our economy.  We will feel the effects of this down the road.

These two measures - a massive increase in deficit financing along with abandoning a strong dollar policy, which contains inflation - will produce a huge inflationary wallop in a few years.

There are many appropriation bills now in Congress, and everybody is tacking on something because this is pork-barrel heaven.  Because the public doesn't care, everybody in Congress and their brother is tacking on an extra $10 million for some little pet project.

Note the foolishness of the liberal Democrats, who, in an effort to get brownie points in the "first blush of patriotism," are jumping on the band wagon of restricting Americans' civil liberties - a la Senator John Kerry's bill for interstate transportation security.  If that bill passes, we will, for the very first time in this country, have interstate checkpoints for public transportation.  We didn't even have that during the war.

There may be many a "conspiracy theorist" that has been a lone voice in the wilderness who may be vindicated.  Although it has not been announced yet, a further diminishment of Americans' rights to keep and bear arms is certainly coming.  The Bush Administration hasn't gone that far yet because it would virtually be a killer for them to say that now.  As long as Bush has an 80% approval rating and as long as 80% of the American people approve these so-called "security" measures, Bush, who has a large gun-owning constituency, will be able to get away with it - further restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms.

There's something called the "Old 80-80." If you're a president of the United States and you have an 80% approval rating, and you have initiated a policy under a crisis (even if it is your administration which has maintained the level of fear) that has an 80% approval rating, then you can propose legislation that is directly contrary to the belief of your constituency and yet it won't hurt you politically - or it won't hurt you enough to make any difference when you run for reelection.

A historical precedent was the time when Nixon imposed wage and price controls in 1971.  Nixon's constituency, primarily the wealthy, Big Business, and major corporations, were vehemently opposed to price controls, yet he imposed them anyway under the "fight to contain the collapse of the American dollar" after he closed the gold window.  Then they came up with the policy of dramatically increasing the price of crude oil and the US dollar just fell out of bed.  The 1971 dollar crisis reached its peak when the French central bank refused to accept US dollars.  If you create enough of a crisis situation, even the people who will be hurt by a change in the law will support it.

Now we need to ask -- do we want to travel down the "Canadian Road"?  Are we so certain we want to support National Identification Cards?  Are we so certain that, like our Canadian cousins, we are prepared to become a homogenized, pasteurized, wimpified, and neuterized society?

Do we want to become like Canada, the original home of sado-masochism, where the clarion call of the neutered and impotent Canadian people to their government is -- "Whip me.  Beat me.  Tax me some more.  Because I just love paying five dollars for a package of cigarettes, or $68 for a $28 bottle of Canadian Club whiskey.  And while you're at it -- take away my right to own a firearm"?

If we, as the quintessential American couch potatoes with our rose-colored glasses, eyes glazed over from hour after hour of mind-numbing sitcoms, whose only awareness of the news comes from compressed sound bites and encapsulated print bullets, succumb to this, then we will most certainly find ourselves robbed of our hard won rights and liberties.

All of the legislation proposed since September 12 -- if it is to pass -- will constitute the largest transfer of the rights and liberties of the American people back to the government in the history of the Republic.

What of all the wars that we have fought -- the millions of us who have shed our blood to maintain our rights and liberties as American citizens?

What do we say - that these sacrifices were in vain?

For that is precisely what we will be saying -- if we continue to keep our heads stuck in the sand and say nothing in this hour of when our rights and liberties are in the greatest peril… AL MARTIN is America's foremost whistleblower on government fraud and corruption.

A retired US Navy Lt.  Commander and former officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, he has testified before Congress (the Kerry Committee and the Alexander Committee) regarding Iran-Contra.  Al Martin is the author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" (2001, National Liberty Press, $19.95; Toll FREE order line:
1-866-317-1390) He lives at an undisclosed location, since the criminals named in his book have been returned to national power and prominence.  His column "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway" is published regularly on Al Martin Raw: Criminal Govt Conspiracy (http://www.almartinraw.com/)

Tuesday, May 1, 2001
 

Forcing doctors to ask kids about guns
Pending bill requires pediatricians to query patients on state program
 

By Julie Foster

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

The high cost of a controversial bill in the California State Senate that would require pediatricians, in thousands
of health screenings per year, to question kids on family gun ownership landed the measure yesterday in what is
euphemistically called the "bone yard" of the state legislature, giving it one more hurdle to clear before heading to
the full Senate.

Californians balked last year when Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, proposed a substantially
similar bill to Senate Bill 765 by Sen. Wesley Chesbro, D-Santa Rosa. Sent to the "suspense file" in the Senate
Appropriations Committee yesterday, SB 765 resurrects a concept eventually removed from the vetoed Steinberg
bill -- codification of the American Academy of Pediatrics publication "Recommendations for preventive pediatric
health care." That report specifically includes recommendations made in the AAP's 1999 publication, "The Role of
the Pediatrician in Youth Violence Prevention in Clinical Practice," which outlines measures to be taken by
pediatricians in violence prevention, including advocacy of gun-control proposals.

Since the bill incurs an estimated annual cost of $8.6 million, it was automatically sent to the suspense file, as are
all bills proposing costs of $150,000 or more.

According to the AAP, the violence-prevention publication "establishes an agenda for making this a routine part
of pediatric practice in four major areas: clinical services, community advocacy, research and education. This
broad agenda builds on a still-evolving body of knowledge, but the urgency of youth violence prevention requires
further and immediate action by pediatricians."

"Because many pediatricians encounter children and youth who are experiencing or are at risk for violence,
pediatricians are well situated to intervene," states the document. "Prevention of youth violence requires that
pediatricians recognize violence-related risk factors and diagnose and treat violence-related problems at all stages
of child development."

Among the screening criteria listed in the report to identify "risk factors for violence among their patients" are:

     "family stresses that could lead to violence (e.g., unemployment, divorce or death);
     appropriate supervision and care and support systems (e.g., child care arrangements, the family and
     social network);
     disciplinary attitudes and practices of the parents or caregivers (particularly about corporal
     punishment and physical/emotional abuse);
     exposure to violence in the home (domestic violence or child abuse), school or community;
     degree of exposure to media violence;
     access to firearms (especially handguns) in their or a neighbor's home, or the community."

The Chesbro bill is intended to allay the concerns of the federal Health Care Financing Administration, according
to the assemblyman's staff. Currently, some participants in the state's health-care program, Medi-Cal, are treated
according to the AAP guidelines, but others are not. The agency sent a letter saying treatment for Medi-Cal
beneficiaries should be the same across the board. Such a change would result in 248,000 more health screens for
children ages 0-12, and 17,000 more for children ages 13-20, who use the state's low-income health-care program,
staff said.

While acknowledging the importance of health care and safety for children, a public-policy group believes the bill
sets a "dangerous precedent." SB 765 requires the AAP recommendations to be used when setting state
health-care standards and that those standards "shall be updated as necessary to be consistent with any changes
made by the American Academy of Pediatrics."

"It asks state legislators to abdicate their right to set state policy," said Karen Holgate of Capitol Resource Institute.
According to the bill, the AAP recommendations would be included only after review by the state board that
approves the health standards.

"While the [violence-prevention recommendations] may be legitimate areas of concern, one wonders about the
appropriateness of requiring all pediatricians to grill their patients about their homes and families without due
cause," Holgate continued.

The AAP report begins by stating, "Each child and family is unique; therefore, these Recommendations for
Preventive Pediatric Health Care are designed for the care of children who are receiving competent parenting,
have no manifestations of any important health problems, and are growing and developing in satisfactory
fashion. Additional visits may become necessary if circumstances suggest variations from normal."

Consistent with its health-screening requirements referred to by the Chesbro bill, the AAP also includes a
sweeping gun-control proposal in its list of model legislation. Titled the "Protection of Children from Handguns
Act," one measure states that, "except in the hands of law enforcement officers or others specifically authorized
by law, handguns serve no legitimate or lawful purpose, and constitute a hazard to the public health and welfare
of the people, and especially of the children, of this State. [O]nly the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, and
possession of handguns will remove handguns from the homes and streets of this State, thereby reducing the risks
of injury and death to children from handguns."

The proposal would impose felony criminal penalties amounting up to $10,000 and/or two years in prison for
manufacturing handguns and up to $2,500 and/or two years in prison for people who "enter into commerce,
ship, transport, transfer, sell, sell at a gunshow, lease, or distribute" handguns. Possession of a handgun would
qualify as a misdemeanor and result in up to a $1,000 fine and/or one year in prison for each offense.

Like its predecessor, SB 765 is expected to be approved by the Senate and will likely move from the
Appropriations Committee to the full Senate in late May.

Calif.  Court Upholds Strict Forfeiture Law Cops Can Keep Vehicles Without Suspect's Conviction Oct.  19, 2000 By Randy Dotinga OAKLAND, Calif.  (APBnews.com)

 The state's highest court has upheld a city law that allows police to seize and sell the cars of suspected drug buyers and solicitors of prostitution, even if they have not been convicted.

An association of defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union fought the Oakland ordinance, saying it violates state law.

The city leaders of Oakland, which is notorious for its high crime rate, approved the car forfeiture law in 1997.  The ordinance goes further than California state law, which allows police to seize cars only after a suspect has been convicted.

Cars put on trial Oakland's law also gives police the right to seize a car even if its owner was unaware that it was used for criminal activity.

"We don't look necessarily at the intent" of the owner, said Pelayo Llamas, a deputy city attorney.

If a suspect is acquitted, he or she can challenge the seizure in court, Llamas said.  Prosecutors must prove that the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime, essentially putting the car on trial.

A judge makes the final decision as to whether the cars should be returned to their owners.

Public complained The city created the law after residents complained about drug buys and prostitution in their neighborhoods, Llamas said.  Police evoke the law only about a dozen times a year.  So far this year, the law has been used only three or four times, he said.

"It depends on complaints or requests we get from various communities or blocks when traffic is really picking up," he said.  "We inform the police, and they do something about it.  It's not a regular income stream or anything that we depend on."

The money from the sale of cars is divided between the police department and the city attorney's office, he said.

Other cities interested Critics challenged the law on the grounds that it conflicts with state law. But an appeals court disagreed, and the California Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the lower court's ruling without comment.

Representatives for the ACLU and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, which challenged the ordinance, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Llamas said he has heard from about a dozen other California cities that are considering new car-forfeiture laws of their own.

Randy Dotinga is an APBnews.com West Coast correspondent (randy.dotinga@apbnews.com).

The CBO proposal seeks the data, which is currently kept strictly confidential under federal law, in order to make long-term projections about the viability of the Social Security and Medicare programs. The initiative is being opposed and publicized by Rep.  Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who has accused the CBO of trying to sneak its proposal through the complex appropriations process currently ongoing as Congress rushes toward adjournment.

In a letter sent to leaders of the House Appropriations Committee on October 11, Rep.  Maloney said that "changing the law that protects the confidentiality of census data in the middle of the 2000 Census, behind closed doors and with no public debate, sends the wrong signal to the American public."  She cited widespread privacy concerns that were expressed earlier this year after the Census Bureau's long-form questionnaire sought answers to a number of intrusive personal questions (see EPIC Alert 7.06).

The attempted disclosure is also opposed by Commerce Secretary Norman Mineta, who told Congressional leaders that the proposal would weaken "the most important legal structure protecting the privacy and confidentiality of all Americans, with regard to the private information they provide the Census Bureau."  Saying that he is "adamantly opposed" to the proposal, Mineta noted that CBO's initiative "would threaten public confidence in the confidentiality of all information collected by the Census Bureau and other data collecting agencies."

According to a coalition of consumer and privacy groups, another last-minute amendment could detrimentally affect personal privacy. Sen.  Judd Gregg (R-NH) has attached his Social Security number proposal, S.  2554, to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Bill. The amendment would not effectively increase protections over Social Security numbers, but would pre-empt the ability of states to provide stronger protections on their own.

A letter from consumer and privacy groups opposing the amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill is available at:

http://www.pirg.org/consumer/greggssn.htm

     The Washington Post reported: “...the bureaucrats of the European Union, the super-national entity that from its Brussels headquarters… is changing the daily lives of millions of the continent's inhabitants. As the EU matures and the 15 member governments expand its authority, Europeans from Stockholm to Udine…have been surprised and at times upset to find its officials nosing into what they can eat, how they travel, even how they incinerate their trash. Founded more than four decades ago to foster trade and build cooperation between historic enemies, the EU has increasingly become a force for social      regulation. It is now trying to find the common ground in its 15 societies and develop rules for behavior that cross ethnic and national boundaries...”

Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - With drug traffickers becoming more savvy in the use of the post office to smuggle drugs, the U.S. Customs Service is asking Congress for permission to search mail leaving the United States.
The proposal, included in a crime bill in the House, has hit opposition from the U.S. Postal Service which believes such mail is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s provisions against unlawful searches and seizures.

