Obama doesn't actually like Miranda rights

Following the failed Times Square Bombing, Obama's administration didn't delay in considering to withdraw yet another civil liberty protection: Miranda rights.

New York Times Magazine terrorist fearmongering

Here is the cover of the 1/31/2010 issue of the New York Times Magazine... I don't think any comment is required.

Obama administration claims right to kill Americans suspected of terrorism

Due process? What's that? Read the post of the same title by Jonathan Turley here. What is surprising is how little controversy this is generating.

Tom Ridge raised terror level for political purposes

Here's a shocker. Former Homeland Security Head Tom Ridge has said he was pressured to raise the terror alert during certain times when unfavorable news was coming out about the Bush administration. Olbermann has a good video correlating the bad news for Bush and the terror alert notices.

Two questions: 1) why is it that this kind of news often comes out when the leaker has a book to sell? 2) why is it that the terror level lowering never makes the news?

UK children taught to spot terrorists

"If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn't be surprised when you get amateur security." via Schneier

US Flight Policies Make No Sense

In an effort to seemingly terrorize the populace by evoking memories of 9/11 (that have been kept so persistently in the forefront of our collective consciousness by those in power) the White House approved a low flyover of a 747 over Manhattan. The official explanation is that it was a 'photo-op.'

In other flight-related news, a flight to the US was diverted because it contained someone on the no-fly list, an author that had been critical of US foreign policy in Latin America. Way to treat guests nicely.

UK has list of potential terrorist schoolchildren, as reported by teachers

The first commenter on this article on boingboing says it best: WTF?

Obama administration doesn't actually believe infinite detention of enemy combatants is a bad idea

In a great post with a great title, Change = Same, Darren Lenard Hutchinson expertly shows that the change in detention policies viz. terrorism between the Bush and Obama administrations is a distinction without a difference. Sad, really, to see that a president that positioned himself as the anti-Bush to reveal himself as the second coming of Bush.

Obama administration doesn't actually think the omnipresent, everlasting war on terror is a bad idea

In fact, they quite support it. For the sad truth, one only needs to read Turley's post Top Obama Aides Embrace Bush's War on Terror Rhetoric and Enemy Combatant Policy. Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Obama’s Solicitor General nominee, believes that we are both 1) at war and 2) the whole world is part of our 'battlefield.' Disgusting (and, as we might note, quite antithetical to any kind of 'change').

Any and All Disruptive In-Flight Behavior Now "Terrorism"

America is now reaping what the Patriot Act hath sown: much behavior that flight attendants consider disruptive, whether it be a loud argument, throwing food, or spanking a child, is now considered 'terrorism' under the law. This is what happens when you let power-hungry neocons paint the law with overly broad strokes: some guy gets thrown in with all the other Al-Qaeda suspects because he had one too many martinis on a plane.

LA Times
Bruce Schneier

FBI Looking for Terrorists contributes to pervasive Financial Fraud

Turns out that all of these Ponzi schemes and otherwise financial fraud might not be as prevalent if the FBI allocated as many resources as in the past to stopping these crimes. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's emphasis on terrorism put more FBI officers chasing bad guys that may or may not exist and less on things that are now putting people on the streets. Another endearing chapter in the Bush administration legacy.

Man Foils DHS Dragnet via Name Change

A Canadian recently circumvented the crack teams at DHS by changing his name to avoid being flagged at airports because his name was (previously) on the no-fly list. It's a good thing that the barrier to not being flagged as a terrorist is so high... no terrorist would ever have the resources to change their name. As we've seen in the past, this kind of incompetence at DHS only prevents stupid terrorists from flying, and if these terrorists are so dumb, what's the worry?

What is the real reason lists like these exist?

No such thing as 'Typical Terrorist'

Bruce Schneier says that the Guardian says:

MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain, according to a classified internal research document on radicalisation seen by the Guardian.

Don't inform your local Republican... you might cause him significant embarrassment. As if we needed any more proof that profiling/data mining/whatever techniques would never yield any promising results. Turns out profiling is just another excuse to invade your privacy and infringe on your civil liberties... as if the 'war on terror' were anything else.

Update: The NRC says the same thing.

