23JUL2014: The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist


Retrieved: anewworldsociety.ning.com

( Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux) - The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.

The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place “entire categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

Over the years, the Obama and Bush Administrations have fiercely resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the databases—though the guidelines are officially labeled as unclassified. In May, Attorney General Eric Holder even invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent watchlisting guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list. In an affidavit, Holder called them a “clear roadmap” to the government’s terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: “The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed … could cause significant harm to national security.”

Blacklisted  The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a TerroristThe Intercept1

nomination_chart

In 2012 Tim Healy, the former director of the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, described to CBS News how watchlists are used by police officers. “So if you are speeding, you get pulled over, they’ll query that name,” he said. “And if they are encountering a known or suspected terrorist, it will pop up and say call the Terrorist Screening Center…. So now the officer on the street knows he may be dealing with a known or suspected terrorist.” Of course, the problem is that the “known or suspected terrorist” might just be an ordinary citizen who should not be treated as a menace to public safety.

Until 2001, the government did not prioritize building a watchlist system. On 9/11, the government’s list of people barred from flying included just 16 names. Today, the no fly list has swelled to tens of thousands of “known or suspected terrorists” (the guidelines refer to them as KSTs). The selectee list subjects people to extra scrutiny and questioning at airports and border crossings. The government has created several other databases, too. The largest is the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), which gathers terrorism information from sensitive military and intelligence sources around the world. Because it contains classified information that cannot be widely distributed, there is yet another list, the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, which has been stripped of TIDE’s classified data so that it can be shared. When government officials refer to “the watchlist,” they are typically referring to the TSDB. (TIDE is the responsibility of the National Counterterrorism Center; the TSDB is managed by the Terrorist Screening Center at the FBI.)

In a statement, a spokesman for the National Counterterrorism Center told The Intercept that “the watchlisting system is an important part of our layered defense to protect the United States against future terrorist attacks” and that “watchlisting continues to mature to meet an evolving, diffuse threat.” He added that U.S. citizens are afforded extra protections to guard against improper listing, and that no one can be placed on a list solely for activities protected by the First Amendment. A representative of the Terrorist Screening Center did not respond to a request for comment.

The system has been criticized for years. In 2004, Sen. Ted Kennedy complained that he was barred from boarding flights on five separate occasions because his name resembled the alias of a suspected terrorist. Two years later, CBS News obtained a copy of the no fly list and reported that it included Bolivian president Evo Morales and Lebanese parliament head Nabih Berri. One of the watchlists snared Mikey Hicks, a Cub Scout who got his first of many airport pat-downs at age two. In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a scathing report identifying “significant weaknesses” in the system. And in 2009, after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list, President Obama admitted that there had been a “systemic failure.”

Obama hoped that his response to the “underwear bomber” would be a turning point. In 2010, he gave increased powers and responsibilities to the agencies that nominate individuals to the lists, placing pressure on them to add names. His administration also issued a set of new guidelines for the watchlists. Problems persisted, however. In 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report that bluntly noted there was no agency responsible for figuring out “whether watchlist-related screening or vetting is achieving intended results.” The guidelines were revised and expanded in 2013—and a source within the intelligence community subsequently provided a copy to The Intercept.

tbu2

“Concrete facts are not necessary”

The five chapters and 11 appendices of the “Watchlisting Guidance” are filled with acronyms, legal citations, and numbered paragraphs; it reads like an arcane textbook with a vocabulary all its own. Different types of data on suspected terrorists are referred to as “derogatory information,” “substantive derogatory information,” “extreme derogatory information” and “particularized derogatory information.” The names of suspected terrorists are passed along a bureaucratic ecosystem of “originators,” “nominators,” “aggregators,” “screeners,” and “encountering agencies.” And “upgrade,” usually a happy word for travellers, is repurposed to mean that an individual has been placed on a more restrictive list.

The heart of the document revolves around the rules for placing individuals on a watchlist. “All executive departments and agencies,” the document says, are responsible for collecting and sharing information on terrorist suspects with the National Counterterrorism Center. It sets a low standard—”reasonable suspicion“—for placing names on the watchlists, and offers a multitude of vague, confusing, or contradictory instructions for gauging it. In the chapter on “Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria”—even the title is hard to digest—the key sentence on reasonable suspicion offers little clarity:

“To meet the REASONABLE SUSPICION standard, the NOMINATOR, based on the totality of the circumstances, must rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.”

