Big brother

[GomJabbar]

Colleges Protest Call to Upgrade Online Systems From the New York Times. Published: October 23, 2005. Subscription required (free).

From above article:

The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications.
............
The order, issued by the Federal Communications Commission in August and first published in the Federal Register last week, extends the provisions of a 1994 wiretap law not only to universities, but also to libraries, airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet access providers.

It also applies to municipalities that provide Internet access to residents, be they rural towns or cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco, which have plans to build their own Net access networks.

[DIGITALgimpus]

Sadly those lawsuits are in vein.

It's extremely unlikely [read: 0% chance] a court will even hear those cases. This is rather established law since Sept 11 2001. Nothing left to debate.

Lawyers rejoice... more work.

[egibbs]

Fortunately, under our system there are strict safeguards in place to prevent misuse of the ability to monitor citizens's private communications.

FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01352.html

Oh - wait. Never mind.

Ed Gibbs

[dsvochak]

A quote from the FCC Final Rule:

"SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts a rule establishing that providers of facilities-based broadband Internet access services and providers of interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services--meaning VoIP service that allows a user generally to receive calls originating from and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) --must comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) . This new rule will enhance public safety and ensure that the surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies continue to be met as Internet-based communications technologies proliferate.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 14, 2005.

Compliance Date: Newly covered entities and providers of newly covered services must comply with CALEA within 18 months of November 14, 2005." [Source Federal Register 10/13/05]

A quote from the New York Times article:

'The 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, requires telephone carriers to engineer their switching systems at their own cost so that federal agents can obtain easy surveillance access."

And another:

"If law enforcement officials obtain a court order to monitor the Internet communications of someone at a university, the current approach is to work quietly with campus officials to single out specific sites and install the equipment needed to carry out the surveillance. This low-tech approach has worked well in the past, officials at several campuses said.

But the federal law would apply a high-tech approach, enabling law enforcement to monitor communications at campuses from remote locations at the turn of a switch.
----
"This is a fight over whether a Buick is good enough, or do you need a Lexus?" Mr. Gidari said. "The F.B.I. is the lead agency, and they are insisting on the Lexus.""

Same argument, different thread. [see "Evolution" in this forum].

As technology advances, how do you apply the principles of the constitution to to such advances?

There may be an upside. If the feds get to monitor all VoIP and e-mails, someone will write a program to filter all the spam, and Microsoft, being MS, will include it in future versions of OE. Either that, or unemployment is over because they're going to need a whole lot of people to read e-mails with the subject lines: "Sex+$ualie Xplicet" and "Blond Jokes for you" and the like.

(Unless of course, the monitoring gets out-sourced)

[GomJabbar]

So what do you think about this Op-Ed piece by Thomas L. Friedman, Published: October 19, 2005 in The New York Times (subscription required - xxxx enrollment)?

Leading by (Bad) Example

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot that editorial content from their columnists is no longer free. This is a recent change in their policy. I enjoyed reading the Op-Ed page here so much that I decided to pay for a year of access. As a bonus, I can now view achived articles that I would of had to pay for in the past to access.

[doppelfish]

... to monitor e-mail and other online communications.

There's always GPG and OpenSSH. The Crouds seems to have gone 404, it seems (start your conspiracy theories).

Of course, that would be the end of semi-formal forums such as ... well ... this very one.

anonymously yours,
-- fish

[doppelfish]

There may be an upside. If the feds get to monitor all VoIP and e-mails, someone will write a program to filter all the spam, and Microsoft, being MS, will include it in future versions of OE.

You mean, after authorities have carefully monitored all the spam heading your way, you're just gonna delete it? Show some respect to the 'feds here!

No really, that's a technological problem. We can't really control what goes into mail servers, so we have to keep an eye of what comes out of them. My email client does a wonderful job at keeping spam out, and Spamassassin helps the spam-filter-less OE users.