More airport madness

It appears now that you can be prevented from boarding an aircraft simply for wearing a designer T-Shirt -- this shirt (hilarious comments in the Boing Boing thread, btw) got someone banned from a flight because it depicts a transformer brandishing what looks like a cartoonish gun.

In other news, the EU is testing a flight system installed in every passenger seat that monitors your facial expressions for hints of terrorist inclinations. False positives, anyone?

Crossing the border? You're a terrorist!

From the Washington Post via Slashdot: It seems as though the federal government has hatched yet another brilliant idea with which to invade Americans' privacy. The culprit is another data-mining and analysis mega-project aimed to screen everyone who enters and leaves the country for a potential terrorist threat.

In a round-the-clock operation, targeters match names against terrorist watch lists and a host of other data to determine whether a person's background or behavior indicates a terrorist threat, a risk to border security or the potential for illegal activity. They also assess cargo.

Each traveler assessed by the center is assigned a numeric score: The higher the score, the higher the risk. A certain number of points send the traveler back for a full interview.

Yet another opportunity for bigoted assumptions about the nature of terrorists and bad data to act as an excuse for the government to expand its power. A little imagination reveals what the scoring system might look like:
+5 points if an Arab
+5 points if you are under 30
+5 points if you are dark-skinned
+5 points if you are wearing a turban
+5 points if you have no intention of returning to your home country
... and so on ...
+5 points if you look at the border officer the wrong way
+5 points if you assert your rights as a U.S. citizen
+5 points if you have recently attended a peace rally
+5 points if you have ever spoken against any policy of the political party in power

But, of course, DHS et al feel no accountability to any individual citizen, just like their no-fly (and other) lists. Once you've been marked as a terrorist (however apocryphal that label might be), just try getting off of it:

According to yesterday's notice, the program is exempt from certain requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 that allow, for instance, people to access records to determine "if the system contains a record pertaining to a particular individual" and "for the purpose of contesting the content of the record."

Scary.

Taking pictures from a train? You're a terrorist!

A Japanese tourist was told to stop taking pictures on a train near New Haven, CT in the interest of "national security." He didn't understand the conductor's English, and was summarily apprehended and interrogated by local police. Nice. (Link)

Eating falafel? You're a terrorist!

Apparently the FBI thought that it could track down terrorists by watching falafel sales (collected from grocer data) in the Bay Area. If you ate too many, you would be put on a terrorist watch list.

Our tax dollars are going to _this_? Check out the Boing Boing comments for some well-deserved ridicule.

Malaysia: hopefully not the future U.S.A.

Malaysia will potentially use anti-terror laws to crack down on free speech, specifically that which insults those in power or the predominant religion of the country. Insults to those in power or the perceived national heritage have been used in other countries as well, such as Turkey, to stifle critics of the powers that be.

Unfortunately, the United States seems to be creeping towards this state of affairs itself. The president already gave himself dictatorial powers, we're detaining people indefinitely that are suspected "terrorists" and respected politicians have already claimed that we should re-examine our free speech beliefs to stay ahead of terror.

What's the next logical step? Something like what Malaysia is doing now?

Not really terrorists, but not really citizens, either.

Are you a "specially designated national?" That's doublespeak for "kinda a terrorist." If you are, you've been placed on a government watchlist. This list is doubly asinine because business owners have access to it and are required by law to not do any business with anyone on it.

Three comments about this ridiculous, freedom-compromising list:

• Now we can all strike back against terrorists by making sure they don't purchase that washing machine and toaster at Costco!
  
• Of course, no innocents would be on this list and be getting confused with the bad guys... would they?
• Kind of creates an odd situation between owner and customer, doesn't it: "Sir, I can't sell this to you because your name is similar to a terrorist in Iran's. Sorry about that unfortunate coincidence. If it's any help, the police will be here shortly to interrogate you."
  

Hey, terrorists, want bomb designs? Look no further than the Republican Leadership!

This happened a few months ago, but is so shocking that I can't help but post it... in a confused effort to promote how good they were on national security, the Republican Leadership ignored the advice of every competent security advisor (including America's "security czar") and put documents detailing nuclear bomb designs on the Internet. The documents were only taken down after the New York Times exposed the incompetence of the act. This led, of course, to politicians trying to cover their ass by blaming the NYT for pointing terrorists to the document. Here's a good interview with a non-proliferation expert talking about the subject on Kieth Olbermann.