Lawmakers heard from both sides Friday at a hearing of a House government reform subcommittee.
“For over two centuries, the American public has had an expectation of privacy in their mail,” Kenneth Newman, the Postal Service’s deputy chief inspector for criminal investigations, said in explaining the agency’s views.
The Supreme Court, Newman said, has stated that “when considering Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches, mail is in a special category of effects and is entitled to the same protection accorded a person’s home.”

“This requires probable cause and a federal search warrant to seize and open mail,” Newman said.
Customs officials said the authority is necessary to help curb an increase in the use of mail as a way to smuggle drugs. Private industry companies, such as United Parcel Service and FedEx, already allow Customs to search mail leaving the United States, authorities said.

“Drug traffickers and money launderers are not stupid,” said Betsy Durant, director of trade operations for the U.S. Customs Service. “They know we do not search outbound mail now.”

“We believe what is necessary is express authority from Congress,” Durant said.
Searching is not a problem in the private mail industry, Durant said. “We have tighter controls over the express consignment industry,” he said. “The cooperation with the private

Barr pleads the Fourth Representative fights proposed search-and-seizure provisions By Patrick Poole © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com Members of Congress are expressing outrage after Department of Justice and FBI lobbyists tucked an unseen provision into an anti-drug bill that expands their power to conduct "black bag" jobs, allowing them to enter homes, conduct searches and seize certain items without telling anyone.

Congressional critics and civil liberty advocates are charging that the measure, part of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act ( HR 2987, S.  486), would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The bill, which was approved by the Senate on Nov.  19 by unanimous consent, is scheduled to be considered by the full House Judiciary Committee this morning.  One committee member, Rep.  Bob Barr, R-Ga., told WorldNetDaily that he intends to offer an amendment to remove the offending sections of the bill.

According to Barr, even though the changes would come from an anti-drug bill, the provisions in question would apply to virtually any search conducted by the federal government.

"This isn't dealing with just drug investigations; it changes the section in the U.S.  Code that deals with federal warrant notice and inventory requirements," he said.  "That's the primary reason I object to it, because it affects all criminal law."

Current law requires federal agents to announce their presence before entering a premise and to provide an inventory of confiscated items at the time that they are seized.  But buried at the end of the "Defeat Meth Act" lies Section 6, entitled "Notice Clarification," which would allow searches of homes, vehicles and workplaces without any notice.  The provision would also allow federal law enforcement officials to make copies of "intangible" items, such as computer drives and financial documents, for future examination without ever informing the person subject to the search that the items had been seized.

Another section of the bill would relieve agents from giving property owners subject to the secret searches an inventory of seized items -- leaving citizens completely blind to the government's actions.

"This bill would gut the Fourth Amendment, because how can a person challenge a warrant if they never find out about it until after the harm has been done?" questioned David Kopel, research director for the Independence Institute and a leading constitutional scholar.

Barr said he became aware of the bill's provisions late last week and began to contact other congressional members to organize an effort to strip out the offending portions when the bill comes before the Judiciary Committee for mark-up today.  His efforts face an uphill battle because Rep.  Chris Cannon, R-Utah, the bill's House sponsor, and Sen.  Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, are defending the provisions as necessary for law enforcement officials to conduct their duties.

He also said that he was surprised to learn that the exact same provisions were included in a bankruptcy reform bill, HR 833, that passed both houses earlier this year and is currently being considered by a conference committee.

"We're talking with the conference committee members to get it removed from the bankruptcy bill.  They met on Thursday evening and discussed it," he said.  "We're remaining hopeful, but nothing has been finalized yet."

Barr, a former federal prosecutor, also sharply criticized the Justice Department and FBI for burying the far-reaching measures in an unrelated bill.

"This is typical behavior from the DOJ and the FBI on these types of issues.  Rather than having a fair and open hearing where members can weigh the proposal on its merits, they go to one of their allies in either house and have it slipped in a bill," he said.  "That's certainly not the way to conduct business when you're dealing with people's civil liberties."

Kopel echoed those sentiments, saying that the FBI has difficulty trying to pass liberty-eroding legislation.

"They're sneaking it into a bill because they know it can't stand the scrutiny of public inquiry," said Kopel.  "They understand the American public would not be happy if they found out that their civil liberties are under assault from the very people charged with defending the Constitution."

This is not the first time that the Justice Department has resorted to covert tactics to implement unpopular measures.  In the last few hours of the 1994 session, for instance, Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which required telephone firms to configure their equipment to make it easier to wiretap the nation's communication systems.  The law passed over strong opposition from civil liberties organizations after the FBI promised telephone companies $500 million to help pay for the equipment upgrades.

The FBI used a similar tactic in the last days of the 1998 session, when it was able to drop roving wiretap language into the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1999, authorizing law enforcement agencies to tap telephones used by or near targeted individuals rather than requiring authorization to tap specific phones.

The insertion, made by Rep.  Bill McCollum, R-Fla., happened during a conference committee after both houses had already voted on the bill, despite the fact that the very same measure had been rejected by both houses when it was offered as an amendment to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism bill.

Despite these setbacks, Kopel remains hopeful, yet cautious, as he sees an increasing awareness by citizens of the attacks on their constitutional rights.

"The defenders of civil liberties are more numerous and energetic than ever before, with the ability to reach out in broad coalitions across the conservative-liberal spectrum," he said, noting that the ACLU had joined in the fight against the "Defeat Met Act" provisions.

"If a man's home is his castle, this secret search provision is a tunnel under the moat," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the ACLU's Washington, D.C., office.

Last week the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys sent a joint letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee requesting that the secret search provision be removed from the bill.

"It's a good thing that we're starting to see this groundswell," said Kopel, "because no president since Woodrow Wilson has been so hostile to civil liberties and the Constitution as Bill Clinton

TAKING CASH INTO CUSTODY:

Across U.S., police dodge state seizure laws Related Sites:
• To Protect and Collect: A special report on state seizure laws By KAREN DILLON - The Kansas City Star Date: 05/20/00 22:15 Police and highway patrols across the country are evading state laws to improperly keep millions of dollars in cash and property seized in drug busts and traffic stops.

Most states don't want law enforcement agencies to profit so easily from such confiscation's -- they see it as a dangerous conflict of interest.  For that reason, they have passed laws blocking seized property from going directly back to police, and many states designate seizures to be used for other purposes, such as education.

But a yearlong examination by The Kansas City Star reveals that police agencies in every one of more than two dozen states checked by the newspaper have used federal law enforcement to circumvent their own laws and keep most of that money for themselves.

It works this way: When police seize money, they call a federal agency instead of going to state court to confiscate it.  An agency such as the Drug Enforcement Administration accepts the seizure, making it a federal case.  The DEA keeps a cut of the money and returns the rest to police.  State courts -- and their generally more-restrictive forfeiture laws -- are bypassed altogether.

Law enforcement says that's not illegal and that without the money, police would be handcuffed in fighting crime.  But millions of dollars that lawmakers in some states have designated for education, drug treatment programs and other purposes instead end up back in the hands of police.

For example:

A North Carolina State Highway Patrol trooper stopped a driver last year on Interstate 95 for tailgating.  A police dog signaled drugs were in the Toyota, where troopers found $105,700 and two grams of marijuana.  The driver denied owning either the drugs or the money. The highway patrol gave the money to the DEA, which returned more than $80,000 to the state patrol, even though North Carolina law generally requires sending seized money to education.

In June a Georgia trooper stopped a 1996 Monte Carlo for speeding on I-95.  After the driver and passengers gave conflicting stories, the trooper searched the car and found a hidden compartment containing $7,000, which the driver said was from savings.

The patrol turned over the money to the DEA, which in January returned $5,440 to the patrol.  Under Georgia law forfeited money should go to the state's general fund.

In 1996, the Missouri Highway Patrol stopped a Volkswagen Golf for speeding, searched it because the occupants seemed suspicious and found $24,000.  No drugs were found and no one claimed the money.  The patrol gave it to the DEA to be forfeited, the legal term for confiscation.

(The case took a bizarre turn last year when a family that bought the car at auction discovered an additional $82,000 in the gas tank.  The DEA took that money, too.)

Missouri law sends forfeiture money to a public school fund.

Beyond the money diverted from public funds, critics are just as troubled by the weakening of a basic American civil liberty -- the Bill of Rights protection against improper search and seizure.

Owners who want to recover seized property usually face a much tougher road in federal court than they would under their own state laws.  That continues despite a new federal law passed last month that will place some limits on forfeiture.

The federal hand-offs, critics say, also create an opportunity for police to profit from their own actions.  Indeed, they trace an increasing outcry over aggressive or illegal searches by police nationwide back to the profit motive.

"If you think that by conducting an illegal search and seizing people on the highway you can increase the number of times where you can take assets, it is going to become a big motivating force," said Ira Glasser, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

This may be one of those rare issues that elicits protests across the political spectrum -- from the ACLU to the National Rifle Association.

Americans don't realize that forfeitures often occur to "ordinary people who happen to find themselves in a situation in which they are simply suspected of having been somehow involved in criminal activity, whether those suspicions ever prove out or not," said Roger Pilon, a vice president at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank.

"The line between a free society and a police state is usually broached in small steps."

But many police complain that state laws are too restrictive, sometimes preventing them from taking the money that fuels drug operations.

Others readily admit they avoid state laws because they need to use seized money to fight the war on drugs -- their own cities and states may not provide the funding otherwise.

"A lot of state agencies, like the GBI, prefer to work federal cases because we know it will go directly into our asset forfeiture bank," said Mark Jackson, director of legal services for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

Some federal officials contend the cases collected by the newspaper prove nothing.

"In a country this big, you can find cases all over the lot," said Jerry McDowell, director of the Justice Department's asset forfeiture and money laundering division.  "I don't think police agencies are in the business of profiting."

Besides, he said, it's legal for police to send seizures to federal agencies because most state laws do not specifically prohibit that.

"We certainly don't want to subvert state law, and we don't want states to subvert our law," McDowell said.

But most states do prohibit simply handing off seizures -- their laws give jurisdiction over seizures to state courts, The Star has found.

What that means, say legal experts and judges who have examined the little-known state provisions, is that police cannot simply hand off seizures to federal agents to avoid state requirements.  They need a court order first.

One federal court in a Louisiana case even derisively likened the evasion maneuver to a trick football play.  The court wrote:

"NFL sportscasters might call the handoff from the Sheriff's Office to the DEA, followed by the lateral back from the DEA to the Sheriff's Office, a `flea-flicker.' "

Safeguard erodes Forfeiture itself is not new -- many colonists fled England in part because the king's law allowed forfeiture, but it followed them to America.

John Hancock, the first signer of the Declaration of Independence, was defended by John Adams when the Crown seized his ship for failure to pay a despised tax on its cargo of Madeira wine.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers determined forfeiture would be used only on a limited basis -- to seize foreign ships for failure to pay customs duties, for example.

As a result, the Bill of Rights protects Americans from illegal searches and seizures: No person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Two hundred years later, much has changed with the advent of the war on drugs.

In passing a 1984 law, Congress thought that if federal and local law enforcement agencies cooperated more closely, they could shut down drug operations by confiscating dealers' money.

Federal agencies would share assets they seized in drug busts with local police who helped them.  That would reimburse police for the cost of helping to fight the war on drugs.

"The intent was to permit the feds to share with state and local law enforcement when there were truly federal cases," former U.S. Rep. William J.  Hughes, the chief sponsor of the bill and a New Jersey Democrat, said in a recent interview.

But it was up to the Justice Department to write the guidelines to implement the law -- and that's where critics say the intent of the law was twisted.

In addition to addressing joint investigations led by federal agencies, the Justice guidelines created a process called "adoption."

Under adoption, state and local police could give their seizures to the federal government -- even if a federal agency had not been involved.

The Justice Department "turned around and permitted the forfeiture laws to be used basically to circumvent state law," Hughes said.

As a result, private citizens are now more vulnerable to forfeiture because circumvented state laws often provide more protections than federal forfeiture laws.

For example, some state laws protect people from having property forfeited by police unless they're charged with a felony.

But under federal law, authorities don't even need a criminal charge to forfeit property.

In fact, experts estimate that the great majority of forfeitures occur without a criminal charge.

Most state laws require that forfeitures be ordered by a judge. Federal law enforcement has the power to order forfeitures without a judge -- and does in most cases.

And it's costly to contest a federal forfeiture.  Defense attorneys estimate it costs at least $10,000, so many won't even accept a case unless the value of the seizure is large.

Although many people whose property is seized are no doubt guilty of a crime, that doesn't mean all are.

Charlotte Carroll, a disabled, 64-year-old Maryland woman, could lose her house because police found a third of an ounce of cocaine and other drugs that some of her children left there.

Under Maryland law, a house usually can't be forfeited without a criminal conviction.  Police tapped the federal government to forfeit the three-acre property, which has been in Carroll's family for a century.

"I got sick, so sick in my stomach and started crying," Carroll said. "I'm just praying."

Carroll, who has osteoarthritis and receives $500 a month from Social Security disability, has never been convicted of a crime, her attorney said.

"The state can't take her house, so they run to the feds," said the attorney, Stephen F.  Allen.

Carroll continues to live in the home while Allen fights the forfeiture.