Re In-and-out: I can vividly remember the days when BSE swept over (parts of) europe, when the secretary of agriculture was heard saying, "I can't station a police officer next to each and every cow's [censored]". Surely a choice of words not unconditionally suited for consumption by minors, and that secretary is not my political role model for sure; but what he said that time is true none the less.

cheers,
-- fish

[dsvochak]

I've been waiting for updated news about this issue which hasn't happened. So here goes. From the New York Times. Published: October 23, 2005:

"The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications."

It's interesting how, 11 years ago when the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was passed none of the groups upset now had much to say. A story about this issue appeared in "The State News"s (the Michigan State University newspaper) and the reaction has generally been indifference:

"I, for one, can allow small amounts of my privacy to be compromised if it means strengthening the federal government's ability to catch a "bad guy." If anyone feels that they've been a victim of this policy, I'm sure the good old American Civil Liberties Union would be more than happy to blow this out of proportion." was partially what a recent MSU graduate had to say in a letter to the editor.

I have a feeling that, like most issues or most people, this is a NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard"--a shorthand coined by real estate developers and their attorneys to describe the standard community reaction to any proposed development). As long as it's NIMBY, I don't care. When it impacts you, the reaction changes.

"So what do you think about this Op-Ed piece by Thomas L. Friedman, Published: October 19, 2005 in The New York Times?"

It's a lot like the text of yesterday's "Rhymes With Orange" cartoon is "No Holiday says more about America than Halloween. Three hundred sixty-four days we tell our kids 'Don't take candy from strangers'. Then we give them one night to make up for lost time."

I grew up in Detroit, one of the few if not the only place in the U.S. you go south to get to Canada. By virtue of proximity, people in Windsor, Ontario pay close attention to what goes on in the U.S. If you can get one to admit it, they will likely say that while they know what happens in the U.S. they have no idea why it happens.

The dichotomy between what we, as americans, say and what we do must be completely baffling to someone from another country/culture. In the Nixon era, John Mitchell said (in an entirely different context) "Watch what we do, not what we say". It's probably still good advice in that it's a better predictor of what one may do in the future.

As far as the original news report, it's probably reasonable that CALEA should apply to new technologies. As far as allowing "... small amounts of my privacy to be compromised if it means strengthening the federal government's ability to catch a 'bad guy.'", not in my back yard, your back yard or anyone's back yard.

[BillMorrow]

remember the saying, and a paraphrase:

"first they came for the criminals, and i thought 'good'..
then they came for the homosexuals, and i thought 'good'..
then they came for the jews, and i thought 'good'..
now they are here for me, this is not so good.."

the point is one does not notice growing old since the process is so gradual but then suddenly you realize it happened..
likewise the loss of any freedom, however small, portends the loss of all freedoms, sooner rather than later..

hmm, i think i will go to a gun show and buy an unregistered gun..
just to be safe from "them"..

[dsvochak]

Bill Morrow wrote:

the point is one does not notice growing old since the process is so gradual but then suddenly you realize it happened..
likewise the loss of any freedom, however small, portends the loss of all freedoms, sooner rather than later..

hmm, i think i will go to a gun show and buy an unregistered gun..
just to be safe from "them"..

I often wonder whether the Unibomber's cabin is available.

[GomJabbar]

From The New York Times: The House's Abuse of Patriotism, Published: October 31, 2005.

Now, with some of the act's most sweeping powers set to expire at the end of the year, the two houses of Congress face crucial negotiations, which will also take place out of public view, on their differences over how to extend and amend the law.

From The New York Times: War Powers in the Age of Terror, Published: October 31, 2005.

In a post-9/11 world, what limits - if any - exist on the president's authority to use force?

Above are a couple of articles that I believe touch on the subject of Big Brother.

[dsvochak]

GomJabbar wrote:

"Above are a couple of articles that I believe touch on the subject of Big Brother."

Response to come. Spent too much time responding to "Evolution". Have to go do real work now.

