¡Ya Basta!

Carrie Johnson Washington Post October 6, 2008

Justice Department officials released new guidelines yesterday that empower FBI agents to use intrusive techniques to gather intelligence within the United States, alarming civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers who worry that they invite privacy violations and other abuses.The new road map allows investigators to recruit informants, employ physical surveillance and conduct interviews in which agents disguise their identities in an effort to assess national security threats. FBI agents could pursue each of those steps without any single fact indicating a person has ties to a terrorist organization.

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the guidelines are necessary to fulfill the FBI’s core mission to predict threats and respond even before an attack takes place. The ground rules will help the bureau become “a more flexible and adept collector of intelligence,” as independent commissions urged after the strikes of Sept. 11, 2001, Mukasey said in a statement yesterday.

The guidelines, which harmonize five different road maps dating back more than a generation, take effect Dec. 1. That is two months later than initially planned, and authorities said the delay was a concession to privacy advocates and Arab American groups who expressed concern that their members could be subject to racial or ethnic profiling.

Justice Department leaders rewrote a key section of the guidelines concerning agents’ infiltration of groups and attendance at demonstrations. Under the new language, agents would be able to investigate the likelihood of violence stemming from a planned demonstration for as many as 30 days, with renewals subject to supervisory approval.

Congressional staff members said the revisions were superficial, and the American Civil Liberties Union immediately condemned the road map. Critics had asked Justice Department leaders to wait until a new president takes office, an approach that administration officials rejected.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office, said: “Since, under these guidelines, a generalized ‘threat’ is enough to begin an investigation, the FBI will be given carte blanche to begin surveillance without factual evidence. . . . These guidelines will lead to political witch hunts and more unwarranted investigations of political enemies and peace groups.”

Read article

SEE VIDEO HERE Kurt Nimmo Infowars October 3, 2008

In House debate on the banker “rescue” bill, Rep. Brad Sherman told his fellow Congress critters the government will declare martial law and the stock market will drop 3,000 points if the bill is not passed. “The panic-mongers were to the point of telling people the market would drop 3,000 points and there would be martial law,” said Sherman.

Sherman’s comment was not in the same context as a comment issued by Rep. Michael Burgess earlier in the week. Burgess, who appeared on the Alex Jones Show, said Pelosi threatened to invoke House rule XIII(6)(a), described as “martial law,” intended to suspend normal procedures and safeguards and thus allowing the House leadership to operate in a more authoritarian fashion. Sherman, however, said martial law would be declared on Wall Street, not in the House. Continue Reading »

Shashank Bengali McClatchy Newspapers September 30, 2008

NAIROBI, Kenya — The U.S. Africa Command, the Pentagon’s first effort to unite its counterterrorism, training and humanitarian operations on the continent, launches Wednesday amid questions at home about its mission and deep suspicions in Africa about its intentions. U.S. officials have billed the new command, known as Africom, as a sign of Africa’s strategic importance, but many in Africa see it as an unwelcome expansion of the U.S.-led war on terrorism and a bid to secure greater access to the continent’s vast oil resources. Several countries have refused to host the command, and officials say Africom will be based in Stuttgart, Germany, for the foreseeable future.

U.S.-based aid groups and some in Congress have expressed worries that Africom will tilt U.S policy in Africa away from democracy-building and economic development and toward security objectives such as stemming the growth of militant Islamist groups in Somalia and North Africa, some of which have ties to al Qaida.

U.S. covert operations in Somalia and elsewhere have fueled the controversy. In late 2006, the U.S. military provided intelligence to help Ethiopia topple a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Somalia, an invasion that’s fueled a violent Islamist insurgency.

U.S. forces have since launched several strikes on suspected terrorist targets in Somalia. While one of the strikes killed a top militant commander, Aden Hashi Ayro, in May, Somalis say the attacks also killed and badly wounded civilians.Underlining the skepticism in Washington, the House of Representatives voted last week to provide $266 million to fund Africom’s first year of operations — $123 million less than President Bush had requested. The House Appropriations Committee said the reduction was due partly to “the failure to establish an Africom presence on the continent.”

The fledgling command’s image problem, at home and abroad, is cause for concern because of Africa’s growing importance to the United States.

The Department of Energy says that 17 percent of U.S. crude oil imports now come from Africa, more than the U.S. gets from Persian Gulf countries. But rising powers such as China have strengthened their ties with Africa and become a powerful counterweight to American influence.

Pentagon officials reject claims that Africom is about oil or China, but those perceptions remain strong in Africa.

“Obviously the U.S. is concerned about China’s influence, security, oil, counterterrorism, hunting down al Qaida suspects,” said Erin Weir of Refugees International, a Washington-based advocacy group that’s opposed Africom. “Africans read the newspaper just the same as we do, and they know what drives U.S. interests now.”

READ ARTICLE

We here at Ya Basta are not telling you to vote for McCain; he is just as much a gun-grabber as the Democratic candidates. See GOA. Readers should also check out Gun Owners of America to see the ratings given to most of the presidential candidates. The stances and records of Nader, McKinney, and most of the other 3rd party candidates are also pretty bad when it comes to guaranteeing our inalienable right of self defense. See other candidates here.