David Salem, Assistant U.S.  Attorney, described the forfeiture as a "hybrid adoption" because federal agents were aware of the police investigation but were not involved in the searches.

Salem also said the forfeiture would be justified because Carroll didn't take enough steps to protect her property, even though she says she evicted her children and changed a lock before proceedings began.

"She claims she changed a lock on a door though I'm unclear which door it is," Salem said.  "She claims she took steps that even if I would credit them as true, the government believes them to be insufficient to justify innocent ownership.  There was no effect.  That didn't keep the children out of the house."

It's no accident that many state laws have tougher forfeiture standards than federal law, legislators say.

"We have tried to make sure that people who are subject to forfeitures have some basic rights," said Georgia Rep.  Jim Martin, a Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

And some of those protections are erased when police give the money to federal law enforcement.

Using the feds Not all police departments send forfeitures to federal agencies, but many that do candidly acknowledge it.

"Everybody uses the federal system," said Lt.  Harry Kearley of the Alabama Bureau of Investigations.

Sometimes, police explain, they believe money they seize is linked to drugs, but they can't prove it under state standards, and they don't want to give the money back to a suspected drug dealer.  Federal law lets them take the money out of the owner's hands.

For example, police in Azusa, Calif., used easier federal requirements to take at least one forfeiture worth more than $450,000 to them.

In 1998, an officer stopped a driver for improper use of his turn signal and searched the vehicle when the driver said it didn't belong to him.  The officer found $611,500 in a hidden compartment.  A dog signaled the presence of drug residue on the cash.

To forfeit the money under state law, police usually need a felony conviction.

But police found no drugs and sent the driver on his way.

Soon after, the department gave the money to a federal agent.

"The reality is there are situations under which California law will not permit forfeiture, and federal law will," said Andy Cuellar, a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, Calif.

"There is very little California can do about it."

An Alaska case shows just how strong federal powers are.

Fairbanks police had seized $44,850 in cash from Perry Johnson after finding cocaine in his home.  But charges were dismissed because of an illegal search.  Police knew they couldn't keep the money under state law, so they gave it to the DEA for adoption.

The state Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that police had no right under state law to give the money to the DEA.  Under federal law, though, police could keep the money, so the city wrote a cashier's check to Johnson for $58,654, which included interest, according to court records.

But the DEA seized that money, too, saying it could be traced to drug transactions.  The federal government returned 40 percent to 60 percent to Fairbanks police, a police official said.

High stakes Forfeitures can mean a lot of money for police.

The Justice Department says that from October 1996 through March 1999 it accepted $208,454,000 in seizures from state and local police.

But that figure is still being audited because the Justice Department has not published an annual forfeiture report since 1996, although the law requires the report to be produced each year.

In fact, the $208 million figure is almost certainly low.

Over one period, the Justice Department reported that Missouri police gave federal agencies only half as much as the state auditor found in just a sampling of cases.

Whatever the nationwide total, forfeitures can quickly add up for individual departments.

In 1997 and 1998, the St.  Louis Metropolitan Police Department received back more than $2.5 million.

In 1998 alone, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took back $1.7 million.

(Both those figures include proceeds from joint investigations.)

And in a single case in Indiana, a state trooper stopped a truck for speeding on Interstate 70.  Troopers found $811,470 and turned it over to the DEA, which this year returned almost $500,000 to the state police and $121,000 to a sheriff's department that helped.

Indeed, enough is at stake that police work with federal agencies no matter what their state law may be.

For example, police in some states that award forfeiture money to special funds purposefully divert the money so it can end up in their coffers.

Wisconsin law mandates that forfeiture money goes to public schools, but only $16,906 went into Wisconsin's education fund during the year ending in June 1999, according to the state treasury department.  During just six months of the same period, local law enforcement gave the federal government $1.5 million in seizures.

In Kentucky, no forfeited money has gone into a substance abuse fund for at least four years, even though some should under state law.

In fact, The Star found that police circumvented their laws even in states that would have given them back much of their seizures had they gone through state court.

Maj.  Gale T.  Griess of the Nebraska State Patrol said the patrol hands off most seizures to federal agencies so it doesn't have to split the money with education, as state law requires.

In Kansas, police are allowed most of the money back under state law.  Nonetheless, the Kansas Highway Patrol admits handing off money to federal agencies.

And surprisingly, even in states such as Alabama that let law enforcement keep all the forfeiture money after costs, police still can be found giving their seizures to federal agencies.  The reason: Forfeitures are easier under federal law.

Law enforcement officials say police are justified when they make that choice.

"If they are out enforcing the law and they are seizing property from criminals, and they are doing it in conjunction with the federal government, they are not getting around (state) law, they are helping enforce federal law," said McDowell of the Justice Department.

State roadblocks But The Star found that more than two-thirds of all states appear to prohibit handing off money to federal agencies without permission of a state court.

Those states have requirements that courts have called "turnover orders." Many of the provisions read like the one in Illinois:

"Property taken or detained under this section ...  is deemed to be in the custody of the law enforcement department or agency employing the seizing officer subject only to the orders and judgments of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings."

That means only a state judge can transfer a seizure to a federal agency, legal experts say.

"This statute is not difficult at all," said David Harris, a University of Toledo law professor and constitutional expert.  "The state court has jurisdiction."

A half-dozen state and federal court decisions have backed that interpretation.

"A local police department may not take seized property and just pass it on as it pleases to the FBI in flagrant disregard of state laws," according to a federal circuit court opinion in an Illinois case.

Gene Zoegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said he was aware of the turnover provisions but was unfamiliar with how they worked.  He referred questions to the Justice Department, which did not respond.

But even some prosecutors concede police can't just hand off forfeitures.

Under Alabama law, a court must decide when to transfer seizures to a federal agency, not police, said Yvonne Saxon, Alabama assistant attorney general.

"If you read the statute literally, there is no choice," Saxon said.

When questioned, police offer a number of reasons for not following turnover orders:

They did not know the law existed.

They did not really seize the money -- they were only holding it until a federal agency could officially seize it for forfeiture.

Money seized on an interstate highway may be involved in interstate drug trafficking, and therefore is a federal matter.

Police officers sometimes are not really acting as local police -- they've been deputized to be federal agents, even though they are still paid by local or state governments.  And cash becomes federal property when a deputized officer picks it up, they say.

For its part, the DEA says a state case becomes federal if police investigating the case ask a DEA agent to come to the scene of the crime.  "That agent can seize the asset on behalf of the DEA and initiate a federal forfeiture proceeding," the DEA wrote in response to questions from The Star.

Critics say such reasoning is legally dubious and seems an attempt to obscure the real issue -- police want the money, and that generally requires evading their state laws.

Indeed, police say they need the money if they are to continue the war on drugs.  If they lose forfeiture money, they say, local governments are unlikely to replace it.

For example, Capt.  Ruben Davalos, head of the special investigations unit for Albuquerque, N.M., police, pointed out that his unit costs about $1 million a year, of which the city only funds about $250,000.

Joseph McNamara, former San Jose and Kansas City police chief, said city officials can take some of the blame for the federal hand-offs.

He recalls one year in San Jose his department's tentative budget had no money for equipment, so McNamara asked the city manager why.

"He kind of waved his hand dismissively and said, `Well, you guys seized $4 million last year, I expect you to do better this year,' "
McNamara said.

State law doesn't account for the cost of doing drug investigations, so police are justified in bypassing it, said Missouri Highway Patrol Sgt.  Tim Rousset, who heads a task force in southwest Missouri.

"There was once a state law that said black people and white people would go to different schools," Rousset said.  "Just because there is a state law doesn't necessarily mean that that state law is correct."

But the end never justifies the means, especially in law enforcement, said Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a Washington think tank.

"When a police officer on patrol understands the chief is saying it's OK for us to keep property that is not ours, the chief is sending a very bright, neonlike message," Sterling said.

"The rules don't matter."

Besides, others say, police who use forfeits to fund themselves end up on a treadmill.

"The real narcotic here is the money," said Glasser of the ACLU.  "It becomes a stream of income that they learn not to do without and then they have to generate more of it."

All content © 2000 The Kansas City Star

       Wired News reported: “Kids at Philadelphia's George Washington High School don't cut many classes these days. Bar-coded identification cards that monitor who comes into the building each morning and track the classes a student attends are making it pretty difficult to skip out. Students who do it anyway are greeted the next morning at school with the shriek of a siren that alerts the school principal and lets him know who was naughty. The software that works with the cards, called the Comprehensive Attendance Administration and Security System, is manufactured by Laurel, Maryland-based School Technology Management. CAASS works by scanning each student's ID card upon entry to the school, then sends the student's name and picture to the CAASS screen, enabling the staff member to confirm the student's identity. Students who don't have their IDs enter a second area where they are entered in the system manually. George Washington principal Sam Karlin said the program has done wonders for the high school, a middle-class, racially mixed school of 2,750 known for its embrace of technology. Since his school began using the software in October 1999, he says class cutting is down by 75 percent. He used to get a 14-page stack of papers showing up to 3,000 reported cuts, he said. Now he gets a few pages worth of skipped classes by about 80 students. ‘I'm down to my hardcore cutters right now,’ he said. ‘Eighty is a manageable number.’ He said the software has scared most of the kids away from their deviant ways. ‘In the beginning they were sort of chuckling about it. Now they realize we are tracking them through the day. It's much more serious,’ he said...”

As part of its program aimed at assisting state and local law enforcement agencies with the safe and effective
immobilization of vehicles, NIJ is continuing its evaluation of electromagnetic technologies. In these Phase
III field tests, NIJ will examine the effectiveness of two electrostatic discharge devices - the Road Sentry and the
Auto Arrestor - in immobilizing cars moving along a roadway under their own power.

Federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel are welcome to observe the testing. Please notify NIJ of your
intention to visit the driver training facility, including the specific day(s) that you anticipate visiting. NIJ
intends to obtain video and still photo coverage of the test trials, and will distribute them via the Internet and
video cassette for persons who are unable to visit the test site.

When
----

The dates and hours when visitors may observe test trials and view the test apparatus, will be as follows:

Test Trial 1
Non-Lethal Technologies'
Road Sentry Device

Tuesday, May 23, 12:00-4:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 24, 8:00-12:00 p.m.

Test Trial 2
JAYCOR's Auto Arrestor Device

Tuesday, June 20, 12:00-4:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 21, 8:00-12:00 p.m.

Where
-----

Maryland Police and Correctional Driver Training Facility 7310 Slacks Road, Sykesville, MD, 21784

Points of Contact
-----------------

To inquire about these tests, contact Mr. Amon Young, NIJ, at: (202) 514-4338; FAX (202) 307-9907;
younga@ojp.usdoj.gov

To visit the test site and for lodging information in the test site area, contact Jennifer Telander, NIJ, at: (202)
514-3341; FAX (202) 307-9907; telander@ojp.usdoj.gov

Please refer to the following web page for more information:
http://www.nlectc.org/specialannouncements/esdtesting.html

       The London Telegraph reported: "Ministers are to allow insurance companies to use genetic testing to assess a person's risk of inheriting serious illness. People with a genetic tendency to chronic conditions will face significantly higher premiums for medical, life and travel insurance. In the past, ministers have considered banning  genetic testing because of fears that it would create an under-class unable to obtain insurance cover. But after a consultation completed last week, the Government is to sanction a series of reliable genetic tests that insurance firms can use. It plans to allow the companies to use single gene tests, which show whether a person with a family history of an illness such as Huntington's disease - jerky, involuntary movements accompanied by progressive dementia - is likely to develop it later in life. Worried consumer and civil liberties groups say that sections of society with serious medical complaints may be left without cover. Anna Bradley, director of the National Consumer Council, said: 'We would be very concerned about measures that could stop people getting insurance.' Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said that genetic testing should be carried out for medical purposes only. 'By allowing insurers to test for even single gene disorders you are going to get a genetic under-class. There will be enormous public opposition to this. People should not take these tests without adequate counselling.'...'

Children as young as 10 may be fingerprinted if a new bill proposed by the Minister of Police, George Hawkins, becomes law.

The initiative is one of several targeting crimes, which were outlined by the Minister in a speech to Auckland”s Asian community.

Hawkins says youth crime is a growing problem, and he wants to introduce a law later this year, or early next year, which allows the fingerprinting of young people aged 10 years or more.

He says the proposed law would affect those caught breaking the law, and while he accepts the plan will be controversial, its aim is to help young people break the crime cycle.

He says where fingerprinting links a young person with a crime, early intervention programmes will be used to help that person turn his or her life around.

But a member of Children”s Agenda, Maureen Southwick, says it could have the effect of branding children as criminals at a very young age, even if they are not charged with a crime.

And the chairwoman of the Council for Civil Liberties, Margaret Lewis, says such a law would probably breach the Bill of Rights, and might do more harm than good.

Published Saturday, March 04, 2000

Identification device works in a flash

The handheld gadget takes fingerprints and photos, then instantly transmits them for on-the-spot data

Thursday, February 17, 2000

By Maxine Bernstein of The Oregonian staff

Police in several U.S. cities soon may ask drunken driving suspects not only to touch their fingers to their noses but
also to press their thumbs against a handheld device to determine their identity and more -- instantly.

