Analysis: New Law Gives Government Six Months to Turn Internet and Phone Systems into Permanent Spying Architecture
Ryan Singel
Wired
Monday Aug 6, 2007
A new law expanding the government's spying powers gives the Bush Administration a six-month window to install permanent back doors in the nation's communication networks. The legislation was passed hurriedly by Congress over the weekend and signed into law Sunday by President Bush.
The bill, known as the Protect America Act, removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers.
The Administration pushed for passage of the changes to close what it called a "surveillance gap," referring to a long-standing feature of the nation's surveillance laws that required the government to get court approval to capture communications inside the United States.
While the nation's spy laws have been continually loosened since 9/11, the Administration never pushed for the right to tap the nation's domestic communication networks until a secret court recently struck down a key pillar of the government's secret spying program.
The Administration argues that the world's communication networks now route many foreign to foreign calls and emails through switches in the United States.
Prior to the law's passage, the nation's spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn't need any court approval to spy on foreigners so long as the wiretaps were outside the United States.
Now, those agencies are free to order services like Skype, cell phone companies and arguably even search engines to comply with secret spy orders to create back doors in domestic communication networks for the nation's spooks. While it's unclear whether the wiretapping can be used for domestic purposes, the law only requires that the programs that give rise to such orders have a "significant purpose" of foreign intelligence gathering.
The law:
Defines the act of reading and listening into American's phone calls and internet communications when they are "reasonably believed" to be outside the country as not surveillance.
Gives the government 6 months of extended powers to issue orders to "communication service providers," to help with spying that "concerns persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States." The language doesn't require the surveillance to only target people outside the United States, only that some of it does.
Forces Communication Service providers to comply secretly, though they can challenge the orders to the secret Foreign Intelligence Court. Individuals or companies given such orders will be paid for their cooperation and can not be sued for complying.
Makes any program or orders launched in the next six months legal forever and perpetually renewable after the six month "sunset" of the new powers.
Grandfathers in the the current secret surveillance program -- sometimes referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- and any others that have been blessed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Requires the Attorney General to submit to the secret surveillance court its reasons why these programs aren't considered domestic spying programs, but the court can only throw out those reasons if it finds that they are "clearly erroneous."
Requires the Attorney General to tell Congress twice a year about any incidents of surveillance abuse and give statistics about how many surveillance programs were started and how many directives were issued.
Makes no mention of the Inspector General, who uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas, is not mentioned in the bill.
In short, the law gives the Administration the power to order the nation's communication service providers -- which range from Gmail, AOL IM, Twitter, Skype, traditional phone companies, ISPs, internet backbone providers, Federal Express, and social networks -- to create permanent spying outposts for the federal government.
These outposts need only to have a "significant" purpose of spying on foreigners, would be nearly immune to challenge by lawsuit, and have no court supervision over their extent or implementation.
Abuses of the outposts will be monitored only by the Justice Department, which has already been found to have underreported abuses of other surveillance powers to Congress.
In related international news, Zimbabwe's repressive dictator Robert Mugabe also won passage of a law allowing the government to turn that nation's communication infrastructure into a gigantic, secret microphone
Monday, August 6, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Three Girls Died, Others Hospitalized, After HPV Vaccine
Three Girls Died, Others Hospitalized, After HPV Vaccine
Mercola.com
Wednesday July 4, 2007
Amid controversy over state legislatures in the U.S. requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), severe side effects are being reported.
1,637 adverse reactions have been reported by Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog, including three girls who died shortly after receiving the immunization. Judicial Watch obtained the reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using the Freedom of Information Act.
In Australia, 25 girls who had just received their first injection of the vaccine experienced headache, nausea, and dizziness. In some cases, the problems were so severe that they were hospitalized. Shares of the vaccine's Australian developer, CSL, fell after the incident was reported in the news.
British Medical Journal June 9, 2007;334:1182-1183
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
Should young girls be required to take Gardasil by the government when possible side effects include hospitalization and death? There have also been reports from the National Vaccine Information Center about fainting and dizziness reported by dozens of patients as side effects of Gardasil, and there are even some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility.
These are steep risks for a vaccine that only sometimes protects against HPV, which is virtually 100 percent avoidable without an expensive and potentially fatal vaccine.
Please realize that Merck has manipulated the medical and political system to FORCE children to get this dangerous vaccine for their own bottom line profit. The potential promised reduction of cervical cancer is the bait they use.
Remember Merck, the manufacturer of this vaccine, is the same company that made Vioxx that killed over 60,000 people.
It is also important to understand that this year, some 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, which can be caused by HPV, and about 3,700 will die from it. In comparison, 16 times more American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer (178,480), and 11 times more will die from it (40,460).
As Merck's own literature says, it is important to realize that Gardasil does not protect women against some "non-vaccine" HPV types. So, even if girls accept the risks and get vaccinated, they can still get HPV.
Finally, although more than 6 million women contract HPV each year, a woman's immune system is often strong enough to clear up the infection on its own. About 90 percent of HPV infections simply clear up within two years.
Remember, it is NOT the infection that is the issue as much as it is the person's immune system. You can be exposed to these bacteria and viruses and if you are living a healthy lifestyle your body's immune system will typically know how to address the infection.