The rulebook makes no effort to define an essential phrase in the passage—”articulable intelligence or information.” After stressing that hunches are not reasonable suspicion and that “there must be an objective factual basis” for labeling someone a terrorist, it goes on to state that no actual facts are required:

“In determining whether a REASONABLE SUSPICION exists, due weight should be given to the specific reasonable inferences that a NOMINATOR is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience and not on unfounded suspicions or hunches. Although irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary, to be reasonable, suspicion should be as clear and as fully developed as circumstances permit.”

While the guidelines nominally prohibit nominations based on unreliable information, they explicitly regard “uncorroborated” Facebook or Twitter posts as sufficient grounds for putting an individual on one of the watchlists. “Single source information,” the guidelines state, “including but not limited to ‘walk-in,’ ‘write-in,’ or postings on social media sites, however, should not automatically be discounted … the NOMINATING AGENCY should evaluate the credibility of the source, as well as the nature and specificity of the information, and nominate even if that source is uncorroborated.”

There are a number of loopholes for putting people onto the watchlists even if reasonable suspicion cannot be met.

One is clearly defined: The immediate family of suspected terrorists—their spouses, children, parents, or siblings—may be watchlisted without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity. But another loophole is quite broad—”associates” who have a defined relationship with a suspected terrorist, but whose involvement in terrorist activity is not known. A third loophole is broader still—individuals with “a possible nexus” to terrorism, but for whom there is not enough “derogatory information” to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

Americans and foreigners can be nominated for the watchlists if they are associated with a terrorist group, even if that group has not been designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. They can also be treated as “representatives” of a terrorist group even if they have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” The guidelines do helpfully note that certain associations, such as providing janitorial services or delivering packages, are not grounds for being watchlisted.

The nomination system appears to lack meaningful checks and balances. Although government officials have repeatedly said there is a rigorous process for making sure no one is unfairly placed in the databases, the guidelines acknowledge that all nominations of “known terrorists” are considered justified unless the National Counterterrorism Center has evidence to the contrary. In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013, of which only 4,915 were rejected–a rate of about one percent. The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”

Read rest of article here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/

—————————————–

cropped-mayday2014.png

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG MAYDAY TIMELINE

18JULY2014: U.S. ARMY TRAINING TO FIGHT BLACK AMERICANS


fema1

(Paul Joseph Watson) - “Doomsday Disneyland” facility used as practice ground for civil unrest.

A promotional video touting FEMA’s emergency response capabilities shows U.S. National Guard troops training to detain unruly African-American citizens in prison camps before handing them over to police.

The video appears on the official YouTube channel for Guardian Centers, an 830 acre “disaster preparedness and tactical training validation center” located in Georgia which is routinely used by FEMA and other government agencies to practice emergency response procedures.

After the 2 minute mark in the clip, the scene cuts to a black woman who is struggling to escape from the clutches of a uniformed soldier. The area is surrounded by concertina wire and guarded by other troops.

The clip then shows the woman, along with another African-American, being handed over to local police before being driven away.

Described by CNN as the “doomsday Disneyland,” Guardian Centers is a mock city complete with a subway station that “allow(s) a variety of responders to do a variety of drills in one location.”

The sight of National Guard troops training to detain Americans in prison camps is unlikely to quell concerns that authorities are preparing for domestic disorder.

Back in 2012, we reported on FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations, a U.S. Army manual that describes how political activists in prison camps will be indoctrinated by specially assigned psychological operations officers. The document makes numerous references to how government agencies like the DHS, ICE and FEMA will be involved in the domestic internment of U.S. citizens during “civil support operations.”

A second US Army Military Police manual that was leaked months later also outlined how military assets would be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

U.S. troops and National Guard also worked with local police to incarcerate Americans in detention camps during drills Alex Jones covered in 1999 in Oakland, California.

A report produced in 2008 by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed “strategic shock.”