Six agencies in Minnesota and Southern California have been awarded federal grant money to become the first in the nation to test the new fingerprinting technology, which will go on sale nationwide in July.

The designers and manufacturers were in Portland this week to demonstrate it to area agencies considering buying it, including the Portland Police Bureau, Multnomah County Sheriff's Office, Clackamas County Sheriff's Office,
Gresham Police, Clark County Sheriff's Office and the Federal Protective Service.

"We're all looking at ways in which we can become more efficient and effective out on the street," said Capt. Mike
Garvey, who heads the Portland police identification division. "I don't know if we're going to buy this
fingerprinting system or not, but it looks like something that would help an officer out in the field."

The terminals, patented by Digital Biometrics Inc., a Minnesota-based company, can capture fingerprints at the
scene and transmit them to a database. If there is a match, the system returns the person's name and date of birth
directly to the officer's handheld terminal. Then the officer can check the person's criminal history and search
for any outstanding warrants.

Transmitting photos, too

The devices also can take photographs and transmit them immediately to an office computer or to laptops in police
cruisers.

If police are investigating a case of a missing child, for example, an officer could transmit the child's photo to the
data terminals in other patrol cars aiding in the search.

Other applications include photographing crime-scene evidence, including latent fingerprints, and recording
witness statements.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Service, or COPS, awarded a one-year, $1.5 million grant to allow six agencies to test the technology this spring.

"We're hoping this becomes like the cop's portable radio, and officers say, 'Geez, I can't be without this,' " said
Lt. Bruce Lennox of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office in Minnesota, one of the agencies testing the device.

Its manufacturers tout the time it could save police, keeping them from needlessly transporting suspects to a
police precinct or booking division to fingerprint them.

"That eats up our time," said Darrell Souza of the Federal Protective Service in Portland, which is responsible for
the security of federal properties. "This would certainly help."

Other agencies interested

Other agencies, such as border patrols and campus and airport security forces, also have expressed interest.

Because the technology has not yet been used, officers don't know how well suspects will comply with the field
fingerprinting. And the price might be prohibitive for some forces; the system ranges from $3 million for a small
police department to $8 million for an urban force.

"The whole idea is to just provide information as quickly as possible, so police can make a good decision at the
scene," said Jim Granger, chief executive officer of Digital Biometrics. "It's a tool for decision-making."
 

You can reach Maxine Bernstein at 503-221-8212 or by e-mail
at Maxinebernstein@news.oregonian.com.
 
 

QUEENSLAND police will have the power to forcibly take DNA samples from suspects under proposed laws announced by the State Government yesterday.

Under the legislation, to be introduced to parliament this year, the police will be permitted to take a sample from anyone suspected of an indictable offence, all prisoners in Queensland jails and those who volunteer to accept the procedure.

The samples will be taken using mouth swabs, but if consent is not given police can use "reasonable force" to obtain a sample, such as plucking head hair.

Children under 14 would be excluded from the provisions. The initiative is part of the nationwide effort to build a DNA and fingerprint database under the $50 million CrimTrac program.

The Northern Territory has already expanded police DNA sampling powers. Under current Queensland law, samples can only be taken by a medical practitioner with the consent of the subject or by order of a magistrate.
Justifying the expansion of police powers, the State Government cited statistics showing the solving of property crimes in the UK had increased from 12 per cent to 40 per cent after large-scale DNA sampling was introduced there five years ago.

Police Minister Tom Barton said police would use the new procedures to target common offences such as car theft and serious crimes like murder and rape. "This will solve old crimes, this will solve crimes in a way that will be unprecedented," Mr Barton said yesterday.

But Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman said the legislation was draconian.
"To give police the power to swab mouths simply because a police officer asserts someone might be a suspect is a huge leap in police power with significant diminished safeguards," he said.

But Mr Barton said the increase in police powers would be accompanied by the necessary safeguards.
DNA samples and profiles would be destroyed if the person was acquitted or their case was dropped, and the permission of a commissioned police officer would be needed if a sample was to be taken without consent, he said.
"The only people who have anything to fear from the use of DNA technology are the guilty," he said.

                  By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - Great Britain's national DNA database, the world's largest crime-solving computer system, has mistakenly matched an innocent man to a burglary - a one-in-37 million possibility that American experts call "mind-blowing."

The mismatch, thought to be the first major mistake produced by a national DNA database, has sent shock waves through law enforcement communities not only in Great Britain but also in the United States, where DNA databases are based on the British model.

 British authorities fear that the error might prompt thousands of people convicted through DNA testing to appeal their convictions.

 U.S. officials say similar mismatches could occur here as DNA testing of convicts becomes more widespread. "This is mind-blowing," says the FBI's Stephen Niezgoda, manager of the American national database program. "Everyone will be watching to see how this plays out."

 The mistaken identification was disclosed by British authorities last month during a meeting with members of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, the Justice Department's DNA task force.

Notes of the meeting were examined by USA TODAY and confirmed by Britain's Forensic Science Service, which maintains that nation's DNA database.

Last year, police in the British city of Manchester lifted DNA, an individual's unique genetic code, from evidence left at the scene of a burglary.

The DNA profile was submitted to the national database, where a computer matched it to one of 660,000 previous arrestees whose DNA was on file.

The DNA profiles matched at six points of identification, or loci, along the DNA molecule.

British authorities estimated that the likelihood of that match occurring at random was one in 37 million.

But after the suspect provided an alibi, police asked for a retest.

This time, a new technique, which examines 10 loci and has a one-in-1 billion likelihood of mismatch, was used.

The suspect's DNA did not match at all the additional loci and he was released.

British authorities say the mismatch probably was caused by the rapidly increasing size of their database, which has grown from 470,000 potential suspects to 660,000 in the past year.

As more profiles are added, the possibility of suspects with very similar DNA increases, the British say.

"It isn't a mistake in the laboratory; this was something to be expected," database spokesman Rob Smith said. "There's no cause for alarm."

But Angela Flower, who investigates possible wrongful convictions for a British government appeals board, called the mistaken identification a "quite worrying phenomenon."

"Everybody in the U.K. who has ever been convicted on six-point (DNA) profiling will want to apply to us to have their convictions reviewed," she said.

American experts say a similar mismatch could occur here as the U.S. national DNA database adds profiles.

 The U.S. database, which was begun in 1998, is about half the size of its British counterpart.

The FBI currently tests DNA at 13 points of identification.

LOCKNEY [TEXAS] When students head back to class next week in Lockney, they'll be asked to do something they've never been asked to do before:submit to a drug test.

Beginning Tuesday, students in grades six through 12 will be required to provide a urine sample to the district for a drug screening. It's a requirement of all students, not just those who wish to participate in extracurricular activities.

The district debated and began researching a drug testing policy in 1997. Though the district has been reluctant to implement such a program, Supt. Raymond Lusk said the district can no longer avoid it.

"It's a long story, but society has just brought us to this point," Lusk said. "We do a lot of things (now) that at one time we would say was not the school's job to do. Schools have kind of become all things and our job description has expanded."

Under the new policy, parents are required to sign a consent form prior to student testing, Lusk said. If parents refuse, the tests are considered positive, and students are subject to repercussions.

At least one parent has said he will not sign the consent form. Under the terms of the policy, his son could face a 21-day suspension from extracurricular activities, three days of in-school suspension and three sessions of drug counseling.

"What scares me the most, if I do not sign it, they are going to punish my child for what I do, and I definitely do not think that's right," Larry Tannahill said. "I'm not going to sign it. If it comes down to where they can put my child in ISS, I'll pull him out of school. And go to the grade school and pull (my second child) out, and then we'll go talk to my lawyer. And if it has to be taken to court, then I guess that's what I'm going to have to do."

Lusk said he's willing to talk with reluctant parents privately to try and resolve any conflicts.

"The last thing I would want to do is punish a child because of what a parent did," he said. "Somebody might accuse infringement on personal rights ... but if you have a child and they participate in Little League, you have
to sign a form that says he can participate. ... If they go on a field trip in school, you have to sign consent. That's part of life and the reason for the parental consent form is because we want the parents involved."

Lusk named several positive aspects to the drug testing policy, such as preventing health <http://lubbockonline.com/health> problems and ensuring that students are at their best when in school. The No. 1 reason, he said, was to help deter kids from peer pressure.

"It's a reason to say no. If they have the threat of a drug test, on Saturday night if they're in a group and someone tries to pressure them to use it, this is a reason for them to say no," he said. "I think we're helping the parents too if we alert them to something they weren't aware of." The tests will be confidential and kept private, Lusk said. During testing, students will be taken to a segregated area on the school's campus. Faculty and staff also will be tested. Should a faculty member test positive, he or she could be fired, Lusk said.

For students who test positive a second or third time, the terms of the punishment increase. Lusk said a student wouldn't be ordered to leave school for testing positive.

Lockney ISD is not the first South Plains school to implement such a policy. School officials in Post and Sundown have said their policies are effective and supported in their communities.

In Tulia a former student sued the school district, claiming the testing violated his rights. That case is still pending in Amarillo's federal court.

"Every school has insurance if that happens," Lusk said. "Obviously we don't want that."

But for Tannahill, he has only until Tuesday to change his mind about signing the consent form.

"Every person has got a right to their own opinion, and I do not think they can enforce this," Tannahill said. "It's just a principle thing to me. ... I cannot let the school say, 'I know how to raise your child better than you.'
They do not have that right."

Back in the early 1960's in preparation to serve on President John F. Kennedy's personal Battle Staff, this writer was subjected to some highly classified and technical training that addressed the imbedded "philosophical and psychological doctrine of communism" and it's threat to our Constitutional Republic form of government and our American way of life. The title of the DOD [Department of Defense] training manual used in that training was
"Two Ways of Life, The Communist Challenge to Democracy" (DoD DEN-9),(DA Pam 360-510), (NAVPER S 15204), (AFP 190-1-1)

The Merrian Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines "The Totalitarian Form of Government." as: "1-b: of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capability of the nation esp. by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)."  Given that definition please read, very carefully, the following quotations taken from the DOD Training Manual noted
above.

Quote # 1, "DoD Introduction, page 3, par 3: "In the totalitarian way of life, there are no "inalienable rights" of man which the state is not allowed to touch. Totalitarianism wants all of man, his body and soul, and there is no human activity - political, economic, social, religious, or educational - that is allowed to escape government control. In addition to not recognizing any limits to its goals, it recognizes no limits to the means it is prepared to use to
attain them: Propaganda, imprisonment, terror, slave labor, brainwashing, and even the destruction of entire nations
(genocide)."

Quote # 2, page 69, par 4: "The totalitarian society seeks to destroy whatever individuality exists in man by transforming him into an insignificant atom of the mass. Totalitarianism is therefore hostile to individuals pursuing their own private and personal goals. It reduces man to a member of one vast whole - the "Nordic master
race" under Nazism, the "glorious proletariat under communism. Whereas democratic civilization seeks progress through individuality, totalitarianism seeks to accomplish its ends through conformity."

Quote # 3, page 164, par 3: " Communist regimes assume that if people are not permitted to receive religious instruction or even hear views that are favorable to religion, and if only a few churches are allowed, then the ceaseless anti-religious propaganda of government and the party in the school, factory and press will
eventually eliminate religion as a living force in the [nation].

Now that you have been made aware of the origin and ultimate goal of the "philosophy" imbedded in the FCC action noted in the following AFA Action Alert, we urge you to take immediate action and respond as requested by AFA.

PASTORS:  Please share this information with the members of your congegation.

By HIS Grace we live to serve

Rev. "Curt" Tomlin
Major USA Ret
President TCAN Inc.
POB 11746
Killeen, Tx 76547-1746
Ph: 254-628-7043
Fax: 254-628-7894
EMail: ctomlin@vvm.com
Web Site: http://www.vvm.com/~ctomlin
****************************************************
AFA ACTION ALERT - 1/7/2000

American Family Association
Center for Law & Policy
P.O. Drawer 2440

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 7, 2000

Contact: Patrick J. Vaughn: Staff Attorney: 662/680-3886

FCC RULING RESTRICTS CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING
Clinton Democrat appointees cast deciding votes
Online Version of this Alert (http://www.afa.net/alert/aa000107.htm )

Concerned citizens are being urged by the American Family Association and the National Religious Broadcasters to contact their congressmen about a recent FCC ruling that violates the First Amendment rights of Christian broadcasters.

In its December 15, 1999, ruling in the WQED case (released on December, 29), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued educational television restrictions that limit the programming freedom of religious broadcasters, but leave secular broadcasters with programming discretion. The FCC disqualified church
services, religious exhortation, proselytizing and statements of personally held religious views from being treated as "educational."

"In other words, the FCC could now revoke a Christian ministry's noncommercial television license if over half its programming consists of church services, calls to repent and follow Biblical teaching, witnessing, testimonies, and invitations to accept Christ as Savior and Lord," said AFA President Don Wildmon. "According to the FCC, church services serve neither the educational, instructional nor cultural needs of the American people - the church
is useless to society."