Mercola.com
Wednesday July 4, 2007
Amid controversy over state legislatures in the U.S. requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck's new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), severe side effects are being reported.
1,637 adverse reactions have been reported by Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog, including three girls who died shortly after receiving the immunization. Judicial Watch obtained the reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using the Freedom of Information Act.
In Australia, 25 girls who had just received their first injection of the vaccine experienced headache, nausea, and dizziness. In some cases, the problems were so severe that they were hospitalized. Shares of the vaccine's Australian developer, CSL, fell after the incident was reported in the news.
British Medical Journal June 9, 2007;334:1182-1183
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
Should young girls be required to take Gardasil by the government when possible side effects include hospitalization and death? There have also been reports from the National Vaccine Information Center about fainting and dizziness reported by dozens of patients as side effects of Gardasil, and there are even some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility.
These are steep risks for a vaccine that only sometimes protects against HPV, which is virtually 100 percent avoidable without an expensive and potentially fatal vaccine.
Please realize that Merck has manipulated the medical and political system to FORCE children to get this dangerous vaccine for their own bottom line profit. The potential promised reduction of cervical cancer is the bait they use.
Remember Merck, the manufacturer of this vaccine, is the same company that made Vioxx that killed over 60,000 people.
It is also important to understand that this year, some 11,000 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, which can be caused by HPV, and about 3,700 will die from it. In comparison, 16 times more American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer (178,480), and 11 times more will die from it (40,460).
As Merck's own literature says, it is important to realize that Gardasil does not protect women against some "non-vaccine" HPV types. So, even if girls accept the risks and get vaccinated, they can still get HPV.
Finally, although more than 6 million women contract HPV each year, a woman's immune system is often strong enough to clear up the infection on its own. About 90 percent of HPV infections simply clear up within two years.
Remember, it is NOT the infection that is the issue as much as it is the person's immune system. You can be exposed to these bacteria and viruses and if you are living a healthy lifestyle your body's immune system will typically know how to address the infection.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Fox News Lies, Claims Rosie Was Fired
Fox News Lies, Claims Rosie Was Fired
Trump also jumps on the bandwagon
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Neo-Con talking heads, Donald Trump and even some 9/11 truth activist groups are erroneously claiming that Rosie O'Donnell was fired by ABC in an attempt to strip her of her status as a crusader for free speech. The truth is that Rosie was sick and tired of ABC's deliberate attempts to censor her and had already decided to leave The View several weeks ago.
As we reported yesterday, prominent 9/11 truth sources close to O'Donnell revealed to Alex Jones weeks ago that Rosie had refused to have her first amendment rights restricted and was likely to quit on her own terms after she was asked to stay on the show by ABC with the proviso that she tone down her stance on the issue of 9/11.
In addition, The View wanted O'Donnell to sign a three year contract when Rosie just wanted a shorter commitment of 12 months. Many have heralded this as a huge mistake on the part of ABC.
Despite this the establishment media, once again caring little for facts or bothering to find out the truth, has surmised that Rosie was fired for talking about the 9/11 cover up.
Fox News' John Gibson has concocted his own conspiracy theory about why O'Donnell will no longer appear on The View:
Was it the grabbing the crotch and shouting "Eat me"? Probably not. As grotesque as that command was, as awful as that image may be, it was probably just a gag-inducing moment that only confirmed what the ABC suits and Barbara Walters had already decided. They had to have decided she must go because of one reason: her insistence on pushing 9/11 conspiracy nutter theories on national network television, a deeply embarrassing thing for any self-respecting network, especially one that is vying for the top spot in the evening news wars.
Do you think it helps Charlie Gibson, a respected veteran of straight news, to be on a network which has allowed an employee to bellow to the sky that the attacks of 9/11 were a put-up job in which our own government attacked its own people? And what is one left to conclude other than that when you hear Rosie demanding the audience go Google "World Trade 7" and see how they weren't telling you the truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.
Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again we get the half baked and ill informed "this is what 9/11 conspiracy theorists think" trash and then Gibson goes on to say how anyone who suggests building 7 was "pulled" is saying "George Bush did it" - thus both WTC owner Larry Silverstein and most recently John Kerry must be saying that then?
In addition Bill O'Reilly has written a slime covered piece in which he announces himself as an oracle for predicting O'Donnell would be pushed out at ABC:
As predicted here last January, Ms. O'Donnell is leaving "The View." She made the announcement today, making me an oracle. Truthfully, that wasn't a very hard prediction to make. In corporate America, there are boundaries. People who make money for corporations can stretch the boundaries. But sooner or later, the corporations, in this case Disney, has to decide what's best for the shareholders.
O'Reilly also claims that the American public dislikes O'Donnell on The View and that is why Disney essentially severed relations with Rosie. In truth it is O'Reilly himself that the American public dislikes. As O'Donnell's ratings have sky rocketed, his own have plummeted. ABC's The View averages over twice as many viewers as O'Reilly's show, reaching a total of around 30 million viewers throughout the course of the entire show.
O'Reilly's viewership has been in freefall since his October 2004 sex scandal, dropping from a height of around 3.1 million to just over 2 million in October 2006 and leveling of at that rate to the present day. O'Reilly has lost over a third of his audience in two years, yet has the gall to continually announce that he has his finger on the pulse of America and "knows the American people".