[Temetka]

remember the saying, and a paraphrase:

"first they came for the criminals, and i thought 'good'..
then they came for the homosexuals, and i thought 'good'..
then they came for the jews, and i thought 'good'..
now they are here for me, this is not so good.."

the point is one does not notice growing old since the process is so gradual but then suddenly you realize it happened..
likewise the loss of any freedom, however small, portends the loss of all freedoms, sooner rather than later..

hmm, i think i will go to a gun show and buy an unregistered gun..
just to be safe from "them"..

That's excellent! I added it to a quotes file I have been working on for the last few years.

Big Brother is a subkect I hardly ever discuss because if I get started on it, it's really hard for me to stop. Let's just say that I have a slight problem with our Big Brother and leave it at that.

[BillMorrow]

remember the saying, and a paraphrase:

"first they came for the criminals, and i thought 'good'..
then they came for the homosexuals, and i thought 'good'..
then they came for the jews, and i thought 'good'..
now they are here for me, this is not so good.."

the point is one does not notice growing old since the process is so gradual but then suddenly you realize it happened..
likewise the loss of any freedom, however small, portends the loss of all freedoms, sooner rather than later..

hmm, i think i will go to a gun show and buy an unregistered gun..
just to be safe from "them"..

That's excellent! I added it to a quotes file I have been working on for the last few years.

Big Brother is a subject I hardly ever discuss because if I get started on it, it's really hard for me to stop. Let's just say that I have a slight problem with our Big Brother and leave it at that.

as for the quote, it is not mine, only paraphrased from someone with MUCH more wit than i..
and here it is and a link to the wikipedia page..
where you can read it in the original german:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

***
First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;

And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
***


but it is to the point in discussions like this..

i could rant on but suffice to say that if you allow one assualt upon your personal freedom you can kiss your [censored] goodbye because it is a steep slippery slope that is not often reversable..

[BillMorrow]

I used to be an anarchist but I quit because there were too many rules

dsvochak, you get a full 10 points for this quote..

[GomJabbar]

Here is an article I read today that applies to Bill's quote I believe.

The Washington Post, Published Wednesday, November 2, 2005
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons

[dsvochak]

Is Tom Clancy at risk of prosecution under the Patriot Act?

In 1994, "Debt of Honor" was published. For those of you not familiar with the novel, it's a Jack Ryan story involving a war between Japan and the U.S. Jack Ryan, being Clancy's Superman, figures out a way to win the war in order to maintain truth, justice and the american way. The disconcerts a JAL pilot who flies a 747 into the Capitol Building during a joint session of congress with an address by the president. The ending is a cliff-hanger that sets up the next novel in the Jack Ryan series.

Suppose it turns out that bin Laden got the idea for 9/11 from the novel. Or suppose he didn't. I'm not sure it matters. If the house measure outlined in the "The House's Abuse of Patriotism" article becomes law and one could be facing the death penalty "...if a defendant gave financial support to an umbrella organization without realizing that some of its adherents might eventually commit violence.", maybe it wouldn't matter whether bin Laden got the idea from Clancy or not.

Did Clancy provide "material support" to terrorists? How about providing "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists?.

What the heck is "domestic terrorism."? 18 U.S.C. sec. 2331 says, domestic terrorism means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

There was a discussion of the meaning of "coercion" in the Evolution thread. GomJabbar's interpretation is looser than mine. What does it mean in the context of 18 U.S.C., sec 2331? And even worse, what does "(B) appear to be intended" mean?

Where I live, the local government has a tendency to react to a situation or event by passing a law. Often, it prohibits something that's already unlawful. If asked, the explanation is usually something like "Nuisance is hard to prove. This is easier."

I'm pretty sure that things like "mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping" were against the law before the patriot act. [Which certainly is a Big Brother-ish name if ever there was one]. Am I any safer than I was before the patriot act was passed (or before 9/11)? Tough to know.

