This is going to do wonders for tourism

Two years ago, a Virginia girl met an Italian gentleman in a supermarket in Rome and a romance blossomed. He was prosperous and in a position to make frequent visits to see her, and so he did. His visits were always without incidence until he landed at Dulles last month, and was denied entry.

Normally, persons denied entry are put on the next plane home, but this gentleman was not so fortunate. He was held in a county jail for ten days, and even intervention by Senator John Warner could not gain him his freedom. The case of Domenico Salerno might be extreme, but it highlights a very real danger that travelers to this country face.

Each year, thousands of would-be visitors from 27 so-called visa waiver countries are turned away when they present their passports, said Angelica De Cima, a spokeswoman for Customs and Border Protection, who said she could not discuss any individual case. In the last seven months, 3,300 people have been rejected and more than 8 million admitted, she said.

Though citizens of those nations do not need visas to enter the United States for as long as 90 days, their admission is up to the discretion of border agents. There are more than 60 grounds for finding someone inadmissible, including a hunch that the person plans to work or immigrate, or evidence of an overstay, however brief, on an earlier visit.

While those turned away are generally sent home on the next flight, “there are occasional circumstances which require further detention to review their cases,” Ms. De Cima said. And because such “arriving aliens” are not considered to be in the United States at all, even if they are in custody, they have none of the legal rights that even illegal immigrants can claim. [emphasis added]

Government officials have acknowledged that intensified security since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has sometimes led to the heavy-handed treatment of foreigners caught in a bureaucratic tangle or paperwork errors. But despite encouraging officers to resolve such cases quickly, excesses continue to come to light.

One recent case involved an Icelandic woman who was refused entry at Kennedy Airport because, a dozen years earlier, she had overstayed her visa by three weeks. The woman, Erla Osk Arnardottir Lillendahl, was deported Dec. 10 after what she described as 24 hours of interrogation and humiliating treatment — locked in a cell and barred from making phone calls. The Department of Homeland Security later issued a letter of regret.

In questioning Mr. Salerno, customs agents seemed to suspect that he intended to work here. Ms. Cooper, a copy editor for an educational publication, said she was in the airport lobby when an agent called to ask about Mr. Salerno’s income and why he visited so often.

The youngest son of a prosperous contractor in Calabria, Mr. Salerno helps out in his brother’s law firm in Rome and is able to visit the United States several times a year. Neighbors said he joined volunteers in refurbishing the Wessynton recreation center in 2006, then became one of its summer attractions, kicking a soccer ball with the kids and playing tennis with the adults.

“He just is a very open, fun and helpful guy,” said Christopher M. Porter, a resident of Wessynton.

Ms. Cooper said that at the airport, when she begged to know what was happening to Mr. Salerno, an agent told her, “You know, he should try spending a little more time in his own country.”

Another agent eventually told her to go home because Mr. Salerno was being detained as an asylum-seeker.

“The border patrol officer said to my face that Domenico said he would be killed if he went back to Italy,” she recalled, voicing incredulity that, in his halting English, he could express such a thought. “Also, who on earth would ever seek asylum from Italy?”

Twelve hours later, when Mr. Salerno was granted a five-minute phone call, he called Ms. Cooper and denied saying anything of the kind. Instead, he said, the asylum story seemed to be retaliation for his insisting on speaking to his embassy.

After being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he was taken to the Pamunkey Regional Jail in Hanover, Va., where he ended up in a barracks with 75 other men, including asylum-seekers who told him they had been waiting a year.

Ten days after he landed in Washington, Mr. Salerno was still incarcerated, despite efforts by Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and two former immigration prosecutors hired by the Coopers.

“He’s just really scared,” Ms. Cooper said in an interview last Thursday. “He asked me if Virginia has the death penalty.”

Luis Paoli, a lawyer hired by the Coopers, said there was no limit on detention while waiting for an asylum interview. But even after officials agreed the asylum issue had been a mistake, Mr. Salerno was not released.

“Now an innocent European, who has never broken any laws, committed any crimes, or overstayed his visa, is being held in a county jail,” Ms. Cooper wrote in an e-mail message to The New York Times last Wednesday, prompting a reporter’s inquiries.