In a further series of lies, un-truths and total ignorance, Donald Trump has weighed in on the issue.
O'Reilly "interviewed" Trump on his radio show whereupon he had this to say:
O'REILLY: Do you have any inside information about Disney?
TRUMP: I don't want to say what I have, Bill. I can just tell you that this was a deal that was not going to happen. And she —most likely — I mean the straw that broke the camel's back was what she did at the Waldorf- Astoria.
O'REILLY: Yes, that's what I believe, too. But let me just get this straight. You don't have to burn any sources, but you are convinced that Disney threw her over the side.
TRUMP: I am convinced that Disney threw her over the side, absolutely.
People magazine checked in with Trump to get his expert opinion about O’Donnell leaving the show. When asked Trump told them, “Well, she didn't leave The View, ABC fired her. They couldn't take it anymore. Her ratings, frankly, were good during the month of January when she and I were going at it, but they've been falling very steadily ever since. Her other show – her talk show – was canceled because of low ratings.”
Not one iota of this statement is true. O'Donnell has ensured that The View's ratings have risen by 17% in the time she has been on the show, introducing 600, 000 new viewers, the primary reason as to why she was offered a new contract.
Given the success of her outspoken approach on The View, there is no doubt that O'Donnell will now be offered her own syndicated show, and it will be on her own terms. Therefore we expect her pledge of allegiance to exposing 9/11 truth to only intensify in the coming months.
Trump also jumps on the bandwagon
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Neo-Con talking heads, Donald Trump and even some 9/11 truth activist groups are erroneously claiming that Rosie O'Donnell was fired by ABC in an attempt to strip her of her status as a crusader for free speech. The truth is that Rosie was sick and tired of ABC's deliberate attempts to censor her and had already decided to leave The View several weeks ago.
As we reported yesterday, prominent 9/11 truth sources close to O'Donnell revealed to Alex Jones weeks ago that Rosie had refused to have her first amendment rights restricted and was likely to quit on her own terms after she was asked to stay on the show by ABC with the proviso that she tone down her stance on the issue of 9/11.
In addition, The View wanted O'Donnell to sign a three year contract when Rosie just wanted a shorter commitment of 12 months. Many have heralded this as a huge mistake on the part of ABC.
Despite this the establishment media, once again caring little for facts or bothering to find out the truth, has surmised that Rosie was fired for talking about the 9/11 cover up.
Fox News' John Gibson has concocted his own conspiracy theory about why O'Donnell will no longer appear on The View:
Was it the grabbing the crotch and shouting "Eat me"? Probably not. As grotesque as that command was, as awful as that image may be, it was probably just a gag-inducing moment that only confirmed what the ABC suits and Barbara Walters had already decided. They had to have decided she must go because of one reason: her insistence on pushing 9/11 conspiracy nutter theories on national network television, a deeply embarrassing thing for any self-respecting network, especially one that is vying for the top spot in the evening news wars.
Do you think it helps Charlie Gibson, a respected veteran of straight news, to be on a network which has allowed an employee to bellow to the sky that the attacks of 9/11 were a put-up job in which our own government attacked its own people? And what is one left to conclude other than that when you hear Rosie demanding the audience go Google "World Trade 7" and see how they weren't telling you the truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us help you reach a huge audience of potential customers. Help support the website and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click here for more info.
Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again we get the half baked and ill informed "this is what 9/11 conspiracy theorists think" trash and then Gibson goes on to say how anyone who suggests building 7 was "pulled" is saying "George Bush did it" - thus both WTC owner Larry Silverstein and most recently John Kerry must be saying that then?
In addition Bill O'Reilly has written a slime covered piece in which he announces himself as an oracle for predicting O'Donnell would be pushed out at ABC:
As predicted here last January, Ms. O'Donnell is leaving "The View." She made the announcement today, making me an oracle. Truthfully, that wasn't a very hard prediction to make. In corporate America, there are boundaries. People who make money for corporations can stretch the boundaries. But sooner or later, the corporations, in this case Disney, has to decide what's best for the shareholders.
O'Reilly also claims that the American public dislikes O'Donnell on The View and that is why Disney essentially severed relations with Rosie. In truth it is O'Reilly himself that the American public dislikes. As O'Donnell's ratings have sky rocketed, his own have plummeted. ABC's The View averages over twice as many viewers as O'Reilly's show, reaching a total of around 30 million viewers throughout the course of the entire show.
O'Reilly's viewership has been in freefall since his October 2004 sex scandal, dropping from a height of around 3.1 million to just over 2 million in October 2006 and leveling of at that rate to the present day. O'Reilly has lost over a third of his audience in two years, yet has the gall to continually announce that he has his finger on the pulse of America and "knows the American people".
In a further series of lies, un-truths and total ignorance, Donald Trump has weighed in on the issue.
O'Reilly "interviewed" Trump on his radio show whereupon he had this to say:
O'REILLY: Do you have any inside information about Disney?
TRUMP: I don't want to say what I have, Bill. I can just tell you that this was a deal that was not going to happen. And she —most likely — I mean the straw that broke the camel's back was what she did at the Waldorf- Astoria.