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”

Despite innumerable indications that the federal government is making preparations for riots, the Department of Homeland Security denied last year that it was gearing up for domestic disorder. In 2011, DHS chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

In the video below, Alex Jones highlights how the Guardian Centers video is yet another startling indication that authorities in the United States are preparing for civil unrest as America increasingly begins to resemble a militarized police state.

Read original: http://www.infowars.com/video-shows-u-s-national-guard-training-to-detain-african-americans-in-prison-camps/

———————————————-

cropped-mayday2014.png

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG MAYDAY TIMELINE

13July2014: NORAD exercise planned for Washington region this week


Logo retrieved via Wikipedia

Logo retrieved via Wikipedia

(Washington Post) -

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) will conduct flight exercises late Monday night through Wednesday morning in the Washington region, authorities said.

The flights, which are scheduled between midnight and 5:30 a.m. each day, are meant to test NORAD’s intercept capabilities and readiness in the event of intruding aircraft, the agency said.

The exercise involves a series of training flights held in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Joint Air Defense Operations Center, Civil Air Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies.

In the event of bad weather, the flights will be postponed or canceled.

Read Original: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/norad-exercise-planned-for-washington-region-this-week/2014/07/13/ae03e6f4-0aa0-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html?tid=hpModule_99d5f542-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

————————————-

cropped-mayday2014.png

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG MAYDAY TIMELINE

10JULY2014: Why Are Armed “International Security” Personnel Now Arresting American Citizens?


Photo retrieved Conspiracy Analysis

Editorial comment – That is the BIG QUESTION!! America is occupied and your sleeping and drinking the tainted beer… 

(Bernie Suarez) - Very recently I came across a scenario in the streets of Hollywood, California. The big scene seemed a bit striking to the average person walking by as it was the middle of the day in a crowded busy Hollywood street. A closer look caused me to be even more intrigued – there was a gentleman being arrested. He was in handcuffs and surrounded by three or four armed officers. Or were they really officers?

A closer look surprised me even more. The “officers” were not police. They were not Sheriffs department or California Highway Patrol (CHP). They all wore a logo on their sleeves and a logo on an otherwise unmarked car that read “Andrews International Security Services” nothing else. They otherwise had all black uniforms and all were armed like police officers, looking scary and aggressive.

After getting a photograph of their logo (which earned me a dirty look from them) and investigating them with the LAPD, I was told by an LAPD officer that this private security company is part of a program called “Business Improvement District” (BID). The officer explained that they’ve been putting these security entities on the streets for at least a few years to his knowledge. Ultimately, the officer agreed with me that this was a very serious situation saying it was a “very interesting” concept in light of the Constitutionality and legality of it.

These “Business Improvement Districts” go by many other names which all interestingly happen to have three letter representations (like government agencies making them sound official) including the Business Improvement Area (BIA), the Business Revitalization Zone (BRZ), Community Improvement District (CID), Special Services Area (SSA), and the Special Improvement District (SID). All of these groups are similar types of BIDs operating nationwide.

Upon further research on this matter I discovered that this is a business model that first began in 1970 in Toronto where the first Business Improvement District (BID) was created in the “Bloor West Village.” Here in the U.S. the first BID appeared New Orleans in 1974 touting themselves as the “Downtown Development District.”

How are BIDs formed? According to Wikipedia:

business improvement district (BID) is a defined area within which businesses pay an additional tax (or levy) in order to fund projects within the district’s boundaries. The BID is often funded primarily through the levy but can also draw on other public and private funding streams… BIDs provide services, such as cleaning streets, providing security, making capital improvements, construction of pedestrian and streetscape enhancements, and marketing the area.

Apparently the richest business owners in the neighborhood can collude together to form a private group which donates money to provide whatever “services” they agree is to their best interest. Funding can come from both public or private entities and local government needs to determine that the majority of businesses want the BID before they enact legislation to create the BID. Local government does not consult with the community but instead with the business owners who are able to influence legislation to ensure the establishment of the BID. In fact, most people don’t know that BIDs have become a powerful lobby group pushing municipalities for certain services that they then select private companies to cash in on when the job is contracted to them. In other words, business owners have gotten together and formed yet another product that they are selling to the municipalities. That’s right, your freedom to walk down the streets is being sold to private entities.