Right after the New York City subway scare, Keith Olbermann did an Editorial on Countdown. The President had said that the US had foiled 10 (or 12, or some number) of terrorist plots against the US. Olbermann noted that the announcements of the government having "foiled a plot" tend to come in close time proximity to bad publicity for the government. He didn't say (and neither am I) that the time proximity was more than coincidence. I will say, as GomJabbar said in another context "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a ______ (fill in the blank)."

Is Tom Clancy at risk of prosecution under the Patriot Act? I suppose it comes down to who's driving the bus. Here's the best argument I've heard to convince Republicans that, beyond no renewing the sunsetting provisions of the patriot act, it should be repealed: Imagine what might happen if Hillary Clinton gets elected president, and the democrats take control of congress.

Now that I've put this in writing I guess it might be prudent to figure out whether I'm at risk of prosecution under the Patriot Act?

[GomJabbar]

Another Tom Clancy fan.

Now that I've put this in writing I guess it might be prudent to figure out whether I'm at risk of prosecution under the Patriot Act?

If I stop seeing your posts after a while, I might assume you've been 'Disappeared'.
So keep posting.

While I was Googling to verify the correct term to use above, I ran across the following article from Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/us1004/1.htm

Some quotes from the above article.

“Disappearances” were a trademark abuse of Latin American military dictatorships in their “dirty war” on alleged subversion. Now they have become a United States tactic in its conflict with al-Qaeda.

The one thing all the detainees have in common is that the United States has refused to disclose their whereabouts and has refused to allow them access to their families, lawyers or the International Committee of the Red Cross.

These are not nice men, to say the least. They are alleged to have committed the most diabolical criminal acts. Why, some have argued, should we care about what happens to them? First, because despite the life-saving information apparently gleaned from some of these suspects, overall the U.S. treatment of its prisoners has been a boon rather than a setback for al-Qaeda and has thereby made the world less safe from terror. As the 9/11 Commission recognized, “Allegations that the United States abused prisoners in its custody make it harder to build the diplomatic, political, and military alliances the government will need.”1 Second, because the U.S.’s torture and “disappearance” of its adversaries invites all the unsavory governments in the world to do the same – indeed countries from Sudan to Zimbabwe have already cited Abu Ghraib and other U.S. actions to justify their own practices or to blunt criticism.

But the primary concern must stem, first and foremost, from the acceptance of methods which are antithetical to a democracy and which betray the U.S.’s identity as a nation of law. For al-Qaeda, the ends apparently justify the means, means which have included smashing hijacked planes into buildings and bombing train stations and places of worship. The United States should not endorse that logic.

[dsvochak]

This just keeps getting better and better. I suppose, if you can write things like that article and not "disappear" the danger may not be "immediate"

On the other hand, if I had to pick the one scariest thing that's changed about the United States in my lifetime it would be the shift from "...defending itself and its people against attacks" (e.g. Pearl Harbor & WW II) to what appears to be acquiesence in "We are committed to defending the nation. Yet wars are not won on the defensive. The best way to keep America safe from terrorism is to go after terrorists where they plan and hide" [editorial comment "even before they've actually done anything we need to defend against"]

It's a good thing this reasoning didn't prevail during the cold war or "Dr. Strangelove" might have been a historical account instead of fiction.

[GomJabbar]

Below are a couple of more articles regarding "Human Rights".

The New York Times Editorial, Published: November 3, 2005 The Prison Puzzle

Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation's uniform - policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?

Check out the pun in the last sentence (at the end of the full article).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article I found while Googling for an incident I remembered reading about. Man Arrested For Videotaping Building With FBI Office

For the crime of videotaping a public building, Purna Raj Bajracharya spent three months in solitary confinement before being deported to Katmandu.

Bajracharya "was swallowed up in the government's new maximum security system of secret detention and secret hearings." Fortunately, one of the FBI agents who arrested him called Legal Aid on his behalf -- but only after the agent tried unsuccessfully to obtain his release using the "byzantine" process of clearing him as a security threat, a process that "required signatures from top antiterrorism officials in Washington."

[dsvochak]

Below are a couple of more articles regarding "Human Rights".