O'REILLY: Yes, that's what I believe, too. But let me just get this straight. You don't have to burn any sources, but you are convinced that Disney threw her over the side.
TRUMP: I am convinced that Disney threw her over the side, absolutely.
People magazine checked in with Trump to get his expert opinion about O’Donnell leaving the show. When asked Trump told them, “Well, she didn't leave The View, ABC fired her. They couldn't take it anymore. Her ratings, frankly, were good during the month of January when she and I were going at it, but they've been falling very steadily ever since. Her other show – her talk show – was canceled because of low ratings.”
Not one iota of this statement is true. O'Donnell has ensured that The View's ratings have risen by 17% in the time she has been on the show, introducing 600, 000 new viewers, the primary reason as to why she was offered a new contract.
Given the success of her outspoken approach on The View, there is no doubt that O'Donnell will now be offered her own syndicated show, and it will be on her own terms. Therefore we expect her pledge of allegiance to exposing 9/11 truth to only intensify in the coming months.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
5-Year Prison Sentence For Brown As New Waco Draws Nearer
5-Year Prison Sentence For Brown As New Waco Draws Nearer
Margot Sanger-Katz
Concord Monitor
Wednesday April 25, 2007
A federal judge sentenced tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown to more than five years in prison yesterday, giving them sentences at the top of the range recommended by probation officers but below sentencing recommendations offered by the prosecutor.
The couple did not attend the hearing, and Ed Brown refused to recognize the sentence or the federal court that issued it.
"I've been convicted of crimes?" he asked in a phone interview yesterday.
The couple have been holed up in their fortified Plainfield home for several months, saying that any attempts to arrest them will trigger a violent confrontation with federal officials.
The Browns were convicted in January of conspiring to defraud the government, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions. Elaine Brown, whose West Lebanon dental practice earned the couple's income, was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failure to withhold employment taxes. The government calculated the couple's unpaid tax bill at roughly $750,000.
The Browns, who maintain that federal income tax laws don't apply to them, argued during their trial that the laws were invalid. Midway through the trial, the Browns stopped attending the proceedings. Ed Brown issued internet and radio statements that the situation might turn into "another Waco" and urged armed supporter to help him resist capture. In 1993, a standoff between the Branch Davidian religious sect and federal officers near Waco, Texas, resulted in 80 deaths, including those of four law enforcement agents.
Elaine Brown returned to court several days later and was released into the custody of a son in Massachusetts on the condition that she not return to her husband.
But a few weeks after the guilty verdict, she violated the terms of her release and joined Ed Brown in Plainfield. On a daily internet radio show and in sporadic blog posts and news interviews, the couple have challenged the validity of their convictions and the jurisdiction of the court, and they have issued threats against the judge, prosecutor and other federal officials.
Yesterday, it appeared that the U.S. marshals took those threats seriously. More than a dozen marshals were positioned around the courtroom during the sentencing. Others stood at patrols around the Concord courthouse during the day. Several of the marshals said they were brought in from out of state to work the hearings.
"We have concerns," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said at a press conference after the sentences were announced. "We're genuinely concerned because of their use of the internet, the blogs and some of the statements the Browns have made."
Judge Stephen McAuliffe rejected attempts by the prosecutor to boost the couple's sentences outside of the range recommended by probation officers. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse argued that both Browns' sentences could be increased under federal sentencing guidelines because they had disrupted government functions and committed further crimes as fugitives. He also asked the judge to depart from the guidelines altogether because of the unusual circumstances surrounding their convictions.
"The defendants are thumbing their noses at the rule of law every step of the way," Morse said.
McAulliffe handed down nearly identical sentences. Both Ed and Elaine Brown were sentenced to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The conditions of their supervised release require them to immediately file accurate tax returns for the years of their crimes and to comply with any payment plan required by the IRS.
The judge also finalized an order requiring the Browns to forfeit part of their interest in their home and office building found to be related to their crimes. The couple can satisfy that requirement by paying the total judgment, about $215,000.
During the trial, Elaine Brown turned down a plea deal that would have included a two-year prison sentence.
McAuliffe said the Browns' sentences were appropriate, given that they had been convicted of "garden variety" tax crimes, but he noted that they might face additional prison sentences if they were charged and convicted of the other crimes Morse described.
During the sentencings, Morse mentioned the Browns' destruction of Elaine Brown's electronic monitoring bracelet as a federal felony and also referred to threats against court officials, another federal crime.
Morse did not answer reporters' questions yesterday, but in a phone interview on Monday he said he could not comment on whether his office planned to charge the Browns over those allegations.
The Browns have 10 days to appeal their convictions. It is unclear whether they will. Shortly after the jury verdict in January, the couple attempted to file an appeal, but it was rejected as premature. In recent statements, the Browns have said that they will no longer receive mail from the court or file any documents. Joe Haas, a friend from Gilmanton Iron Works, said that Ed Brown told him yesterday that he would not file an appeal.
"Ed says he doesn't care. He doesn't acknowledge them. It's all a fiction," Haas said.
In a phone interview yesterday, Brown did not answer questions about his appeal, but he questioned whether the judge's ruling applied to him.