What am I talking about? Or, so what, you might say, what’s the big deal?

As the document source states above, BIDs are providing “services” such as street cleaning, making capital improvements, construction of pedestrian and streetscape enhancements, and marketing capital improvements. In addition to these services of “improvements,” “enhancements” that serve corporate interest, they are also providing “security” because security is part of the “improvement“.

As I recently found out, this includes “International” private armed security companies who are being given the power to arrest people in the streets. When the state municipalities begin to sell the “service” of policing the people, funded by programs that were not approved by the people but instead by a small group of business owners, we are walking down a slippery road to corporate tyranny.

With the number of BIDs in American now increased from a small handful in the 1970s-80s we now have over 1000-1200 BIDs in the United States alone operating in cities throughout the United States without the approval of the people. The corporations are using this program to arm themselves against the people. This represents a large civilian army whose numbers are growing with no end in sight; this should concern all Americans who care about freedom, liberty and the Constitution. These private (PRO-Corporation) illegal “security” personnel are posing as officers and police and are spreading in the United States, and that is a direct threat to the people who have no say in who these people are and why they are roaming around in our streets.

We are now approaching a time when these private security gangs or pseudo-police are looking to intimidate and bully Americans (which is exactly what I witnessed on the streets of Hollywood) who are walking the streets enforcing their own private set of rules, independent of the basic laws of the local government. Their private rules are based on whether you the pedestrian are interfering with the “improvement” or the “enhancement” or even the “marketing” of the general area where the private business cabal who formed the Business Improvement District (BID) to begin with, is conducting their business.

This intriguing development is very much a part of the globalist restructuring of our world in the name of private profit and corporate despotism. This is another way in which private corporations are working hand in hand with local government to enslave the people and remove, arrest, charge and perhaps even beat or kill anyone who gets in the way of private profit.

Let’s not be fooled by back stage formations of these private business coalitions that are forming in our own towns while we work every day and do our own thing. They are catching on with these models and using them to take away your freedom, while they profit even more. If you see or learn of one of these organizations in your local community confront it. Find out everything you can about them and try to have a voice in what they are doing. Tell others about these programs and help inform voters from the perspective of the U.S. Constitution so that people can have a voice in this issue. Let your local government know that armed civilians enforcing security in the name of corporate profit is not what America is about and does not serve the interest of Americans. Big business owners are not America, they do not represent the interest of the we-the-people and their private security forces need to be dismantled immediately.

Sadly, many people will see these corporate takeovers of our local municipal towns and streets as innocent, maybe even a good idea, and they won’t think twice about the dangers this represents. To those people, I will remind them of the words outlined in our Declaration of Independence which states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,     Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Let this be a reminder that we truly are all created equal, and it is the greed and arrogance that is often related to the pursuit of riches, power and control, that give men the delusion that he is greater than another just because he has more money and riches. This is all part of the superiority complex psychosis known as eugenics, which is ultimately driving the effort to create a one world government. Those that suffer from this mental disease truly believe they are superior to the average person, and this psychosis is at the heart of this entire issue. Without this eugenic superiority mentality we would not be seeing what we are seeing in the streets of America. The eugenicists who are running many of the successful businesses today really believe it is up to them to control society and impose their personal wishes on the general public. Call it what you will, this has to stop and we must expose these programs.

The officer I spoke with never did tell me why or how the private security company known as Andrews International Security Services is granted the authority to arrest Americans, and I’m still investigating to see if they have been officially granted such authority, but either way this is a red flag for all Americans to start sounding the alarm. As I mentioned before, the officer I spoke with seemed to agree that this was at the very least an issue of interest and concern, especially for anyone who truly understands the Constitution. I believe we will hear more of this issue as we continue to march toward global tyranny and we continue to witness the presence of these mysterious “International” and private security corporations, donning the role of police and attempting to police a sovereign nation full of millions of Veterans and active and retired Officers who themselves swore an oath to defend the Constitution.

These are signs of the times and I urge readers to take a stand against tyranny and the corporate-government funded new world order. If you don’t take a stand now, you may not have a chance to take a stand tomorrow, for by then it will be too late.