Less than 24 hours after the New York Times started probing the case, immigration officials intervened and Mr. Salerno was released from custody and expelled from the country. Ms. Cooper was with him when he departed for Rome, and is considering moving to Italy to be with him there and spare him the possibility of such degrading and humiliating treatment at the hands of overzealous nitwits with too much power and too little accountability.

Stop Them Before They Destroy Everything

The easiest thing you can blog about is the incompetence of the Bush Administration. Here's how you do it. Read any news site. Look at the first headline where "Bush Administration" is mentioned. Blog about it. Express outrage at the incompetence.

That's all there is to it. If "blogging" were a real job, I'd be leaning on a broom most of the time, and I'd never be behind in my work. Now, when they finally do change administrations, this whole blogging thing will probably get a lot harder.

(AP) The Bush administration is likely to move its research on one of the most contagious animal diseases from an isolated island laboratory off Long Island to the U.S. mainland near herds of livestock, raising concerns about a catastrophic outbreak.

Skeptical Democrats in Congress are demanding to see internal documents they believe highlight the risks and consequences of the decision. An epidemic of the disease, foot and mouth, which only affects animals, could devastate the livestock industry.



One such government report, produced last year and already turned over to lawmakers by the Homeland Security Department, combined commercial satellite images and federal farm data to show the proximity to livestock herds of locations that have been considered for the new lab. "Would an accidental laboratory release at these locations have the potential to affect nearby livestock?" asked the nine-page document. It did not directly answer the question.

The answer to this is--yes, it does spread and yes, it very much does matter where you put these facilities. This is not a case of "not in my backyard." This is a case of "don't you dare put this in a vulnerable place where it could spread disease." Foot and Mouth Disease is a devastating disease that can affect millions of farm animals and put further strain on our weakening economy.

A simulated outbreak of the disease - part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called "Crimson Sky" - ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation's National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses. In the simulation, protests broke out in some cities amid food shortages.

"It was a mess," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who portrayed the president in the 2002 exercise. Now, like other lawmakers from the states under consideration, Roberts supports moving the government's new lab to his state. Manhattan, Kan., is one of five mainland locations under consideration. "It will mean jobs" and spur research and development, he says.

The other possible locations for the new National Bio-and Agro-Defense Facility are Athens, Ga.; Butner, N.C.; San Antonio; and Flora, Miss. The new site could be selected later this year, and the lab would open by 2014. The numbers of livestock in the counties and surrounding areas of the finalists range from 542,507 in Kansas to 132,900 in Georgia, according to the Homeland Security study.

[snip]

Leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also are worried about the lab's likely move to the mainland. The chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and the head of the investigations subcommittee, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., are threatening to subpoena records they say Homeland Security is withholding from Congress. Those records include reports about "Crimson Sky," an internal review about a publicized 1978 accidental release of foot-and-mouth disease on Plum Island and reports about any previously undisclosed virus releases on the island during the past half century.

The lawmakers set a deadline of Friday for the administration to turn over reports they requested. Otherwise, they warned in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, they will arrange a vote next week to issue a congressional subpoena.

So the people who are supposed to protect us and use common sense won't even consent to Congressional oversight? I'm sure Senator Roberts wants the Federal funds for his state--but does he care that it comes with a price? How is it that there a fight over documents and the possibility of a Congressional subpoena in this matter? It's NOT a partisan matter. This isn't about whether Karl Rove was whispering something about someone into the President's ear. This is a basic public health and public safety issue.

This is the kind of thing you don't demagogue or fight over--you comply and negotiate and get yourself right with Congress.

[photo - Plum Island]

Who Let THEM In This Country?

[the attendant in the blue jumpsuit, far right, is, allegedly, a Chinese Paramilitary policeman. Isn't it strange how he got so close to Prime Minister Gordon Brown?]

Who the hell approved this? This article, from England, details what went down with the Olympic torch relay. These clowns better not be in this country right now--if so, then what the hell is the Bush Administration doing to protect us? Besides nothing? You don't let THESE kind of people into this country, ever, under ANY circumstances unless you're going to put a battalion of troops on them night and day in a tight circle.

China’s blue-clad flame attendants, whose aggressive methods of safeguarding the Olympic torch have provoked international outcry, are paramilitary police from a force spun off from the country’s army.

The squad of 30 young men from the police academy that turns out the cream of the paramilitary security force has the job at home of ensuring riot control, domestic stability and the protection of diplomats.