"Who's he?" Brown asked. "What's he? Part of the corporation of the United States? That has nothing to do with me. I'm a natural living soul."
Monier, the U.S. marshal, said his office's strategy has not changed as a result of the sentences. He said his staff will continue to communicate with the Browns and will not initiate a siege or standoff at their home.
"We're just not going to engage in that kind of game with them," he said.
In a letter he sent to the couple yesterday, he urged the Browns to turn themselves in.
"We have, and will continue to take, all reasonable steps to resolve this peacefully," he wrote.
Monier did say that his office will take action against Brown supporters who bring weapons to the Plainfield house or otherwise provide "assistance, aid, or comfort to the Browns in their continuing efforts to obstruct justice and avoid apprehension."
Since Ed Brown stopped attending his trial, he has been visited by a number of supporters who have brought food, weapons and technical assistance to him, and later to Elaine. Monier did not say whether friends who brought food might be subject to prosecution, but he did say visiting would be allowed.
"It's got to be a little bit more than just, 'Let's go out and say hi to Ed and Elaine today,' " Monier said.
About 15 supporters either attended the hearings or demonstrated outside the courthouse yesterday. Most said they were not surprised by the outcome.
"The whole thing was unfair, so it's still unfair," said Bernie Bastian of Weare, a close friend of Ed Brown's who attended every day of the trial. Bastian waited outside the courthouse yesterday because he said that he did not want to recognize the court's jurisdiction over his friend.
"I expected them to do wrong, and they met my expectation," he said.
Margot Sanger-Katz
Concord Monitor
Wednesday April 25, 2007
A federal judge sentenced tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown to more than five years in prison yesterday, giving them sentences at the top of the range recommended by probation officers but below sentencing recommendations offered by the prosecutor.
The couple did not attend the hearing, and Ed Brown refused to recognize the sentence or the federal court that issued it.
"I've been convicted of crimes?" he asked in a phone interview yesterday.
The couple have been holed up in their fortified Plainfield home for several months, saying that any attempts to arrest them will trigger a violent confrontation with federal officials.
The Browns were convicted in January of conspiring to defraud the government, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large financial transactions. Elaine Brown, whose West Lebanon dental practice earned the couple's income, was also convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion and failure to withhold employment taxes. The government calculated the couple's unpaid tax bill at roughly $750,000.
The Browns, who maintain that federal income tax laws don't apply to them, argued during their trial that the laws were invalid. Midway through the trial, the Browns stopped attending the proceedings. Ed Brown issued internet and radio statements that the situation might turn into "another Waco" and urged armed supporter to help him resist capture. In 1993, a standoff between the Branch Davidian religious sect and federal officers near Waco, Texas, resulted in 80 deaths, including those of four law enforcement agents.
Elaine Brown returned to court several days later and was released into the custody of a son in Massachusetts on the condition that she not return to her husband.
But a few weeks after the guilty verdict, she violated the terms of her release and joined Ed Brown in Plainfield. On a daily internet radio show and in sporadic blog posts and news interviews, the couple have challenged the validity of their convictions and the jurisdiction of the court, and they have issued threats against the judge, prosecutor and other federal officials.
Yesterday, it appeared that the U.S. marshals took those threats seriously. More than a dozen marshals were positioned around the courtroom during the sentencing. Others stood at patrols around the Concord courthouse during the day. Several of the marshals said they were brought in from out of state to work the hearings.
"We have concerns," U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier said at a press conference after the sentences were announced. "We're genuinely concerned because of their use of the internet, the blogs and some of the statements the Browns have made."
Judge Stephen McAuliffe rejected attempts by the prosecutor to boost the couple's sentences outside of the range recommended by probation officers. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse argued that both Browns' sentences could be increased under federal sentencing guidelines because they had disrupted government functions and committed further crimes as fugitives. He also asked the judge to depart from the guidelines altogether because of the unusual circumstances surrounding their convictions.
"The defendants are thumbing their noses at the rule of law every step of the way," Morse said.
McAulliffe handed down nearly identical sentences. Both Ed and Elaine Brown were sentenced to 63 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The conditions of their supervised release require them to immediately file accurate tax returns for the years of their crimes and to comply with any payment plan required by the IRS.
The judge also finalized an order requiring the Browns to forfeit part of their interest in their home and office building found to be related to their crimes. The couple can satisfy that requirement by paying the total judgment, about $215,000.
During the trial, Elaine Brown turned down a plea deal that would have included a two-year prison sentence.
McAuliffe said the Browns' sentences were appropriate, given that they had been convicted of "garden variety" tax crimes, but he noted that they might face additional prison sentences if they were charged and convicted of the other crimes Morse described.
During the sentencings, Morse mentioned the Browns' destruction of Elaine Brown's electronic monitoring bracelet as a federal felony and also referred to threats against court officials, another federal crime.
Morse did not answer reporters' questions yesterday, but in a phone interview on Monday he said he could not comment on whether his office planned to charge the Browns over those allegations.
The Browns have 10 days to appeal their convictions. It is unclear whether they will. Shortly after the jury verdict in January, the couple attempted to file an appeal, but it was rejected as premature. In recent statements, the Browns have said that they will no longer receive mail from the court or file any documents. Joe Haas, a friend from Gilmanton Iron Works, said that Ed Brown told him yesterday that he would not file an appeal.