The FCC has traditionally left the decision of what to broadcast and the determination of what is educational up to individual broadcasters.  In their dissent to the WQED decision, FCC Commissioners Michael Powell and Harold Furchtgott-Roth questioned the constitutionality of the government's religion-based intrusion into programming decisions.  They asked why church services would not qualify as "cultural" programming just as an opera might.

AFA learned that the three votes in favor of the restriction on Christian broadcasting all came from Democrats appointed by President Clinton. Those FCC Commissioners are Chairman William Kennard, Susan Ness and Gloria Tristani.

Although the FCC's current ruling is limited to noncommercial television stations, it states a government policy that can be applied to radio broadcasting as well.  The FCC's WQED ruling has caused uproar among Christians and conservatives because it represents a governmental restriction targeted specifically at religious speech.

"This ruling evinces an acute hostility to religion, hopelessly entangles government bureaucrats in religious questions, and erects an impermissibly vague and ambiguous standard," said Stephen M. Crampton, Chief Counsel for the AFA Center For Law and Policy.

  If All the World's a Computer...

   Privacy: When technology hooks us up in one enormous network, will we have any secrets left?

   By Peter McGrath
   Newsweek, January 1, 2000

   Any time, anywhere: that is the promise the captains of technology make us, even as we struggle with our existing machines, our cranky software and our creaky Internet. They mean it too. Imagine this: computers that enfold you, like a second skin. Rooms that come alive with sensors, cameras and embedded chips, allowing them to "know" you and adjust to your preferences when you arrive. Cars that monitor not only traffic but also your vital signs, and tell you when you're not fit to be on the road.

   These all belong to a family of devices on the drawing board at places like IBM, Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) and the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. Some are in advanced stages of prototyping. They include such things as microchips farmers till into the soil to measure moisture and acidity; building materials that adjust resistance to wind and earthquake; insulation that changes according to weather conditions. The idea is simple: computing must become ubiquitous, pervasive. And nowhere will it be more pervasive than when it is closest to us. As Michael Hawley put it in the mission statement for his Things That Think project at the MIT Media Lab, "We wear clothes, put on jewelry, sit on chairs and walk on carpets that all share the same profound failing: they are blind, deaf and very dumb. Cuff links don't, in fact, link with anything else... Glasses help sight, but they don't see."

   They will if the engineers have their way. Eyeglasses are the medium of choice for an idea variously called BodyNet and the Personal Area Network, or PAN. You would wear glasses with a camera in the frame, a    photodiode sensor to monitor your eye movements, a voice transmitter in the earpiece and a short-range radio connection to a pagerlike device worn on a belt or in a handbag. That device would contain whole libraries of personal information, about both you and everyone you've ever met while wearing the BodyNet.

   One effect would be to displace at a smaller size the multiple electronic devices we carry today, such as laptops, mobile phones and personal digital assistants. But BodyNet goes further. Thus equipped, you could be prompted with the name and business of an acquaintance approaching on the street. (The device would compare the image with its database, and your glasses would whisper the result in your ear.) You could, with the help of a phased array of microphones embedded in the fabric of your jacketwhat Hawley calls "underware" respond knowingly to conversations: if your acquaintance mentions an investment opportunity, your device could connect to the Internet and call up all relevant information about the company in question, using your glasses as a display screen. Dinner parties would never be the same.

   Sound good? It certainly does to the digerati. They are prone to such statements as "If computers are everywhere, they better stay out of the way" (Mark Weiser and John Seely Brown, senior scientists at Xerox   PARC), and "The idea is nothing less than to make the world itself programmable" (Alan Daniels, then of Georgia Tech).

   In their view, computing will, by the year 2005, shift decisively from domination by the personal computer to reliance on a variety of "information appliances." At first most of these devices will be handheld: Web-ready telephones and palmtops, for example. Increasingly, though, they will be embedded in the background in ways
almost invisible to us. Wearable computers will arrive soon after, though it will take some time to make them small and light enough to actually embed them in clothing. Cameras will be everywhere, feeding visual data to the Internet, and some researchers believe that by 2020 we will be on camera nearly nonstop.

   The world of ubiquitous computing raises a number of questions. High among them is the issue of inescapability. "In practice," says Ann Livermore, president of enterprise computing at Hewlett-Packard, "the slogan 'Any time, anywhere' means 'All the time, everywhere'." Even greater, though, is the problem of privacy, when pervasive in fact means invasive. There is no precedent for the idea of self-executing devices that are ubiquitous, networked and always on. If your car knows when you're intoxicated, why can't it also inform a police car? If a communicating pacemaker can tell your doctor that you're on the verge of a cardiac event, why can't it also tell your insurance   company?

   All such devices will, of course, be presented as having benefits so obvious as to pre-empt objection. It's hard to quarrel with a car that deters drunk driving, even at the cost of a little self-incrimination. It's even harder to argue against a networked pacemaker, if it saves lives. But, says Coralee Whitcomb, president of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, it never stops there: "All these things develop other uses... Any time you create a technology that is inherently invasive, it'll get used that way. And there's always a million good reasons for it."

   Technologists do expect resistance to such devices, at least at first. "We are naturally squeamish about ideas like electronics that are worn, ingested, implanted," says Hawley. "Maybe it's rooted in our deep fear [of] being eaten, or disgust at being the host for a parasite. But once we cross these bridges they seem to become second nature." Health care is only the most immediate use of ubiquitous computing, he says. He envisions a world in which the ability to put entire systems on a single chip, creating such devices as voice-activated "metaphones" the size of a lapel pin, effectively abolishes distance as a barrier to human interaction.

   Some high hurdles remain. Power supplies must be miniaturized. Current network-management tools are wholly inadequate to ubiquitous computing. Nor will there be enough network capacity for another 10 years. But these are susceptible to engineering attack. The same might be said of privacy: protection will come from some combination of encryption and digital fingerprinting, in which people who gain access to your personal data leave electronic traces of their presence, allowing you to hold them accountable. These technical fixes aren't durable, though. As David Brin, a scientist and author of "The Transparent Society," notes, "Each year's 'unbreakable' encryption   standard is broken within less than three years by groups of amateurs." A new and stronger standard then emerges, only to be itself broken, in a permanent game of digital leapfrog.

   In any case, privacy is not just a condition. It's also a state of mind, a feeling of security that owes more to the possibility of anonymity than anything else. And anonymity is one thing that the next wave of computing will abolish.
 

                           © 2000 Newsweek, Inc.

             BodySearch system new technology for customs services
             [29 Jul '99] - US
             Customs Service

             US Customs Service

AN X-ray scanner that shows airport customs officers the naked bodies of passengers has been greeted with outrage by American civil liberties watchdogs.

The BodySearch machine has been in place in New York and five other American cities for several months. Security officers can look at pictures of the human body in outline regardless of how much clothing passengers are   wearing.

According to a spokesman for the manufacturers, the images of the body are not clear, although genitals and breasts are clearly distinguishable. "It is not like you are getting a photograph of a naked person," the spokesman said.

Anyone seeking to smuggle drugs or weapons was most likely to hide them in areas untouched by body searches, such as the groin and, in women, the chest. Raymond Kelley, commissioner for the Customs service, said the            machine was introduced in response to passengers' concerns about intimate searches.

 "People object to being physically touched and in response to that we brought in the scanners," Mr Kelley said. The Customs service is facing several lawsuits, mainly from women and members of ethnic minorities, claiming         discrimination in singling out passengers for body searches.

 The American Civil Liberties Union said it was considering legal action to prohibit use of the X-ray machine. "If there is ever a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, it is under their clothing," Gregory      Nojeim, an ACLU lawyer, said yesterday.

The Customs service has refused to say where and how the machines are being used, but confirmed that it was planned to install them at all international airports in America by next June. The machines are expected to scan only passengers selected by Customs officers for special attention.

      Associated Press reported: “The last thing people want to face when entering the United States after a cramped overseas flight is a long wait to clear passport control. More and more business travelers - Americans and foreigners alike - press a hand to a computer screen and are on their way. In an experimental program, more than 45,000 travelers are using an Immigration and Naturalization Service Passenger Accelerated Service System card, or INSPASS, to get through the process quickly. That is twice as many as last year, according to agency spokeswoman Eileen Schmid. ‘The process takes about 15 to 20 seconds,’ compared with a 20-minute average wait at regular immigration control, she said. The traveler runs a card through a machine in the airport and places a hand in a ‘hand geometry reader.’ The computer compares the live scan of the bone structure in the hand to an image that was taken when the traveler applied for the pass…Terrorism expert William Daly is not surprised. The biometric image of the hand's bone structure and configuration is an extremely reliable way of determining the identity of a person - much more so than the picture in a passport, he said. ‘It's becoming more of an industry standard, because biometric standard is much more difficult to forge,’ said Daly, managing director of a security consulting firm...The goal is to make the pass available to frequent business travelers from nearly all nations, but not to anyone else. But Daly couldn't see any security reason why students, visitors and other frequent travelers to the United States couldn't be included in the system..."

       The London Telegraph reported today: “Tony Blair [British Prime Minister] will urge police forces today to take DNA samples from all suspects arrested [not convicted] for offences carrying a prison sentence. It would mean that anyone arrested for shoplifting or drink driving could end up on the national DNA data base….Mr Blair will encourage them to follow the example of the Metropolitan Police, which has started taking DNA samples from everyone arrested for offences carrying a prison term. At present, the practice is to take samples from those arrested for violent crime, burglary or sexual offences. The Government is spending £34 million on establishing a DNA data base, which will carry details of an individual's genetic profile. Mr Blair will say: ‘More testing will help solve more crimes and catch more criminals, and not just more sexual offenders. It will help cut car crime. A single hair left in a stolen car is enough to identify the thief. Last year, 14,000 matches were made.’..."

Wired News reported: “You’re driving home from a party on a chill weekend night and encounter your first unpleasant surprise of the evening: A police car behind you with its lights ablaze. Turns out you didn’t halt entirely for that last stop sign, or so the friendly policeman says. But he doesn’t seem nearly as congenial as he hands you a cotton swab and tells you to touch it to the inside of your cheek for a DNA sample. The second unhappy surprise: You’re under arrest. Your DNA matched a hair sample police think came from someone who slaughtered three people at a restaurant last month. It doesn’t matter right now that you’re innocent, although you used to dine there frequently. You’re still being handcuffed. Unlikely?
Given current technology, perhaps. But police in Scotland are already taking DNA from people stopped for any crime, even traffic offenses. London police say they hope to be using handheld DNA scanners within 10 years. The privacy implications are staggering...” Continued on next post

“...Unlike ‘mug shot’ photos and ink-and-paper fingerprinting, DNA identification involves taking human tissue. But few safeguards for it exist: Of the 50 US states that demand DNA from criminals, only three prohibit the unauthorized release of that genetic material. Some medical ethicists say that DNA samples are more intrusive than photos or fingerprints because human genomes reveal information about health risks, race, and paternity...If race is included in the database, Juengst says it could lead to a new form of genetic racism and away from a colorblind society…DNA taken from a crime scene can reveal physical characteristics about a person: Blood or hair follicles could indicate the suspect is a white man with blue eyes and blond hair who’s probably short and left-handed. It can also reveal information about your family. Most labs use nucleic analysis, which uses DNA taken from the cell nucleus. But in 1996 the FBI set up a forensic lab to do mitochondrial analysis using the more plentiful DNA found outside the nucleus...”

SCAN THIS NEWS
11.12.99

California Assembly member Mike Leads Anti-Crime Demonstration-Getaway Cars Halted by High Tech Laser Device

This morning, Assembly member Mike Honda (D-San Jose), Chair of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, lead a fact-finding demonstration that may forever alter the manner in which police officers pursue suspects on
California's streets and highways.

Assembly member Honda assisted in the testing of the H.A.L.T. (High Speed Avoidance Using Laser Technology) system, a device intended to end the notorious high speed pursuits that have become all too common to a
terrified public. The H.A.L.T. system works from a small micro-chip embedded in a motor vehicle that responds to a laser beam fired from a hand-held device. Once the microchip is activated, the vehicle will gradually reduce speed
-safely and without injury to the driver, passengers, or innocent by-standers.

"If this device can be successfully implemented throughout the state, it promises to be a god-send for police officers. It may save countless lives, eliminate costly litigation against the state and local governments, and
send a message to criminals that we are taking back our streets. We may be witnessing the end of perilous police chases in California," explained Assembly member Honda.

After witnessing the demonstration, veteran police officer Denny Jenner of the Irvine Police Department stated "this is the most pro-active device I have ever seen to stop criminals through the use of technology!"

For further information consult C.H.G. Safety Technologies at
(888).422.2901 or http://www.HALT2000.com.