Questions are now being asked as to who authorised their presence as the torch was carried through London. The Conservatives demanded clarification from the Government last night.

The guards’ task for the torch relay is to ensure the flame is never extinguished – although it was put out three times in Paris – and now increasingly to prevent protesters demonstrating against Chinese rule in Tibet from interfering with it.

But the aggression with which the guards have been pursuing their brief has provoked anger, not least in London where they were seen wrestling protesters to the ground and were described as “thugs” by Lord Coe.

The Olympic medallist and organiser of the 2012 Games was overheard saying that the officials had pushed him around as the torch made its way through the capital on Sunday. He added that other countries on the route should “get rid of those guys”.

“They tried to punch me out of the way three times. They are horrible. They did not speak English . . . I think they were thugs.”

His comments came after Konnie Huq, the former Blue Peter presenter, who was one of the torchbearers on Sunday, described how she had seen the officials in “skirmishes” with the police.

Ms Huq, who was carrying the torch when a pro-Tibet activist tried to snatch the flame, said of the guards: “They were very robotic, full-on . . . They were barking orders like ‘run’ and ‘stop’ and I was like, ‘Who are these people?’.”

First of all, hell no. I would love for all kinds of people from all over China to come here for a visit. The more the merrier. This is not xenophobia. This is common sense. I don't want Chinese paramilitary police in this country, ever.

Second of all, this country is already a haven for tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand or more people who have fled China and face arrest, imprisonment or execution from the Chinese regime. Falun Gong ring a bell, anyone?



Third--and I address this at the feckless, corrupt and so-far-out-of-favor International Olympic Committee that bowed to the Chinese pressure in the first place--what the fuck kind of fuck up are you running? How did you not see the issue of Tibet staring you in the face from day one of consideration? Do you not know who this dude called "the Dalai Lama" is? Never heard of Richard Gere? Don't know your history of Tibet?

Hey--good one. You handed the Olympics to a torturous regime that uses thugs to beat people up because they disagree with the government. You rewarded a country that militarily occupies a country that doesn't want them there because it extends their control into a faraway place where they have no business projecting their power.

What do you think this is? The United States, for crying out loud?

[/snark off]
[both photos: Reuters]

My heart is breaking

Three people died yesterday in a senseless act of violence.

Two of them were my comrades.

I didn't know them, I never met them, I never worked with them, I had never before heard of the hospital where they worked in service to their fellow man, but they made their living and died their deaths doing a thankless job that few people want and even fewer can do.

A 63-year-old man whose mother died while she was a patient in Doctors Hospital in Columbus, Georgia in 2004 armed himself with three handguns and went to the fifth floor of the hospital, the unit where his mother passed away, and started screaming "Where is he?" over and over. He wanted the floor nurse who had cared for his mother in her final days.

He found the nurse and shot him dead, after screaming at him that he was responsible for his mother's death. He then shot and mortally wounded another employee (the report linked says the other employee was an administrative assistant, but I would bet that victim was the unit clerk, because the only time you ever see AA's on the care floors, they are visiting relatives who are inpatients).

The man was able to exit the hospital and walk out the doors, where he shot another victim, a man who pulled up in a pickup truck. Thinking that the man in the pickup was trying to stop him, he shot him in the head, and he died later in surgery.

The shooter then exchanged gunfire with two different law enforcement officers; first with a deputy, then with a motorcycle officer who responded to the call for backup, but no one was hit. A detective in an unmarked car blocked his exit, and when the man shot at him, he stopped him with a shot to the right shoulder, and took him into custody.

Hospital security, apparently, never responded. He descended five flights and exited via the ER - where the security desk has been located in every freakin' hospital I have ever worked in.

Because his injury was not life threatening, he was taken to another facility for treatment and surgery.

He is now a patient, shackled to his bed, under guard and charged with three counts of murder.

I am doubly shaken up by this tragedy because I know what the two hospital employees he murdered in cold blood were feeling right before they died. Thirteen years ago, I had a gun stuck in my face before it was held to my head in an emergency room by a drug addict. (Wanna know what I was thinking? I thought "I'm glad I married a man who can finish raising our kids." Then I closed my eyes and waited, for what seemed like forever, but was really about two (of the longest) minutes (of my life.)

In my case, well-trained, professional hospital security personnel responded, and I am here to tell the tale.