Read Original: http://www.activistpost.com/2014/07/why-are-armed-international-security.html

ALSO READ: A NEW WORLD SELF ORDER-AMERICA 2.0DEESCALATING THE POLICE

————————-

cropped-mayday2014.png

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG MAYDAY TIMELINE

 

 

 

 

 

30JUN2014: ‘Sneak and peek’ warrants allow police to secretly enter homes without notice


(Police State USA) - Covert tactics have become legally accepted and increasingly popular.

Peeking burglar.

A little-known police tactic allows cops to covertly enter private residences, perform searches, seize property, and then leave quietly without notifying the homeowner. These searches, affectionately known as “sneak and peek” warrants, have been performed at a rapidly rising rate since 9/11.

Covert Tactics

Sneak and Peek warrants in actuality a more extreme version of the over-used “no-knock” raids that we cover so often. After seeking out a judge’s authorization, police are allowed to secretly break into private property without first announcing themselves or presenting the subject of the search with a signed warrant. Using this variety of warrant, officers intentionally wait until the subject is not present. The operations are performed covertly, and with the intention of masking the fact that any police activity took place.

The entire premise encourages government agents to adopt the tactics of criminals in order to gain access to property: breaking and entering, sneaking around, stealing, and risking a surprise confrontation with an unsuspecting civilian.

Burglar with a crowbar.

Often, the investigators leave the property undisturbed to avoid detection. After taking what they want and/or leaving wiretaps, cameras, or other planted devices, they exit quietly so as not to raise suspicions.

Sometimes, however, the agents literally stage the scenes to resemble robberies — sneak and stealoperations. In one 2010 case, federal investigators broke into an Cleveland apartment, collected evidence, and then “trashed the place to make it look like a burglary.”

The feds have used similar tactics when searching vehicles. According to a Department of Justice document, DEA agents used a delayed-notice warrant to literally steal a suspect’s car in March 2004. After following the suspect to a restaurant in Buffalo, NY, one agent “used a duplicate key to enter the vehicle and drive away while other agents spread broken glass in the parking space to create the impression that the vehicle had been stolen.” [1]

The government is supposed to eventually tell the subject that a warrant had been served on them, but that may not happen for months or sometimes more than a year. A report by the Director Director of the Administrative Office (AO) of U.S. Courts found that the period of delay in telling the suspect they had been served a warrant ranged from 1 to 455 days. The most common length of delay was 90 days [2].

Terminology and History

Officially, the government has termed these warrants innocuously as “Delayed-Notice Search Warrants.” Calling the tactics what they are — covert home invasions or “Sneak and Peek” searches — would not be helpful for public relations.

The man that President Obama chose to head the FBI, James Comey, once explained the etymological spin used by the government to present the tactics in a positive light:   “We in law enforcement do not call them [sneak and peek warrants]… because it conveys this image that we are looking through your sock drawer while you are taking a nap.” [3]

In private, the government once used a more honest description of the tactic — back when it was not legally recognized. They were quite literally referred to as “black bag jobs” within the FBI, as Bureau domestic intelligence head William Sullivan revealed in a declassified memo dated July 19, 1966:

“We do not obtain authorization for ‘black bag’ jobs from outside the Bureau. Such a technique involves trespass and is clearly illegal; therefore, it would be impossible to obtain any legal sanction for it. Despite this, ‘black bag’ jobs have been used because they represent an invaluable technique in combating subversive activities of a clandestine nature aimed directly at undermining and destroying our nation.” [4]

Mr. Sullivan was clearly aware that the actions were illegal, yet his memo went on to proudly admit that the tactics have been used to destroy political groups operating within the United States.

Governments have certainly been covertly sneaking and spying on their own citizens for all of history. The legal acceptance is the newer, more concerning development.

As law professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich points out, “There is no evidence of judicially-authorized covert searching, through a delayed notice warrant or any similar mechanism, in the history of search and seizure through 1791 [the drafting of the Fourth Amendment].” [6]

The professor also revealed that the first reference to a “Delayed-Notice Search Warrant” did not occur in U.S. case law until 1985 in United States v. Frietas [6].