"Ed says he doesn't care. He doesn't acknowledge them. It's all a fiction," Haas said.
In a phone interview yesterday, Brown did not answer questions about his appeal, but he questioned whether the judge's ruling applied to him.
"Who's he?" Brown asked. "What's he? Part of the corporation of the United States? That has nothing to do with me. I'm a natural living soul."
Monier, the U.S. marshal, said his office's strategy has not changed as a result of the sentences. He said his staff will continue to communicate with the Browns and will not initiate a siege or standoff at their home.
"We're just not going to engage in that kind of game with them," he said.
In a letter he sent to the couple yesterday, he urged the Browns to turn themselves in.
"We have, and will continue to take, all reasonable steps to resolve this peacefully," he wrote.
Monier did say that his office will take action against Brown supporters who bring weapons to the Plainfield house or otherwise provide "assistance, aid, or comfort to the Browns in their continuing efforts to obstruct justice and avoid apprehension."
Since Ed Brown stopped attending his trial, he has been visited by a number of supporters who have brought food, weapons and technical assistance to him, and later to Elaine. Monier did not say whether friends who brought food might be subject to prosecution, but he did say visiting would be allowed.
"It's got to be a little bit more than just, 'Let's go out and say hi to Ed and Elaine today,' " Monier said.
About 15 supporters either attended the hearings or demonstrated outside the courthouse yesterday. Most said they were not surprised by the outcome.
"The whole thing was unfair, so it's still unfair," said Bernie Bastian of Weare, a close friend of Ed Brown's who attended every day of the trial. Bastian waited outside the courthouse yesterday because he said that he did not want to recognize the court's jurisdiction over his friend.
"I expected them to do wrong, and they met my expectation," he said.
Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
Roger Simon
The Politico
Wednesday April 25, 2007
MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.
“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.
“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”
“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will safer with a Republican president.”
Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.
“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”
Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”
Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”
Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”
The crowd thundered its approval.
Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.
“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”
Roger Simon
The Politico
Wednesday April 25, 2007
MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.
“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.
“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”
“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: “America will safer with a Republican president.”
Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.
“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”
Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”
Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”
Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”
The crowd thundered its approval.
Giuliani also said that America had been naive about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.
“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to ’90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 [with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center, in which six people died], and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001, happened, and we got it.”
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Are we safe from robots that can think for themselves?
Are we safe from robots that can think for themselves?
REBECCA CAMBER
UK Daily Mail
Tuesday April 23, 2007
Robots that can think for themselves could soon be caring for our children and the elderly and policing our streets, say experts.
Scientists told yesterday of a new generation of robots which can work without human direction.
They predict that in the next five years robots will be available for child-minding, to work in care homes, monitor prisons and help police trace criminals.
And while it may sound like something out of a science-fiction film, the experts say advances in technology have made the thinking robot possible.
A group of leading robotic researchers called for an urgent public debate and legislation to prevent large numbers of autonomous robots being introduced into society without considering the potential risks to public safety.
Until now most robots have been operated by humans, usually by remote control or verbal commands. But now autonomous machines such as toys and vacuum cleaners which cover the room without needing any human instructions or guidance are being introduced.
Manufacturers are exploring ways to make robotic toys look after children, which experts say will lead to child-minding machines able to monitor youngsters, transmitting their progress to the parents by onboard cameras.
In Japan, scientists are producing robots to act as companions for the elderly and check their heart rate.
Alan Winfield, professor of electronic engineering at the University of the West of England in Bristol, said yesterday it would not be long before technological advances made it possible for robots to be introduced in the home, as well as prisons and the police service.
Speaking at a debate on robot ethics at the London Science Media Centre, he said: "It is highly likely that in a number of years robots will be employed both for child-minding and care for the elderly.
"But the danger is that we will sleepwalk into a situation where we accept a large number of autonomous robots in our lives without being sure of the consequences.
"The outcome could be that when given a choice the robot could make the wrong decision and someone gets hurt. They can go wrong just like a motor car can.
"We should be aware of the future that we are letting ourselves in for. We need to look at their safety and reliability."
His warning echoes the hit Hollywood sci-fi film I, Robot, starring Will Smith, in which a slave robot with a mind of its own causes chaos.
Noel Sharkey, professor of computer science at Sheffield University, said: "Technology is increasing at an incredible rate.
"My main worry is that these autonomous robots could be introduced very quickly. We need to have an informed public debate now before that happens."
The biggest advances in robots in recent years have been as weapons of war. The U.S. military is developing battlefield robots which will be given the ability to decide when to use lethal force.
At the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, a battlefield robot is being developed which will use radar data and intelligence feeds to make decisions based on a set of ethical rules, which has been compared to an artificial conscience.
The Korean government is looking to create robotic armed border guards as part of a £ 51million investment in robotics.
REBECCA CAMBER
UK Daily Mail
Tuesday April 23, 2007
Robots that can think for themselves could soon be caring for our children and the elderly and policing our streets, say experts.
Scientists told yesterday of a new generation of robots which can work without human direction.
They predict that in the next five years robots will be available for child-minding, to work in care homes, monitor prisons and help police trace criminals.