And how, without giving yourself a stroke from the mental gymnastics, can you adopt the position in those two articles while at the same time believing this:

"The Senate's budget package includes provisions that would make available hundreds of thousands of green cards for new permanent legal immigrants, in what is shaping up as the next congressional fight over immigration." (The Washington Times)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -8062r.htm

That they can is probably a good explanation for why I don't really understand "politics"

[GomJabbar]

And how, without giving yourself a stroke from the mental gymnastics, can you adopt the position in those two articles while at the same time believing this:

"The Senate's budget package includes provisions that would make available hundreds of thousands of green cards for new permanent legal immigrants

Please excuse (or not) my following P.I. comments.

1. They need a lot of wetbacks to do the 'Hard Work'. (The C.E. is an expert in this.)
2. They need the Cuban vote in Florida.
3. They need to 'Keep all options on the table'.
4. Power, power, power. Maintain power at all costs.
5. The old adage: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

EDIT: And here is yet another editorial on the secret prison issue. Rebellion Against Abuse.

As The Post's Dana Priest reported yesterday, the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons, into which 100 or more terrorist suspects have "disappeared" as if they were victims of a Third World dictatorship. Some of the 30 most important prisoners are being held in secret facilities in Eastern European countries -- which should shame democratic governments that only recently dismantled Soviet-era secret police apparatuses. Held in dark underground cells, the prisoners have no legal rights, no visitors from outside the CIA and no checks on their treatment, even by the International Red Cross. President Bush has authorized interrogators to subject these men to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment that is illegal in the United States and that is banned by a treaty ratified by the Senate.

EDIT 2: When the C.I.A. Played by the Rules is an Op-Ed article by "the senior American intelligence officer during the final three years of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1986 to 1989)", Milt Bearden.

TODAY the Supreme Court justices are expected to debate whether they will hear a case involving a Yemeni named Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who is accused of being Osama bin Laden's driver. A federal appeals court found that Mr. Hamdan, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and is being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, was not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions; he has appealed to the high court.

If the court does not choose to review the appellate court's decision, and then overturn it, America's national security will be endangered.

This senior American intelligence officer goes on to explain why America's security will be endangered if current policy holds, and gives an example.

[dsvochak]

Today's privacy update. An editorial from the Lansing State Journal regarding the Patriot Act and "...how the FBI peers into electronic records of 30,000 people a year by employing so-called "national security letters."

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl ... 86/opinion

It just keeps getting better and better.

[GomJabbar]

Just when I thought I'd been 'Dixie-Chicked' for my last post, someone finally replies. I thought maybe I had made this thread Radioactive.

That article from the Lansing State Journal looks like a report from 1984. One can only hope that things turn around before this decade is over.

[dsvochak]

This thread is radioactive on it's own. There's only so much of this one can take before the only response becomes "What the F...?".

I find it really interesting that Sen. Frist & Rep. Hastert are calling for an investigation into the Post CIA secret prison story to determine who leaked the information. They didn't ask for an investigation to determine whether the information is correct, just who leaked it.

[GomJabbar]

Now that I am home, I am getting behind on my reading. I just read this this morning.

Cheney Fights for Detainee Policy Some highlights quoted below.

Over the past year, Vice President Cheney has waged an intense and largely unpublicized campaign to stop Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department from imposing more restrictive rules on the handling of terrorist suspects, according to defense, state, intelligence and congressional officials.
----------
Cheney's camp is a "shrinking island," said one State Department official
----------
Cheney's camp says the United States does not torture captives, but believes the president needs nearly unfettered power to deal with terrorists to protect Americans.
----------
On the other side of the debate are those who believe that unconventional measures -- harsh interrogation tactics, prisoner abuse and the "ghosting" and covert detention of CIA-held prisoners -- have so damaged world support for the U.S.-led counterterrorism campaign that they have hurt the U.S. cause. Also, they argue, these measures have tainted core American values such as human rights and the rule of law.