The constitutionality of covert searches has been challenged in court several times in the modern era, and the searches were always upheld. In Dalia v. United States (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court called the 4th Amendment challenge “frivolous.” Modern courts have followed suit, holding that the tactics pose no Fourth Amendment concerns. And thus signaled the beginning to an era when “black bag” tactics became legitimate.

Although the courts had condoned the formerly dubious warrants, their issuance remained relatively low (at least searches performed on the record). The rarity of the searches changed after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act laid out a national standard for using Sneak & Peek tactics, and the floodgates began to open for their widespread usage.

Before the USA PATRIOT Act, only two federal circuits had ever acknowledged the practice of Delayed-Notice Search Warrants [6].

Title 18, Section 3103a provides that for any federal search warrant, “any notice required… may be delayed if… the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result.”

According to research done by Professor Witmer-Rich, there were only 25 DSW’s issued in 2002, and in a decade, that number had grown to 5,601 DSW’s issued in 2012 [6]. In fact, sneak and peek search warrants now constitute about 10% of all warrants served by the federal government [5].

Evidence shows that judges are rarely rejecting these warrants. Data in a U.S. Courts Administrative Office report shows that there was a 0.7% chance of a judge denying a request for a sneak and peek warrant in 2010. Out of 2,395 total DSW requests, only 16 were rejected [2].

Institutionalized Injustice

The use of these tactics opens the doors for numerous problems, corruption, and unintended consequences.

Secret searches not only reduce/eliminate the privacy and freedom of those targeted in the investigation — who are legally innocent until proven guilty — but also spurs an insecurity within the entire community. As Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor noted in a 2012 case regarding secret GPS tracking, “awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms.”

Another glaring problem is the risk of having police officers barging in on unsuspecting people. Despite investigators’ best efforts to avoid contact, a sneak and peek search could easily be performed while a subject or family member is still present in the house. When the police enter without notice, they will appear indistinguishable from criminal home invaders. Violent confrontations may arise, as they often do with the use of standard “no-knock” warrants.

It is also worth noting that clandestine “black bag jobs” are a perfect working environment for corrupt government agents. If their objective is to stage a robbery, they can quite literally steal property for their own benefit and never report it to the courts. Pocketing cash and valuables would be quite easy for state-sanctioned burglars operating without any witnesses. Officers also have a practically unchecked ability to plant evidence and incriminate the subject.

Indeed, the secrecy and lack of witnesses in these situations makes it incredibly difficult to hold the police accountable for any wrongdoing that might occur.

The problem of Sneak and Peek warrants has been institutionalized by the legislature, and it must be reversed there as well. The courts are unlikely to go against the precedents that have already been established. If clandestine police tactics are of concern to the public, the people must spur a legal change and push back on these advanced state powers.

Read Original with Sources: http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/sneak-and-peek-warrants/

ALSO READ: DEESCALATING THE POLICE  

———————–

cropped-mayday2014.png

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG MAYDAY TIMELINE

 

30JUN2014: Oregon police plan ‘no refusal’ blood-draws for drivers Celebrate Independence Day with forcible DNA collection by police


(Police State USA) -

Field sobriety test

OREGON — Police are announcing a blitz of forced ‘no-refusal’ blood-draw warrants for drivers this holiday weekend.

In Oregon, and many other states, drivers that are suspected by police of driving under the influence are presented with a choice: submit to a Breathalyzer search or lose your driver’s license for a year.

From a driver’s perspective, however, submitting to a Breathalyzer presents some problems. One is that the machines inherently present the possibility of error, and could provide an incorrect measurement incriminate an innocent person. There is the argument that people should not be forced to prove their innocence or provide police with self-incriminating evidence.

A cop with a needle confiscates blood from a suspect. (Source: AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

The policy of revoking licenses is not without faults, but for the most part it balances the forces calling for safe roads and protects people’s individual rights.

However, in Oregon, that’s not good enough. Judges are teaming up with police to sign warrants on-demand for the forcible confiscation of blood. The intention is to collect the evidence necessary to lock people in prison.

In some cases, this involves hustling a suspect back to the police station, strapping them to a table, putting them in a headlock, and penetrating them with a needle, despite their protests.

It does not paint a pretty picture for innocent people who philosophically choose to stand their ground and refuse to submit to police searches.