   ==============================================================
   Volume 6.19                                  November 11, 1999
   --------------------------------------------------------------

                            Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C.

       http://www.epic.org

=======================================================================
Table of Contents
=======================================================================

[1] Drivers' Privacy Protection Case Heard by Supreme Court
[2] Privacy Advocates Call on FTC to Halt Online Profiling
[3] Appellate Judges Slam Internet Censorship Law
[4] Intelligence Funding Bill Requires Report on ECHELON
[5] IETF Rejects Proposal on Internet Wiretaps
[6] TRUSTe Fails to Launch Investigation into RealNetworks
[7] EPIC Bookstore -- Genetic Secrets
[8] Upcoming Conferences and Events

=======================================================================
[1] Drivers' Privacy Protection Case Heard by Supreme Court
=======================================================================

On November 10, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Reno v. Condon.  The case involves the constitutionality of the 1994 Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), which prohibited the dissemination of
information contained in state driving records.

In the lower courts, the state of South Carolina had argued that the DPPA unconstitutionally infringed on state powers, in particular the Tenth Amendment right of states to regulate commerce within their own
borders.  The Government had argued that the DPPA was a valid exercise of the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted as providing some privacy protections.

In oral argument before the Supreme Court, both sides focused on the constitutionality of federal efforts to regulate the procedures of a state agency.  Seth Waxman, Solicitor General of the United States, argued that Congress can legislate on drivers' records since the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce as
implicated in the selling of drivers' records to private entities. Charles Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, repeatedly asserted that the law places an undue burden on state agencies and employees.

A recent bill, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000, will likely protect the privacy of state driving records regardless of the Court decides Reno v. Condon.  The new legislation denies transportation funding to states that do not obtain explicit opt-in consent before selling or
distributing information contained in driving records.

EPIC submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the Condon case, arguing in support of the DPPA.  The brief is available at:

     http://www.epic.org/privacy/drivers/epic_dppa_brief.pdf

For more information about Reno v. Condon, see:

     http://www4.law.cornell.edu/php/orderinquiry2.php3?caseid=2903

=======================================================================
[2] Privacy Advocates Call on FTC to Halt Online Profiling
=======================================================================

At a workshop on "online profiling," panelists from EPIC, Junkbusters, the Center for Media Education, Privacy Times, and Privacy Journal called for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to immediately halt the
practice of online profiling, launch an investigation into the privacy and consumer implications of the practice, and provide recommendations for proper privacy legislation.  The workshop, held jointly by the FTC
and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce, took place on November 8.

Online profiling is the collection of detailed online behavior from uniquely identified Internet users.  Online behavior generally refers to records about pages that were viewed and products or services purchased.  Many online advertisers use online profiling in order to target advertisements according this past behavior.

The privacy concerns arise because this information is not collected with the knowledge or consent of the consumer and is often connected to personally identifiable information like a name or address.  Online behavior can potentially reveal information not only about interests or hobbies, but also medical conditions, sexual preferences, and political or religious beliefs.  The collection of such information also gives many businesses an unfair advantage in encouraging customers to buy products.

At the workshop, a consortium of online advertisers known as the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) presented a self-regulatory proposal to stave off regulation of data collected over the Internet. The proposal includes notice of what information is collected and how it is used and an opt-out so that consumers can request to not have
their information collected from them.  EPIC finds the proposal insufficient due to the lack of enforcement by other similar self-regulating agencies like TRUSTe (see item 6, below) and the undue burden that opt-out places on individuals to stop information collection that often occurs without their awareness.

A joint press release issued by the privacy groups to halt online profiling is at:

     http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/profiling_press_release.html

Details about the Public Workshop on "On-line Profiling" are available:

     http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/profiling/index.htm

=======================================================================
[3] Appellate Judges Slam Internet Censorship Law
=======================================================================

Two federal appellate judges harshly questioned the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on November 4.  COPA would prohibit commercial Web site operators from exposing children under 17
to sexually explicit material that is deemed "harmful to minors."  The judges suggested that COPA may violate the First Amendment by not specifying which community's standards would apply when assessing content on the Internet.

Soon after President Clinton signed COPA into law last year, it was challenged by a coalition of cyber-rights groups and Web publishers, including EPIC and the ACLU.  In February, U.S. District Judge Reed issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of COPA, stating that the law would likely fail to survive judicial scrutiny.  The
government appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia.

In court last Thursday, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Leonard I. Garth asked the Justice Department's lawyer how the phrase "contemporary community standards" can be defined, given that the Internet is a global communications medium.  "It seems to me that in terms of the World Wide Web, what that statute contemplates is that we would be
remitted to the most severe community standards -- perhaps those in Iran or Iraq -- where the exposure of a woman's face is deemed to be improper," Garth said.

Judge Theodore A. McKee expressed concern with the law's provision that Web site operators could avoid criminal sanctions by instituting age verification mechanisms, such as credit-card numbers, to restrict access by minors.  McKee noted that such a screening process could have a chilling effect on adults who would be forced to reveal personal information in order to access material on sensitive subjects, such as homosexuality.

Both McKee and Garth openly questioned whether it is possible to create legislation that satisfies the First Amendment and controls children's access to harmful content.  Garth said, "I'm not at all sure that, in light of the Web, one can structure legislation which can control" access to online content.

For more information on COPA and the full text of Judge Reed's district court ruling, see:

     http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/

=======================================================================
[4] Intelligence Funding Bill Requires Report on ECHELON
=======================================================================

The House of Representatives has approved a provision that would require the intelligence agencies to jointly provide Congress with a detailed analysis of the legal standards they apply when conducting signals intelligence, including electronic surveillance.  The requirement grows out of the controversy surrounding Project ECHELON, a
global surveillance network coordinated by the National Security Agency.

The reporting requirement is contained in the final version of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, which is expected to be approved by the Senate.  The report must be submitted in both classified and unclassified form to the Intelligence and Judiciary committees of the House and Senate within 60 days of final passage. It must disclose the legal standards for interception of communications when such interception may result in the acquisition of information from a communication to or from United States persons; for intentional
targeting of the communications to or from United States persons; for receipt from non-United States sources of information pertaining to communications to or from United States persons; and for dissemination
of information acquired through the interception of the communications to or from United States persons.

The reporting requirement was added to the appropriations bill at the insistence of Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA).  In a statement released after the House passage of the bill, Barr said, "If American intelligence agencies are intercepting, receiving or distributing communications involving our citizens without court orders, or legal authority, they are doing so outside the bounds of the Constitution.  If Project ECHELON exists as reported, all Americans who care about the integrity of our Constitution should be concerned."

Last spring, Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, requested access to legal memoranda on surveillance authority prepared by NSA's General Counsel, but the agency rebuffed the request citing "attorney-client privilege."  (See EPIC Alert 6.08).

=======================================================================
[5] IETF Rejects Proposal on Internet Wiretaps
=======================================================================

In a public, plenary session on November 10, members of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) decided overwhelmingly not to develop technical standards that would facilitate wiretapping of Internet
communications.  After an hour-long debate, the IETF members resolved the question of whether the standards group should build the kind of surveillance capabilities that are mandated for telephone systems by
the controversial Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).  The Internet Engineering Steering Group and the Internet Architecture Board will soon publish a formal IETF position paper based
on the consensus of the membership.

Prior to the debate, a group of computer security, cryptography, law, and policy experts sent an open letter to the IETF urging rejection of wiretap standards.  They said that "such a development would harm
network security, result in more illegal activities, diminish users' privacy, stifle innovation, and impose significant costs on developers of communications."

The rejected proposal arose when some IETF members asserted that CALEA required such Internet standards.  With the emergence of Internet telephony, some have argued that the law should now be read to cover
the Internet.  That view, however, is countered by the legislative history of the 1994 law, which clearly stated that CALEA "does not require reengineering of the Internet, nor does it impose prospectively functional requirements on the Internet."

The text of the open letter to the IETF is available at:

     http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/letter_to_ietf.html

The legislative history of CALEA is available at:

     http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/calea/H_Rpt_103_827.txt

=======================================================================
[6] TRUSTe Fails to Launch Investigation into RealNetworks
=======================================================================

On November 1, the New York Times reported on the discovery made by independent security consultant Richard Smith that online software distributor RealNetworks was collecting information about the music tastes of 13.5 million Real product users without their knowledge. Despite initially indicating that it would launch an investigation into its licensee RealNetworks, the TRUSTe privacy certification organization has chosen not to pursue an inquiry, citing a loophole in the existing license agreement. TRUSTe claims to provide adequate privacy guidelines and oversight of privacy violations for companies that it certifies.

RealJukebox (software downloaded through the site of RealNetworks) was surreptitiously scanning computer hard drives for music files and transmitting information about the genre of music, the format of the music files, and the type of connected music player used back to RealNetworks.  This information was also tied to personal information
previously collected through registration forms.  After the activities of the RealJukebox software became public, RealNetworks provided a software "patch" that would prevent the further transmission of information.

TRUSTe refused to launch an investigation since RealNetworks did not technically violate any part of its license agreement.  The TRUSTe license agreement only covers information collected from individuals
over a website.  TRUSTe claimed that since the information collection and transmission occurred through software downloaded at a site, there was in fact no violation of the license agreement.  TRUSTe did announce
plans to change its license agreement to include software downloaded through a website.

This is not the first time that TRUSTe has failed to launch an investigation into an apparent violation of one of its licensees.  In March, Microsoft was found to be including Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) within Microsoft Office 1998 that would allow all documents and visits to Microsoft operated websites to be tied with personal
information provided through earlier software registrations.  As in the case of RealNetworks, TRUSTe found that Microsoft did not violate the TRUSTe license agreement and refused to perform an investigation.

Remedies for Real users may still be available; several class action lawsuits have been filed alleging that RealNetworks violated various federal and state laws by secretly collecting data.

For more information on the RealNetworks and Microsoft privacy Incidents, see:

     http://www.junkbusters.com

=======================================================================

SCAN THIS NEWS
11.10.99

Forwarded from:

COALITION OF POLITICALLY ACTIVE
CHRISTIANS, INC. PAC
601 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. S BLDG. SUITE 9000
WASHINGTON D.C. 20004

copac@ifriendly.com
 http://www.copac.org

CONTACT MARCIE SHUSS FOR INTERVIEWS WITH CHARLES
PHILLIPS CALL 800-474-5268

YOU MIGHT BE A REDNECK IF?.

NO? NO THIS ISN'T FOXWORTHY; IT'S YOUR FBI'S VERSION?

Re:
Project Megiddo (32 pages Acrobat Reader needed)
 http://www.fbi.gov/library/megiddo/publicmegiddo.pdf

You Might be a Domestic terrorist if:

- You suddenly change activity; for example, less time spent on bible study and more time on physical
training. page 6

- You believe in the battle against Satan, as prophesied in the Book of Revelation. Page 7

- You believe in  time prophecy. page 8

- You believe God will overcome Christianity's enemies and the persecuted communities should
persevere.  Page 9

- You believe property rights and private gun ownership will be abolished.  Page 11

- You believe in the New World Order. page 11

- You accept the theory that on January 1, 2000, many computers will misinterpret this date as January
1, 1900 and malfunction and/or shut down completely. Page 11

No! I am not making this up? and it's not the joke it seems to be. This is directly from the pages of the FBI PROJECT MEGIDDO report, released confidentially to the Chiefs of Police at their national convention Nov. 3rd.

This report does not distinguish a James Dobson, Billy Graham or the Pope from the likes of Timothy McVeigh,
Buford O. Furrow and other mass murderers that also believe in Bible prophecy.

Simply put, it vilifies all Bible believers, home schoolers, 2nd Amendment rights advocates, freedom-loving Americans as domestic terrorists.

These are the same people that brought you:

"We didn't set that fire that killed twenty four children. (John, did you get that pyrotechnic
canister?  Oh shoot?)"

"We didn't fire a shot at those people. (Oh Bill?  Did you pick up those shells?  Oh shoot?)"

"We definitely didn't have sex. (She said what? Oh give me a break?)"

You know?  This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. How can our government define us God-fearing Americans as domestic terrorists?

Charles Phillips
National  Chairman
COPAC, INC. PAC
 http://www.proactivenews.com

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (AP) -- The International Association of Police Chiefs says it will urge Congress to require that DNA samples be taken from every person arrested in connection with a crime. Civil rights advocates say that could violate the privacy of innocent people.

Typically, DNA samples are taken only from felons convicted of violent crimes. But the chiefs on Wednesday proposed that arrested suspects—whether linked to petty theft or murder—also should be required to give DNA samples, which would go into a nationwide FBI database and be made available to law enforcement agencies across the country. “It’s indeed a brave new world,” Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Thursday. “We’re talking about people who are accused of a crime, but they have not yet had their day in court. A sizable number of them will never be convicted.”

In July, the Justice Department’s National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence decided to oppose mandatory DNA testing for anyone charged with a crime. However it urged federal and state prosecutors to use DNA evidence that could exonerate convicts.  DNA, an acid that contains an individual’s genetic makeup, is found in almost every cell in the body. Except for identical twins, each person’s DNA
is unique.