And while it may sound like something out of a science-fiction film, the experts say advances in technology have made the thinking robot possible.
A group of leading robotic researchers called for an urgent public debate and legislation to prevent large numbers of autonomous robots being introduced into society without considering the potential risks to public safety.
Until now most robots have been operated by humans, usually by remote control or verbal commands. But now autonomous machines such as toys and vacuum cleaners which cover the room without needing any human instructions or guidance are being introduced.
Manufacturers are exploring ways to make robotic toys look after children, which experts say will lead to child-minding machines able to monitor youngsters, transmitting their progress to the parents by onboard cameras.
In Japan, scientists are producing robots to act as companions for the elderly and check their heart rate.
Alan Winfield, professor of electronic engineering at the University of the West of England in Bristol, said yesterday it would not be long before technological advances made it possible for robots to be introduced in the home, as well as prisons and the police service.
Speaking at a debate on robot ethics at the London Science Media Centre, he said: "It is highly likely that in a number of years robots will be employed both for child-minding and care for the elderly.
"But the danger is that we will sleepwalk into a situation where we accept a large number of autonomous robots in our lives without being sure of the consequences.
"The outcome could be that when given a choice the robot could make the wrong decision and someone gets hurt. They can go wrong just like a motor car can.
"We should be aware of the future that we are letting ourselves in for. We need to look at their safety and reliability."
His warning echoes the hit Hollywood sci-fi film I, Robot, starring Will Smith, in which a slave robot with a mind of its own causes chaos.
Noel Sharkey, professor of computer science at Sheffield University, said: "Technology is increasing at an incredible rate.
"My main worry is that these autonomous robots could be introduced very quickly. We need to have an informed public debate now before that happens."
The biggest advances in robots in recent years have been as weapons of war. The U.S. military is developing battlefield robots which will be given the ability to decide when to use lethal force.
At the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, a battlefield robot is being developed which will use radar data and intelligence feeds to make decisions based on a set of ethical rules, which has been compared to an artificial conscience.
The Korean government is looking to create robotic armed border guards as part of a £ 51million investment in robotics.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Virginia School Shooting: Another Government Black-Op?
Virginia School Shooting: Another Government Black-Op?
Early details suggest Columbine-style set-up to justify mass gun control, VA Tech has "blood on their hands," banned concealed carry, disarming victims
Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, April 16, 2007
Early details about the horrific school shooting at Virginia Tech strongly indicate that these events represent a Columbine-style black-op that will be exploited in the coming days to push for mass gun control and further turning our schools into prisons.
Eyewitness Matt Kazee told the Alex Jones Show that it was a full two to three hours after the shootings began that loudspeakers installed around the campus were used to warn students to stay indoors and that a shooter was on the loose.
Quite how the killer was afforded so much time before any action was taken to stop him is baffling, especially considering the fact that the campus, according to Kazee, was crawling with police before the event happened due to numerous bomb threats that had been phoned in last week.
The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported.
CNN quoted a student who was outraged at the delay in identifying and stopping the killer.
"What happened today this was ridiculous. And I don't know what happened or what was going through this guy's mind," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "But I'm pretty outraged and I'll say on the record I'm pretty outraged that someone died in a shooting in a dorm at 7 o'clock in the morning and the first e-mail about it — no mention of locking down campus, no mention of canceling classes — they just mention that they're investigating a shooting two hours later at 9:22."
He added: "That's pretty ridiculous and meanwhile, while they're sending out that e-mail, 22 more people got killed."
The details that are beginning to emerge fill the criteria that this could very well be another government black-op that will be used as justification for more gun control and turning our schools into prisons, festooned with armed guards, surveillance cameras and biometric scanning to gain entry.
Ironic therefore it is that Virginia is a concealed carry state and yet Virginia Tech campus recently enforced a policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus. According to gun rights activists such as Aaron Zelman of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms, VA Tech has "blood on its hands" for disarming the victims who could potentially have defended themselves against the killer.
Initial reports suggested there were two shooters, but the story quickly changed to just one shooter who later killed himself (as happens in almost all these cases) or was shot by police.
Eyewitness accounts describe police hiding behind trees and failing to pursue the killer, while ordering the school to be placed on lockdown so nobody could escape the carnage as the killer picked off his targets with seemingly little interruption from the police.
At the moment, the official death toll is 30, but could rise, making this the deadliest school shooting in history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11 Hero William Rodriguez Tells His Story!
In this powerful and emotional DVD, produced by William Rodriguez himself, the 9/11 hero presents his incredible story of bravery and the subsequent honors and accolades he turned his back on in his search for the real truth of what happened that fateful day. Click here to buy the DVD or click here to subscribe to Prison Planet.tv and watch it online now in high quality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these figures are accurate, the casualty figures surpass those of the school shooting at Columbine in 1999 when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.
It is well documented that disturbing questions remain over the incident at Columbine. It is clear that authorities had prior knowledge of what was going to happen. Observers were in the area hours before the shooting took place. Articles from the Associated Press stated that ballistics from Columbine show that six of the thirteen victims were possibly shot and killed by Jefferson County SWAT.
In addition, it was never properly explained how Klebold and Harris were able to transport over 100 bombs into the school before the shootings began.