What is fucked up is that my story is not that rare. We have all been attacked and threatened and a shockingly large number of those threats involve firearms.

I have seen way more gunplay in medical centers than I ever imagined I would when in training. I have been stuck at work for hours after my shift was over because the parking lot where my car was sitting was a crime scene. I have simultaneously run units from the bloodbank to the trauma bays for both the policeman with the sparkling eyes who had shamelessly flirted with all of us, who now lay dying in Bay 1; while the punk who shot him lay wounded in Bay 2. (Yes, I have first hand experience in how we are supposed to treat our enemies.)

The problem of workplace violence in hospitals became an issue about two years after I entered the workforce, in the mid-80's, and it has only gotten worse every year since. And yes, I retired last year, after 22, but that status may change again after Zoe goes to school and I get my spiffy new bionic knees. I have certainly never let my credentials lapse and I never will. Sixty-five is almost two decades down the road, after all.

The issue of hospital violence is severe enough that the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health issued a report in 2002 on strategies to train hospital personnel to recognize the signs of impending violence and how to defuse potentially violent situations.

And it's all well and good, so far as it goes. But it isn't going to do a damned thing about a person who is bent on murder most foul, on exacting that pound of flesh they are convinced that they are due.

That man was not going to be defused by any HR directors happy-talk.

It is high time we secure hospitals. Start by installing metal detectors and x-ray belts, and putting armed guards on every public entrance. We do it at courthouses and city halls and federal buildings throughout the land, so do it for hospitals, too. We already pretty much successfully lock 'em down after hours anyway. And it isn't like we don't know how to secure a unit. The Labor & Delivery floor is frequently about three levels more secure than Fort fucking Knox - especially in the suburbs.

There are things in hospitals worth protecting. Starting with the personnel - you are as likely to pull a registered nurse off the street as you are to find a bird Colonel walking into a recruiting station, you know. And I haven't even addressed the chemicals, radioactive isotopes and pharmaceuticals that are pretty damned lightly protected - as in a couple of skater punks with mace could knock over some suburban hospitals that don't want to offend their patients with too strenuous a security presence...except in labor and delivery.

Frankly, that hospitals haven't been secured - and that so few of us got proper training for biohazard response, but I digress - tells me all I need to know about how seriously these idiots don't take homeland security.

Before You Make That Trip Across the Border...

We heard from a friend of ours, trex, and he had this to say in the wake of The Department of Homeland Security's decision to postpone the requirement for people to have a passport when returning from Canada:

I just read the news roundup piece on DHS pushing back the deadline for needing passports to travel between North American countries and found it amusing and ironic. As far back as a year ago we've had American border guards yell at us (yes, yell) and antagonize us for not having passports when returning from Canada. Apparently showing our birth certificates, MI drivers licenses, vehicle registration cards and voter registration cards are insufficient to distinguish us from terrorists.

Not to mention the fact that passports are not yet required for land border crossings.

Michigan has four Canadian border crossings: The Ambassador Bridge (busiest in the U.S.), the Detroit tunnel, the Blue Water bridge in Port Huron and the International Bridge in the UP. I've used three of the four at least once in the past year and a half and found the experiences to range from disquieting to hellish - hellish being stopped in the middle of the International Bridge for 45 minutes during high winds with logging trucks rumbling across because Customs is physically searching every single vehicle entering the U.S.

And the nasty guard didn't help either.

A trip across the border typically starts with a pleasant exchange with a Canadian Customs agent smiling and asking your citizenship, few questions, then bidding you a good day. There is usually a none to ten minute wait outside of rush hours. A typical return trip means at least twenty minutes and often forty waiting on a bridge, only to encounter a stony faced agent who questions you repeatedly and brusquely, may ask for a passport that's not yet required, may search your vehicle, and acts exasperated at finally having to let you through.

And that's if you're a U.S. citizen! And in this case I was clearly a resident of the state I was entering.

If you live in the Detroit area you know of stories where U.S. Customs has really messed with people, keeping them for hours and grilling them, ransacking their vehicle. I know of someone who had all the seats unbolted and removed from their car so it could be searched. When they were done Customs told them it was their responsibility to re-install them.