The chiefs did not say what their proposal would cost, but they called it another step forward in DNA technology, which has been credited with clearing dozens of people convicted of murder and rape in recent years.
“With modern technology, we can do a much better job of protecting our citizens and exonerating the innocent,” said Michael Robinson, director of the Michigan Department of State Police and incoming association president.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Darrel Stephens said he agreed that the FBI’s DNA database of convicted violent felons has been invaluable, but he said the idea of sampling suspects could intrude on the privacy of people who might never be convicted of a crime.  He said DNA collection should be limited “to specific kinds of arrests, such as for violent crimes or breaking into someone’s home.”
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

                     3:00 a.m. 27.Oct.99.PDT
 WASHINGTON -- US currency should include tracking devices that let the government tax private possession of dollar bills, a Federal Reserve official says.

The longer you hold currency without depositing it in a bank account, the less that cash will be worth, according to a proposal from Marvin Goodfriend, a senior vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
In other words, greenbacks will get automatic expiration dates.  "The magnetic strip could visibly record when a bill was last withdrawn from the banking system. A carry tax could be deducted from each bill upon deposit according to how long the bill was in circulation," Goodfriend wrote in a recent presentation to a Federal Reserve System conference in Woodstock, Vermont.

The 34-page paper argues a carry tax will discourage "hoarding" currency, deter black market and criminal activities, and boost economic stability during deflationary periods when interest rates hover near zero.
It says new technology finally makes such a scheme feasible. "Systems would have to be put in place at banks and automatic teller machines to read bills, assess the carry tax, and stamp the bills 'current,'" the report recommends.
Goodfriend said in an interview that banks might place a kind of visible "date issued" stamp on each note they distributed. "The thing could actually stamp the date when the bill comes out of the ATM," he said. Congressional critics say they would oppose any such move.

"The whole idea is preposterous. The notion that we're going to tax somebody because they decide to be frugal and hold a couple of dollars is economic planning at its worst," said Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), a free-market proponent who serves on the House Banking committee.

"This idea that you can correct some of the evil they've already created with another tax is just ridiculous," Paul said. Other economists say a carry tax is not a wise plan.
"This is going beyond taxing banks for holding reserves. It's taxing the public for holding currency too long. That's even more wild an idea," says George Selgin, a University of Georgia economics professor who specializes in monetary policy.

"There are sweeping implications of these suggestions beyond whatever role they might play in thwarting a deflationary crisis... I think it's a very dangerous solution to what may be a purely hypothetical problem," Selgin said.

 Goodfriend discusses an alternative: The Fed should at times prevent Americans from withdrawing cash from their bank accounts. "Suspending the payment of currency for deposits would avoid the cost of imposing a carry tax on currency."

But he concludes that such a move would have "destabilizing" effects, and recommends that the Federal Reserve instead "put in place systems to raise the cost of storing money by imposing a carry tax."
The idea has been discussed before. Economist John Keynes mentioned the possibility, but dismissed it because of the administrative hassles involved. Silvio Gesell, a Keynes contemporary and like-minded thinker, also suggested taxing money to allow lower interest rates.

But Goodfriend says that technology has advanced since then. "In light of recent advances in payments technology and the less-than-satisfactory alternatives, imposing a carry tax on money seems an eminently practical and reasonable way [to proceed]," he writes.

He said the Federal Reserve has technology that would make it "feasible," but refused to give details.
One reason for a carry tax, he says, is the reduced influence of the US central bank when prices are not increasing and inflation is close to zero. During such a period, banks are less likely to make loans--- even if the Fed tries to spur an economic expansion through open market operations.

But if the government taxes the currency holdings of individuals and banks through an occasional carry tax, they may be inclined to lend money even at a negative interest rate in order to avoid holding on to it. "This proposal is made well in advance of any problem we have in the US. It's not an emergency proposal at this point," he said. The report says Congress would have to pass legislation allowing such a tax.

Oct. 27, 1999

By David Noack

NEW YORK (APBnews.com) -- Be careful what you type on your computer—someone may be watching, and it just might be the government.

The release of two documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) shows that the government has long had the ability, going back at least a decade if not more, to clandestinely eavesdrop on what people type on their computer. The findings were revealed when the NSA recently released sanitized versions of the documents to John Young, a New York City architect and cyber-activist, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request May 14, 1998.

In all, Young asked for a total of 22 various publications and papers dealing with TEMPEST, a code name for electronic listening devices that can read and record the electromagnetic signals that come from computers.
TEMPEST, which stands for Transient Electromagnetic Pulse Emanation Standard, is a technology that allows for this kind of electronic eavesdropping.

Young received a 172-page document, in which about half was redacted, called “Compromising
Emanations Laboratory Test Requirements Electromagnetic.” The other document, which was 12
pages long, is called “NSA/CSS Technical Security Program,” and only a few sections have been
hidden from public view.

The NSA released the documents Oct. 7. However, in a letter to Young from the NSA, the agency stated that the rest of the “publications, manuals and guidelines” related to TEMPEST were being denied for national security reasons.

“The documents are classified because their disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security,” wrote Sally V. Seward, deputy director of policy at the NSA.
TEMPEST documents posted online

Young has already filed an appeal to get the remainder of the TEMPEST publications and has posted the FOIA letters, along with the two documents, on his Web site. He should know within a couple of weeks if he will get access to the rest of the documents.

In his appeal, Young argues that release of the TEMPEST documents is needed to help counterbalance the personal privacy threats developed for national security purposes. An NSA spokeswoman said Young could do whatever he wants with the documents.

“Mr. Young, having obtained these documents through the FOIA process, is free to do with them whatever he wishes,” said the spokeswoman. Public unaware of spy technique Up until now, the public has been largely unaware of this technology. But Young hopes to spark a debate about its use.

For the most part, the military and intelligence communities, along with a growing industry created to combat the prying spy technology, have been privy to the capabilities of the technology.

With the right equipment, the electromagnetic radiation given off from computers can be intercepted from a remote location, and then redisplayed in the case of a monitor screen or recorded and replayed with a printer or keyboard.
“I first learned about it a couple of years ago. ... TEMPEST is a terrific threat to privacy,” Young said. “With standoff technology there is no need for physical access to buildings or equipment, and no law forbids its use.  ... The only limitation is the technological reach of the snooping equipment, which is one of the secrets closely guarded.”

He said that while the intelligence community may be using this technology to spy on foreign governments, TEMPEST can also be used by companies to spy on the competition and by domestic law enforcement agencies to spy and gather information on citizens.

FBI spokesman David Miller said the agency could not comment on Young’s allegations of domestic surveillance using TEMPEST technology.

Computer security consultant Joel McNamara, who runs a Web site dedicated to public information about TEMPEST, said that both foreign governments and the United States are using this technology to electronically eavesdrop, and a large industry has been created to thwart the snooping devices.

“Emanation interception is not something anyone can do. You’re talking about relatively expensive and sophisticated equipment as well as a fair amount of training. Someone engaging in an intercept is going to be well-funded and not able to get information from conventional surveillance techniques. The threat to the average person is very minimal,” said McNamara.

He said personal privacy plays a small role in using this technology. The real goals, he said, are political and economic espionage issues.

McNamara said that since computer monitors, hard drives and modems all give off electromagnetic radiation, the right equipment could reconstruct the data from these devices. McNamara said that displays on computer monitors have been spied on nearly a mile away. He said that spying from a satellite is impractical because there would be too much electromagnetic interference.

    On June 3, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order #12919 gathering together into a single document all the power and authority of a multitude of Executive Orders issued by preceding presidents from John Kennedy on. Recent examination of this Executive Order has brought to light that the consolidation of previous presidential orders deliver unprecedented authority into the hands of the Chief Executive that exceed those powers granted him under the U.S. Constitution.

   Incorporated under the aegis of President Clinton's EO #12919 are powers originally claimed by President Kennedy in a series of Executive Orders signed into "law" in February of 1962 which, if invoked, would virtually suspend the greater portion of liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

   In Section 3 of Kennedy's original EO #10995 entitled, "ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS" there is the vague statement, "Such authority shall include the power to amend modify, or revoke frequency assignments." Innocuous as this sounds, it embodies the power of the Chief Executive, in time of "national emergency", to seize control of all radio and other telecommunications.

   On the same day that President Kennedy signed EO #10995, he also gave birth to four successive Orders that Clinton included in his EO containing provisions to disable constitutional rights. Executive Order #10997 empowers the Secretary of the Interior to seize all energy production facilities--specifically, "electrical power", "petroleum", "gas", "solid fuels", and "minerals". Section 3, subsection (d) of that order, entitled " Claimancy" states:

     Prepare plans to claim materials, manpower, equipment, supplies and services needed in support of assigned
     responsibilities and other essential functions of the Department...to insure availability of such resources in an
     emergency. [emphasis and supplied]

   Note the word "claim" in reference to "materials, manpower, equipment, supplies and services". The legal definition, as supplied by Black's Law Dictionary is, "To demand as one's own or as one's right...means by or through which claimant obtains possession or enjoyment of a privilege or thing. Demand for money or property as of a right...." This means that the government may, upon declaration of a state of local or national emergency, seize any of the above, private or otherwise, including "manpower".

   As to what constitutes a national emergency again Black's definition is quite revealing:

     "A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress      has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war." Brown  v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732. [emphasis supplied]

   EO #10998 places all food resources under authority of the Secretary of Agriculture.

   EO #10999 invests the Secretary of Commerce with control over all means of transportation, public and private.

   EO #11000 provides for the establishment of manpower resources at the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, with the authority to "claim" services (labor) and involuntary relocation of workers. Collateral authority for this conscription of labor is given in Title 50 app. United States Code, Section 2153 "WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENCE" under the section addressing civilian disposition entitled, "DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950" in which is set forth that civilian personnel may be assigned work without regard to payment or reimbursement.

   It is important to note that according to the "War and Emergency Powers Act" the United States has legally been under a state of national emergency since its enactment in 1933. It has never been repealed, thus leaving the president with instant powers to suspend the constitution. Most legal scholars and legislators who have studied the matter concur that the War and Emergency Powers Act has, in reality, already suspended the Constitution since the moment the act was signed into law by President Roosevelt. The actual suspension of those consitutional rights awaits only the impetus of a national emergency requiring it.

   In 1933 a U.S. Congressman entered the following statement into the Congressional Record:

     "I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German      republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the     same....the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead."

   The introduction to Senate Report 93-549, entered into the Congressional Record forty years later in 1973 states:

     "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule....For 40 years,     freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by  laws brought into force by states of national emergency....And, in the United States, actions taken by the      government in times of great crisis have from, at least, the Civil War, in important ways shaped the present     phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

   Following the introduction the report's opening statement goes on to say:

     "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....This vast     range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal     constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property;     organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial     law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict     travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

   Not overlooked by those drafting the Constitution was the possible need to address national emergencies. The document contains certain provisions indicating that its signatories conceived of the possibility that some guarantees of personal liberties may, in the national interest, require suspension.

   Article 1, Section 9 states: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion [an internal occurrence] or invasion [external] the public safety require it." This grants the citizen the freedom from imprisonment or detention without due process. The proviso "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety require it" indicates the necessity to provide for some contingencies that may also carry with them the possibility for abuse. No document of liberty, however, could possibly proscribe all potential for misuse of those liberties without actually eliminating them in the process. It has been said that communism is nothing more than democracy with all potential for abuse legislated out.

   As a result of the Executive Orders listed above, in concert with the War and Emergency Powers Act, there exists within the United States a government within a government. It is hidden, semi-covert in nature, and does not recognize the U.S. Constitution or its constraints. It functions autonomously as a form of totalitarian regime in suspended animation, awaiting its time of activation. It is a government driven by presidential Executive Orders to be executed by federal agencies run by non-elected officials.

   Executive Orders amount to ready-wired buttons by which the president can suspend constitutional rights at any moment he determines that a "national emergency" exists. The great problem inherent is that no binding legal definition exists as to what constitutes a "national emergency". That definition lies entirely with the Chief Executive. When he declares a state of emergency, the aforementioned documents can be used to activate whatever federal agency is most suited to address the emergency. Those agencies include, but are not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).

   Because this nation is under a continual state of emergency due to the War and Emergency Powers Act, and the Constitution granting somewhat elastic powers of emergency in "cases of rebellion or invasion", the president can circumvent such fundamental protections as the Posse Comatatus Act which forbids the use of the military against U.S. citizens.

   This slow motion decay of constitutional rights was not unforeseen by the Founding Fathers. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison once wrote, "I believe there are more instances of abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations...."

   The Constitution of the United States of America, once the hub of American law and freedoms, has been moved to the position of the hub cap. It has become merely an ornamental relic that serves no real function other than that of making the American people feel as if the document still matters to those who govern.

   It appears that the modern electorate chooses their leaders for the same purpose that they attend a magic show. Their actual desire seems to be that the performer deceive them.