In the aftermath of Columbine there were calls for vastly increased gun control laws, more than 15 state legislatures passed significant gun control bills or dropped NRA-supported bills.
In 1996 a similar incident occurred in Dunblane in Scotland where sixteen children and one adult were killed. The resulting inquiry recommended tighter control of handgun ownership, public feeling had turned against private gun ownership, allowing a much more restrictive ban on handguns to pass.
It then emerged that the killer Thomas Hamilton was heavily involved in Freemasonry, as well as running clubs for young boys, a fact which Labour and Tory ministers acknowledged in correspondence to each other. A a 100-year public secrecy order was placed on the documents, along with the majority of other information relating to the case including the police report. There have been allegations that the lengthy closure order was placed on the report after it linked Hamilton to figures in the Scottish establishment, including two senior politicians and a lawyer.
In both the Dunblane and Columbine cases the shooters turned the guns on themselves after the killing spree was over.
We will have more on this story as it unfolds.
Early details suggest Columbine-style set-up to justify mass gun control, VA Tech has "blood on their hands," banned concealed carry, disarming victims
Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, April 16, 2007
Early details about the horrific school shooting at Virginia Tech strongly indicate that these events represent a Columbine-style black-op that will be exploited in the coming days to push for mass gun control and further turning our schools into prisons.
Eyewitness Matt Kazee told the Alex Jones Show that it was a full two to three hours after the shootings began that loudspeakers installed around the campus were used to warn students to stay indoors and that a shooter was on the loose.
Quite how the killer was afforded so much time before any action was taken to stop him is baffling, especially considering the fact that the campus, according to Kazee, was crawling with police before the event happened due to numerous bomb threats that had been phoned in last week.
The shootings came three days after a bomb threat Friday forced the cancellation of classes in three buildings, WDBJ in Roanoke reported. Also, the 100,000-square-foot Torgersen Hall was evacuated April 2 after police received a written bomb threat, The Roanoke Times reported.
CNN quoted a student who was outraged at the delay in identifying and stopping the killer.
"What happened today this was ridiculous. And I don't know what happened or what was going through this guy's mind," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "But I'm pretty outraged and I'll say on the record I'm pretty outraged that someone died in a shooting in a dorm at 7 o'clock in the morning and the first e-mail about it — no mention of locking down campus, no mention of canceling classes — they just mention that they're investigating a shooting two hours later at 9:22."
He added: "That's pretty ridiculous and meanwhile, while they're sending out that e-mail, 22 more people got killed."
The details that are beginning to emerge fill the criteria that this could very well be another government black-op that will be used as justification for more gun control and turning our schools into prisons, festooned with armed guards, surveillance cameras and biometric scanning to gain entry.
Ironic therefore it is that Virginia is a concealed carry state and yet Virginia Tech campus recently enforced a policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus. According to gun rights activists such as Aaron Zelman of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms, VA Tech has "blood on its hands" for disarming the victims who could potentially have defended themselves against the killer.
Initial reports suggested there were two shooters, but the story quickly changed to just one shooter who later killed himself (as happens in almost all these cases) or was shot by police.
Eyewitness accounts describe police hiding behind trees and failing to pursue the killer, while ordering the school to be placed on lockdown so nobody could escape the carnage as the killer picked off his targets with seemingly little interruption from the police.
At the moment, the official death toll is 30, but could rise, making this the deadliest school shooting in history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11 Hero William Rodriguez Tells His Story!
In this powerful and emotional DVD, produced by William Rodriguez himself, the 9/11 hero presents his incredible story of bravery and the subsequent honors and accolades he turned his back on in his search for the real truth of what happened that fateful day. Click here to buy the DVD or click here to subscribe to Prison Planet.tv and watch it online now in high quality!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these figures are accurate, the casualty figures surpass those of the school shooting at Columbine in 1999 when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.
It is well documented that disturbing questions remain over the incident at Columbine. It is clear that authorities had prior knowledge of what was going to happen. Observers were in the area hours before the shooting took place. Articles from the Associated Press stated that ballistics from Columbine show that six of the thirteen victims were possibly shot and killed by Jefferson County SWAT.
In addition, it was never properly explained how Klebold and Harris were able to transport over 100 bombs into the school before the shootings began.
In the aftermath of Columbine there were calls for vastly increased gun control laws, more than 15 state legislatures passed significant gun control bills or dropped NRA-supported bills.
In 1996 a similar incident occurred in Dunblane in Scotland where sixteen children and one adult were killed. The resulting inquiry recommended tighter control of handgun ownership, public feeling had turned against private gun ownership, allowing a much more restrictive ban on handguns to pass.
It then emerged that the killer Thomas Hamilton was heavily involved in Freemasonry, as well as running clubs for young boys, a fact which Labour and Tory ministers acknowledged in correspondence to each other. A a 100-year public secrecy order was placed on the documents, along with the majority of other information relating to the case including the police report. There have been allegations that the lengthy closure order was placed on the report after it linked Hamilton to figures in the Scottish establishment, including two senior politicians and a lawyer.
In both the Dunblane and Columbine cases the shooters turned the guns on themselves after the killing spree was over.
We will have more on this story as it unfolds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