As a kid going to Canada and back was fun. The guards were pleasant and there was a feeling of reaffirming the special nature of America by leaving it and coming back. Now there is a sense of dread when returning, a feeling of being guilty until proven innocent where one wrong look will land you in trouble. Just one more good thing about being American the Bush administration has fucked up.

Homeland Security Fails To Protect America Again

Watching the Bush Administration fail at protecting America is a full time job for tens of thousands of Americans. I do this for about an hour a day, tops. I can't keep up, and it's hard to be outraged 24x7. One thing I do know is that someone should be watching the cargo that is being brought into this country. It's kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

So here we go again:

Department of Homeland Security tests of new radiation detection machines last year did not show whether the costly devices performed well enough to be used as planned at ports and borders to protect the country against nuclear attacks or dirty bombs, according to a new report about the process.

The performance tests were organized by the department's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which has been trying to deploy the machines along the borders and at ports in a $1.2 billion project, despite allegations from government auditors that the office misled Congress about their effectiveness and later conducted flawed tests to show they worked well.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had said the development and purchase of the machines was a "vital priority" for the department. Officials from the nuclear detection office had asserted the tests -- mandated by Congress before the project was allowed to move forward -- showed they worked well.

In the new report, the review team concluded that the testing last year was not able to show whether the machines, known as advanced spectroscopic portal radiation monitors, or ASPs, could "detect and identify actual objects that might be smuggled" into the country, according to portions of the report released by Congress.

"Even after collecting all available test results, it was difficult to form conclusions about operational effectiveness," the report said.

[snip]

"We should not spend a single penny to install these machines at our ports and borders until valid testing is done to demonstrate that these costly new machines work significantly better than the existing radiation detectors," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the committee chairman.

The project to buy as many as 1,400 ASPs, which cost about $377,000 each, was announced in July 2006. A month later, Government Accountability Office auditors said the nuclear detection office greatly exaggerated the machine's capabilities in a report that spurred congressional approval of the project.

In response to those allegations, Congress mandated that Chertoff take the unusual step of personally certifying that the detectors represent a significant advance over existing detection equipment.

With that certification in mind, the nuclear detection office conducted tests in Nevada early last year. Those tests were called into question when GAO auditors found that department officials had allowed contractors to conduct "dress rehearsals" and calibrate their machines in anticipation of the tests.

Here's what we call "calibrate their machines in anticipation of the tests" in the real world--hardcoding. When you hardcode something so that it can pass a specific type of test, you haven't tested it. Calibrating the machines to detect a certain type of radiation simply means you're not adequately testing something that's supposed to pick up "everything" and all you're doing is fixing the results. All you're doing is putting your finger on the scale so everything weighs the same. Independent testing with the right methods is just plain old basic scientific method 101, and since our government hates science, they just fix the results and roll the dice and we're screwed, so no surprise there.

And, you'll be shocked and outraged to find out that none of this is news. From Sharon Weinberger at Wired.com, an excellent article dated July, 2007:

...As one source warned me: "Some of the technology being proposed can't tell the difference between bananas and dirty bombs." Whether or not that's the case, it's clear the Department of Homeland Security is having problems with the detectors, the Washington Post reports.

Auditors from the Government Accountability Office later found that the detection rates of machines tested by the department were as low as 17 percent and no higher than about 50 percent. The auditors said the department's optimistic report to Congress on the cost and benefits of the machines was based on assumptions instead of facts -- a finding that prompted lawmakers to put the project on hold last year.

The $1.2 billion program was one of the key post-9/11 measures meant to beef up security, but the procurement process has run into a number of problems:

Homeland Security officials tested monitors made by 10 companies. But before the results of those tests were made available to Congress, auditors from the GAO, in March 2006, raised questions about the procurement process.

The auditors predicted cost overruns of as much as $596 million and said the "prototypes of this equipment have not yet been shown to be more effective than the portal monitors now in use." The auditors concluded that it "is not clear that the dramatically higher cost of this equipment would be worth the investment.

It doesn't sound like they've gotten their act together, nor will they, until we dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (another brilliant idea from Joe Lieberman) and put some government-loving competent adults in charge who are empowered to get rid of the dead wood and make things work.

So Much For Goodwill Towards All...

The Story of Erla Ósk Arnardóttir Lilliendahl, an Icelandic Woman who figured she could come to this country for a visit during the holiday season and enjoy the best of what America has to offer:

* * *

During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.