     "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their money; and my people love to have it so: and   what will ye do in the end thereof?" Jer 5:31

      Wired News reported: "...the Internet Engineering Task Force has had one guiding principle: To solve the problems of moving digital information around the world. As attendance at meetings swelled and the Internet became a vital portion of national economies, the standards-setting body has become increasingly important, but the engineers and programmers who are members remained focused on that common goal. No longer. Now the IETF is debating whether to wire government surveillance into the next generation of Internet protocols…To reach even a preliminary decision in a special plenary session of the IETF meeting in Washington next month, attendees must       weigh whether law enforcement demands are more important than communications security and personal privacy -- a process that places technology professionals in the unusual position of taking a prominent political stand...’As Internet voice becomes a wider deployed reality, it is only logical that the subject has to come up,’ IETF chairman     and Cisco engineer Fred Baker said. ‘We are deciding to bring it up proactively rather than reacting to something later in the game.’…Many governments, including the United States, require telephone companies to configure their networks so police can easily wiretap calls. As more phone calls flow through the Internet, some experts predict that the FBI and similar agencies will demand additional surveillance powers..."

MALAYSIA

Government stretching faith in ID card system

A Malaysian government decision to include religion on identity cards has drawn strong criticism from religious groups and a leader of one of its own parties, who described it as an “undesirable exercise”.
The plan was announced on Friday by the Deputy Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, who said the added feature would help authorities in cases where members of a family disagreed over the religion of a person who had died.
It would also help them expose Muslims masquerading as non-Muslims in order to patronise the Genting Highlands casino or to avoid fasting during Ramadan, he claimed.

Followers of Islam are barred from gambling and, during the fasting month, are required to abstain from food or drink during daylight hours.
The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism immediately called on the Government to reconsider its decision.

The council president, A. Vaithilingam, said the inclusion of religion on identity cards could lead to bias and discrimination.
A non-government Muslim group said the move could disrupt religious harmony.

S. Vijayaratnam, vice-president of Gerakan, one of the smaller parties in the ruling National Front Coalition, said the plan was a step backwards in light of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s desire for national unity.
As far as distinguishing Muslim from non-Muslim, the name on the card alone would suffice to show religion.  The country’s Malay majority are almost all Muslim.

“It is unfair to subject the whole nation to this undesirable exercise just for such sporadic cases like tackling fasting month offences, the claiming of bodies or entering casinos,” he said.
Mr Vijayaratnam added that in the authorities’ quest for a united Malaysia, they should be perceived to be placing less emphasis on religion and race.

Responding to the criticism, Mr Badawi said the Government was not trying to discriminate against any group. He said all members of the cabinet, which comprised ministers of various religions and races, had agreed to the plan and it was better that the decision be accepted.

Newly discovered documents reveal the prominent financial and supervisory role of the U.S. Secret Service in the Image Data pilot programs.  EPIC recently obtained these documents through Freedom of Information Act requests.

Image Data LLC seeks to establish a national database of photographs and personal information - including social security numbers to prevent credit card and check fraud.  The system proposed by Image Data, TrueID, would allow for instantaneous identification checks at the point of purchase by displaying photographs of the customer. ( Could this be the start of ID'ing everyone that makes a cash transaction?) These pictures, already used by Image Data in its pilot program in South Carolina, were bought from state DMVs without notification of the photographed individuals.  Soon after the activities of Image Data were made public, the Attorney General of South Carolina filed a suit
seeking an injunction against Image Data's use of the images.

The new documents reveal the extent to which the U.S. Secret Service is involved in Image Data's pilot programs.  In the past, Image Data has attempted to downplay the role of the federal government in what is proposed to be a national identity database. A document titled "Identity Crime Prevention Pilot Program - Digitization Process Development Justification" contends that through the pilot program of digitizing driver's licenses in Colorado "we ensure the viability of deploying such service throughout the United States."   Another memo -- with the heading "Application of Identity Verification and Privacy Enhancement To Treasury Transactions" -- states as the first project
task to "work with Secret Service to define list of proposed applications of the technology for the pilot."  Also included in these initial proposals are timelines for monthly reports and meetings with the U.S. Secret Service in Washington, D.C.

The role of the government in what has been a startling and secretive attempt to collect DMV records and personal data is still not entirely clear. While the Secret Service does regularly investigate credit card and check fraud cases, the questionable need for a national identity database does not outweigh the privacy violations that have already
taken place.

Some of the FOIA documents obtained by EPIC are at:

        http://www.epic.org/privacy/imagedata/image_data_scan.html

CLEANLINESS FREAKS have a new rationale for their pathological hatred of dust--it could soon be spying on them.

Packed full of sensors, lasers and communications transceivers, particles of "smart dust" are being designed to communicate with one another. They could be used for a range of applications from weather monitoring to spying.

The tiny "motes" are being developed at the University of California, Berkeley, as part of a programme to produce the smallest possible devices that have a viable way of communicating with each other.

Each mote is made up of a number of microelectromechanical systems, or MEMS, wired up to form a very simple computer. At present each mote is 5 millimetres long, but Kris Pister, one of the developers, says that in future they could be small enough to remain suspended in air, buoyed by the currents, sensing and communicating for hours.

The latest version (see Diagram) not only has a thick-film battery powering it but also a solar cell to recharge it. "This remarkable package has the ability to sense and communicate, and is self-powered," says Randy Katz, a communications engineer on the
project. He presented the latest work at last week's Mobicom99 mobile computing meeting in Seattle.

MEMS are made using the same photolithographic techniques as integrated circuits, so once perfected they should be easy to mass-produce. Patterns are etched out of a silicon wafer to create structures such as optical mirrors or tiny engines.

Each mote in a smart-dust system will need to survive on extremely low power, while being able to communicate kilobits of data per second. To this end, says Katz, the team has designed motes that shut down parts of themselves when they are not being used.

 The latest challenge has been to devise a system that enables the motes to communicate. Katz and his colleagues decided to use optical transceivers because of their low energy demand compared with radio communications. According to Pister they have already shown that they can monitor the dust 21 kilometres across San Francisco Bay. "There's no            way you're going to get that kind of range except with optical devices," he says.

 "The base station may actually reside in a hand-held unit, much like a pair of binoculars," says Katz. This would allow for simultaneous viewing of the scene from afar while superimposing any measured data on the image. He adds that this approach could be         especially useful for hazardous applications such as detecting chemical weapons or sending the dust into space.

The next task is to build distributed intelligence into the dust to produce "swarm behaviour"
                                 From New Scientist, 28 August 1999

  People who carry signs with that message and stand along roadways in Oklahoma City will

The City Council passed an ordinance yesterday that prohibits people who wish to barter
 goods and services from doing so on public streets. It requires anyone engaging in such
   activities within city limits to obtain a license, which will cost $30 plus $17.50 to cover
          administrative overhead and the cost of a criminal background check.

 Under terms of the ordinance, people who barter must display the license at all times.
 Bartering without a license could result in a fine up to $750.

  "We're not trying to prevent, necessarily, this activity, but we do want to make sure the

 West said the ordinance is tailored after one in Cleveland, Ohio, which was upheld by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

  "How much does free speech cost in Oklahoma? That's the question."

  POLICE are to introduce a new emergency warning system which allows them to send telephone messages simultaneously to entire neighbourhoods.

 As well as warning people about conmen and thieves operating in the area, the system can alert householders to dangers such as floods or impending power cuts. Police will be able to target messages to individual streets, vulnerable people or organisations such as schools or businesses.

The scheme has been tested with 12,000 homes in Lewisham, one of the worst crime areas in London. Police were surprised when a third of the people approached signed up immediately, but in the year since the system was introduced, burglaries have gone down by 15 per cent and street robberies by 20 per cent, while crime in other areas of London has risen.

Chief Supt Mike Humphrey said: "There is no doubt that it is playing a major part in reducing crime here." He said the system was particularly useful when appealing for information from people who would normally not come forward. He said: "Some people won't join Neighbourhood Watch for fear of intimidation. This scheme can help people be involved without anyone knowing. We can effectively go into people's homes and ask if they've seen a particular crime taking place."

 He added: "It's an amazing tool and it's so flexible and quick. How else could you get a message, perhaps warning parents and schools about a paedophile, almost instantly and directly to those who need to hear it?"

Det Sgt John Sutherland explained that the system could be used to ask businesses with security surveillance to keep video tapes following specific incidents and it can be a cheap and quick way of carrying out house-to-house inquiries.

He said: "It would cost maybe £3 in calls to talk to 100 people in a street.  You can make urban policing like village policing, you can reach more people." The scheme is being taken up by police in the Thames Valley, Devon and Cornwall.

CLARKSBURG, W.Va. (APBNews.com) -- Since the FBI began collecting fingerprints 75 years ago, the agency has amassed the daubs of a whopping 34 million criminals.

But despite this massive cache, delays for fingerprint checks have made the database virtually useless to local law enforcement agencies.

Today, in response to a process long run at a snail's pace, FBI Director Louis Freeh unveiled a massive new computer system that will enable agents to conduct 62,000 fingerprint checks a day and return completed searches to local police departments in less than two hours.

The new system, called the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS, will also be able to process fingerprint checks for job applicants and security clearances in about 24 hours. That process now takes three to four months.

Criminals made out in deal

For years, police departments who sent fingerprints to the FBI complained they had to wait upward of two weeks for a reply. While police departments waited, suspects who gave the police false identities could have made bail or even finished their trials without anyone learning of their criminal pasts.

"We send prints electronically to the FBI, but it takes eight days to get it back from the FBI," said John Bankhead, a spokesman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. "But by that time, that suspect's gone."

But the FBI says the new system will cut the processing time from months to hours.

"It takes two hours from the time it hits our system to the time we send it back," said Lawrence Jolma, an IAFIS official overseeing the program's development. "Add on an hour in the state system. That's a hell of an improvement."

Non-matches get new data entry

IAFIS actually consists of three separate components. The first component includes a national computer network for state crime labs to transmit fingerprint images to the FBI.

The second component, which makes up the heart of IAFIS, actually analyzes the prints and looks for a match in the FBI's fingerprint library.

If no match is found, the third component of IAFIS creates a new fingerprint entry for the suspect. Right now, the FBI receives about 5,000 fingerprints a day that are not found in the database.

Building IAFIS has not been easy or cheap. Originally budgeted at $520 million, the project ballooned to $640 million when the FBI expanded the project in 1993 and then hired the technology company Lockheed to integrate IAFIS' three components. The FBI stretched out the project even more by introducing IAFIS in six segments so designers could find
and correct bugs in the system.

"If the FBI had bought something years ago off the shelf, you would have had a much speedier procurement," said William Casey, a deputy superintendent in the Boston Police Department and a member of a nationwide IAFIS advisory board. "But they wanted to expand the technology to more than what they needed at the time. On the bad-news
side, it did take more time than if they had bought an off-the-shelf system."

'Best crooks' have no ID

During those 10 years, the inability of the FBI to return fingerprint checks grew worse. From 1995 to 1997, a 3 million-fingerprint backlog slowed response time to four to six months.

"The best crooks don't carry photo identification," said Chief Frank Sleeter of the Sun Prairie Police Department in Sun Prairie, a town of 20,000 people in Wisconsin. "With a six-month turnaround on fingerprints, it's almost a nonexistent service."

Meanwhile, more than 50,000 new fingerprint requests a day kept pouring into the FBI's fingerprint office in West Virginia.

The situation became so extreme that in 1995 the FBI opened a new fingerprint office in Clarksburg and hired 1,100 local residents to clear up the backlog. Most did clerical work, but the FBI put 200 of these locals through a 12-week training course to become fingerprint
analysts.

3 1/2 years to clear backlog

Working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the new employees took 3 1/2 years to clear up the backlog. They also succeeded in transferring the FBI's fingerprint cards into computerized entries.

The new IAFIS office will continue with its 24-hour staffing. Formerly, the FBI only worked on new fingerprint requests five days a week on a two-shift schedule.

"When your answer was a month or two away, there wasn't much hurry," Jolma said.

Machines may be too costly

But some are worried that the new system may be too advanced. All state-level police agencies except West Virginia can send and receive electronic fingerprints. But many local police departments lack this technology and must mail in fingerprint cards for checks.

The FBI is encouraging local departments to buy "live scan" devices that record fingerprints with a camera instead of ink. Local departments can also use scanners that digitize fingerprint cards originally inked on paper. But both types of machines are costly.

"The real problem is when you're talking about a real small police department, say one with five sworn officers," Jolma said. "The 'live scan' machine costs $50,000 to $60,000. A card scan device might cost $10,000."

"If they can't get a grant for them," Jolma added, "there's a problem."

Paper prints slow down process

Though the IAFIS system will continue to accept paper fingerprint cards for now, the FBI is actively discouraging such paper prints.

Any prints submitted on paper will take five to six days to process, as opposed to two hours for electronic prints. And the FBI will mail back results for prints sent in on paper, even though it can e-mail back these results.

The FBI is hoping that this approach will totally eliminate paper submissions in two to five years.

But once the IAFIS system goes online, departments with the equipment to send their prints electronically say they'll be letting fewer bad guys out the jail house door.

"Until recently, there wasn't any alternative," said Sleeter. "Now, very shortly, we'll have a much better way of doing business."

###

Hans H. Chen is an APBNews.com staff writer (hans.chen@apbnews.com).