Read Original: http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/oregon-blood-draw-no-refusal/

ALSO SEE: Deescalating the Police

———————–

cropped-mayday2014.png

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG MAYDAY TIMELINE

11JUN2014 – Indiana sheriff wants military vehicles because “the USA has become a war zone”


(Source: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty)
(Source: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty)

(PoliceStateUSA) – PULASKI COUNTY, IN — As the Department of Defense continues to flood America’s local police departments with military equipment, some cops are letting the propaganda and the free toys go to their heads.  One sheriff in Indiana let out a disturbing admission that he views America as a battlefield — making it imperative, in his opinion, to equip his deputies with gear fresh out of the hands of U.S. soldiers fighting overseas.

“The United States of America has become a war zone,” said Pulaski County Sheriff Michael Gayer in an interview with the Indianapolis Star.

His department has received attention after it sought out and acquired a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle through the Pentagon’s police militarization program.

Pulaski County (Indiana) Sheriff Michael Gayer (Source: WKVI)

Sheriff Gayer remarked about the MRAP, “It’s a lot more intimidating than a Dodge.”

Pulaski County is extremely rural, containing only 13,124 residents.  In 2012, Pulaski County only 11 theft (or larceny) incidents, 1 murder and a grand total of 17 property crimes.  Despite this, sprawling farm county has procured hundreds of military items, valued at over $5,000,000.00, under Sheriff Gayer’s leadership.  The items, listed in a databaseat the Indy Star, range from dozens of vehicles, weapons, tactical equipment, bayonets, tools, and more.

Gayer defends the lucrative federal handouts by spreading paranoia about crime in America.

“There’s violence in the workplace, there’s violence in schools and there’s violence in the streets,” said Gayer.  “You are seeing police departments going to a semi-military format because of the threats we have to counteract. If driving a military vehicle is going to protect officers, then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Sheriff Gayer elaborates about the perceived battlefronts he faces on the department website: “With the threat of homeland terrorism, rising violence in our schools, drug and alcohol abuse, our society and freedoms that we so dearly cherish are being challenged,” Gayer wrote.

So there we have it.  The enemies Pulaski County faces are terrorists, unruly students, and prohibition violators.

“I will do this to the best of my ability and will not allow The Thin Blue Line to weaken by those who would do us harm,” Gayer added on the website.



Larry Thomas, a Hoosier, veteran police officer, and past contributor to Police State USA, wrote the following in response to Sheriff Gayer’s statements:

As a retired law enforcement command officer I was dismayed to read the remarks of Pulaski County Sheriff Michael Gayer, who said, “The United States of America has become a war zone. There’s violence in the workplace, there’s violence in schools and there’s violence in the streets.”

During my tenure in law enforcement there was violence in those places too. But it did not motivate us to transform from public servants and peacekeepers into warriors, taking weapons that were designed for foreign battlefields and turning them on the American people.

We were reluctant to deploy SWAT teams, fully realizing the violent response that such a display could provoke and employing such tactics only in the most extreme circumstances. Law enforcement agencies are now eager to deploy such teams even in a total absence of demonstrated need.

Here in my own city of Carmel, an incident occurred, reported in these pages, wherein a SWAT team deployed and terrorized a local family, jamming guns in their faces and dragging them away in handcuffs, based on nothing more than a single, unverified, uncorroborated phone call that a shooting had taken place. The report proved to be false.

This would have been simply impossible in my day. When we received such a phone call we sent officers to the location, and we knocked on the door! Wow! What a revolutionary concept!

No, Sheriff Gayer…The United States of America is NOT a war zone. It is the place where Americans work, live and play. Law enforcement officers who are trained that America is a war zone do not regard citizens as individuals with rights to be protected, but as an enemy to be subjugated. And if the law enforcement profession does not wake up and change this attitude, we, the people, will be forced to call on our legislators to rein you in.

Lieutenant Harry Thomas

 

Read original: http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/indiana-sheriff-usa-become-war-zone/
ALSO READ: DEESCALATING THE POLICE by JACK MULLEN
—————————————
cropped-mayday2014.png

THE GOVERNMENT RAG HOME PAGE

THE GOVERNMENT RAG MAYDAY TIMELINE