Last Sunday I and a few other girls began our trip to New York. We were going to shop and enjoy the Christmas spirit. We made ourselves comfortable on first class, drank white wine and looked forward to go shopping, eat good food and enjoy life. When we landed at JFK airport the traditional clearance process began.

We were screened and went on to passport control. As I waited for them to finish examining my passport I heard an official say that there was something which needed to be looked at more closely and I was directed to the work station of Homeland Security. There I was told that according to their records I had overstayed my visa by 3 weeks in 1995. For this reason I would not be admitted to the country and would be sent home on the next flight. I looked at the official in disbelief and told him that I had in fact visited New York after the trip in 1995 without encountering any difficulties. A detailed interrogation session ensued.

[...]

I was exhausted, tired and hungry. I didn't understand the officials' conduct, for they were treating me like a very dangerous criminal. Soon thereafter I was removed from the cubicle and two armed guards placed me up against a wall. A chain was fastened around my waist and I was handcuffed to the chain. Then my legs were placed in chains. I asked for permission to make a telephone call but they refused. So secured, I was taken from the airport terminal in full sight of everybody. I have seldom felt so bad, so humiliated and all because I had taken a longer vacation than allowed under the law.

They would not tell me where they were taking me. The trip took close to one hour and although I couldn't see clearly outside the vehicle I knew that we had crossed over into New Jersey. We ended up in front of a jail. I could hardly believe that this was happening. Was I really about to be jailed? I was led inside in the chains and there yet another interrogation session ensued. I was fingerprinted once again and photographed. I was made to undergo a medical examination, I was searched and then I was placed in a jail cell. I was asked absurd questions such as: When did you have your last period? What do you believe in? Have you ever tried to commit suicide?

I was completely exhausted, tired and cold. Fourteen hours after I had landed I had something to eat and drink for the first time. I was given porridge and bread. But it did not help much. I was afraid and the attitude of all who handled me was abysmal to say the least. They did not speak to me as much as snap at me. Once again I asked to make a telephone call and this time the answer was positive. I was relieved but the relief was short-lived. For the telephone was setup for collect calls only and it was not possible to make overseas calls. The jailguard held my cell phone in his hand. I explained to him that I could not make a call from the jail telephone and asked to be allowed to make one call from my own phone. That was out of the question. I spent the next 9 hours in a small, dirty cell. The only thing in there was a narrow steel board which extended out from the wall, a sink and toilet. I wish I never experience again in my life the feeling of confinement and helplessness which I experienced there.

I was hugely relieved when, at last, I was told that I was to be taken to the airport, that is to say until I was again handcuffed and chained.Then I could take no more and broke down and cried. I begged them at least to leave out the leg chains but my request was ignored. When we arrived at the airport, another jail guard took pity on me and removed the leg chains. Even so I was led through a full airport terminal handcuffed and escorted by armed men. I felt terrible. On seeing this, people must think that there goes a very dangerous criminal...

* * *

This is a person--and no, it doesn't matter what color she is or how much she weighs or whether she's young or old--who came to this country, presented their passport at the airport, and was caught in the so-called "Homeland Security" dragnet that is supposed to stop people from coming to this country who should not be coming to this country. Her crime was that she committed a minor offense twelve years ago that amounted to what, exactly? She overstayed her visa, but left the country. Did she commit any felonies here? More importantly, did she shoot and kill anyone with a firearm? Use explosives? Take partial flight lessons? Try to attend a Republican political rally wearing an Obama t-shirt?

It doesn't matter what she looks like--and I post her picture here for a reason. If YOU don't look as good as she does, just wait til you see what they do to you when they think YOU'RE a threat. And that's what is so startling about putting a face with the crime. If you hear that some Eurotrash was accosted at the airport and chucked out of the country, you can tut-tut and go about your business. But when you see what that person looks like and read what was done to them, it's a whole different ball of wax. And nothing strikes me as sensationalized about this, which is why I tend to buy what she is saying. Nothing about it strikes me as being out of line for spending time in a big city lockup or jail, does it?

Anyway, I think the American people need to read about this type of story this Christmas. YOUR government is waging an all out battle of ridiculous proportions with tens of thousands of incompetent, misguided bureaucrats to keep people with Irish surnames from getting through airports, making sure no one takes the wrong kind of fluid on a plane, and jailing people for nothing.

There is, and there was in this case, NOTHING that would have prevented this government from seizing that person and putting that person in Guantanamo. Nothing. No Habeus Corpus, no right to a lawyer, nothing in the way of accountability. They could have rammed things into this person and taken lurid videos of it and no one would have ever found out about it.

As the political season ramps up, I try to be optimistic. Then I read stories like this and all I'm trying to do now is check my E-mail once in a while and just avoid the news. I mean, what the fuck?

What the fuck is this country coming to?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"

Seriously, it is hard to shock me these days. Every day brings a new outrage. It has gotten to the point that I have been catching myself thinking like a conspiracy theorist, and I do not like that feeling. And I really hate that I might be right to be paranoid.

I happen to believe that government can benefit the citizens and that free people tend toward responsible governance. No “Invisible Hand” necessary, liberal applications of common sense and the rule of law served us quite well for over two centuries.

Then along came George.

A year ago, the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 was tweaked, and language was inserted into the bill that effectively suspended the Insurrection Acts of 1807 and Posse Comitatus. It went relatively unnoticed, with the exception of a few bloggers, but the day that bill was signed into law, the relationship ordinary citizens have with our government and our military changed fundamentally.

The Insurrection Acts of 1807 limited the power of the president to deploy the armed forces within the United States to act in a law enforcement capacity, and Posse Comitatus further refined and quantified the use of the military in the United States to enforce the law.

This bit of Federal Law is was the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the guise of law enforcement.

Posse Comitatus reads as follows:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

With a stroke of a pen on 16 October 2006, those two pillars of our republic were negated, and the ability of the president to declare martial law went from unthinkable to a horrifying possibility, while simultaneously the governors, all 50 of whom objected, lost command of their National Guard contingents when the act federalized the Guard.

The following text is from page 19 of the Defense Authorization act of 2007. (Emphasis is mine.)

Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. Section 1042 would amend the Insurrection Act to make explicit the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces, including the National Guard, within the United States to restore order or enforce federal law after a major public emergency, such as a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack. Current practice, in a major public emergency, is for the governor or legislature of a state to request assistance from the federal government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency then organizes the federal government’s response to that request.

This provision would clarify the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces in response to public emergencies without first receiving a request from state authorities in cases where the President determines such action is necessary to restore public order or enforce federal law. This section also would authorize the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by such an emergency. If this clarification would encourage the President to use the armed forces more frequently or more intensively than is the current practice, the potential cost could be significant. However, because CBO does not have a basis for determining the frequency of such emergencies or the magnitude of the potential involvement of the armed forces, CBO has no basis for predicting the potential cost of this section.

When the bill was being deliberated, exactly one Senator raised a note of protest over this egregious power grab. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was the lone voice of dissent. On 29 September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." Leahy claimed that this provision had been "slipped in,as a rider with little study while other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." Leahy went on "The implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous. There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty." (emphasis mine) Leahy finished his comments by wondering aloud how we got to this point. "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

***************

Now, almost a year later, folks seem to be noticing. It might have had something to do with Michael Chertoff's stomach trouble. What ever it was that set the alarm bells ringing, it got the attention of the electorate in the Oregon-04, and they started calling their congressman, Peter Defazio, who holds a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Representative DeFazio, a populist Democrat, requested access to the secure "bubbleroom" in the capitol to review the contingency plans that the federal government has should a "public emergency" arise. initially, his request was approved, then inexplicably, DENIED.

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: "We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive."

This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio said.

Norman Ornstein sees it the same way Representative DeFazio and the voters of the Oregon-04 see it. Ornstein, said he "cannot think of one good reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee. "I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House."

I have never been one for conspiracy theories. Trying to get enough people on the same page and sharing the same commitment to guarding/pushing the same agenda to pull off a worthy conspiracy borders on the impossible. But the obsessive/compulsive secrecy of this administration is enough to make even the most cynical among us think that there is malevolence most foul lurking just below the surface, just waiting for the opportunity to strike, and as bad as it pains me to say it, I would not put this particular crew of miscreants above making something happen if the prophetic gut is wrong. I absolutely hate saying this, but if an attack happened tomorrow, my first thought would be "false flag operation" and it would likely take a lot more than standard evidence to make me believe otherwise. And you have no idea how fiercely I resent even having thoughts like that.