"The debate in the world has become about whether the U.S. complies with its legal obligations. We need to regain the moral high ground," said one senior administration official familiar with internal deliberations on the issue, adding that Rice believes current policy is "hurting the president's agenda and her agenda."
------------
Beside personal pressure from the vice president, Cheney's staff is also engaged in resisting a policy change. Tactics included "trying to have meetings canceled ... to at least slow things down or gum up the works" or trying to conduct meetings on the subject without other key Cabinet members, one administration official said.
------------
On Tuesday, Cheney, who often attends the GOP senators' weekly luncheons without addressing the lawmakers, made "an impassioned plea" to reject McCain's amendment
------------
McCain then rebutted Cheney's comments, the aide said, telling his colleagues that the image of the United States using torture "is killing us around the world."

[dsvochak]

Now this is just getting stupid.

One morning in late September 2005, Deb was riding the public bus to work. She was minding her own business, reading a book and planning for work, when a security guard got on this public bus and demanded that every passenger show their ID. Deb, having done nothing wrong, declined. The guard called in federal cops, and she was arrested and charged with federal criminal misdemeanors after refusing to show ID on demand.

The website here:
http://www.papersplease.org/davis/index.html

[BillMorrow]

i don't know anything about dick cheney or the mis-named patriot act nor do i like the term "homeland" when applied to the USA..

but Deborah Davis' case is different..
she had absolutely no requirement to show i.d. under those circumstances and she had every right to refuse..

go get'em deb..

next time ask "what is your authority for asking and may i see it please?"

and a badge is not likely to be sufficient authority except when you are driving a car or doing some other activity that might require some sort of license or the like..

of course, if a poorly dressed man were walking down st. francis blvd. in san francisco at 3 am carrying a claw hammer, the police would have a good reason to ask for i.d...

in the other case on that website, mr. hiibel and deputy dove were both wrong..
mr. hiibel should have explained the situation to dep. dove, who had, IMO, every right to ask to see mr. hiibel's drivers license as he was obviously in control of a motor vehicle on a public highway..

i think everyone was a bit "over the top"..

also consider that if deputy dove had stopped a child abuser who had kidnapped mimi, he would be a hero and get a medal..
and if he had not acted to protect himself and mr. hiibel had a weapon dep. dove's wife might be going to his funeral..

its obvious that each was a bit excited and each should have used a bit more "common sense" so as to defuse a tense situation..

for me, i would not like to drive a patrol car around wearing a uniform and have to stop cars with no idea of who is driving that car..

again, i don't care for "badge heavy" police but even cops have rights and one of those rights is to go home to the wife and kids at the end of his shift..
this encounter just escalated beyone the ability of each to control themselves..
i'll bet if given the opportunity to "play it again" each would choose their words more carefully..

---

deborah was no threat to anyone and that was obvious..
mr. hiibel was an unknown quantity and until it could be determined that he was ok which he was (just a bit upset from the fight with his daughter) and mimi was ok, the cop HAD little choice but to investigate..

this is my take on these two interesting stories..

[dsvochak]

of course, if a poorly dressed man were walking down st. francis blvd. in san francisco at 3 am carrying a claw hammer, the police would have a good reason to ask for i.d

I'm not familiar with San Francisco, but it doesn't matter. The quote can be rephrased to "If a man were walking down a street at 3am carrying a claw hammer, the police would have a good reason to ask for id".

The claw hammer is what makes the difference. Walking down any street, at any time of day, dressed in any fashion, isn't sufficient to generate a circumstance which reasonably indicates that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Carrying a claw hammer at 3 am is another story.

For those confused by the last two posts, the link to the main website is: http://www.papersplease.org which references 3 cases, Davis, Hiibel, and Gilmore v Gonzales.

According to the Supreme Court ( http://www.justia.us/us/542/177/case.html ) "The sheriff's department in Humboldt County, Nevada, received an afternoon telephone call reporting an assault. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove was dispatched to investigate."

Justice Kennedy indicates Mr. Hiibel appeared to be intoxicated and "after continued refusals to comply with the officer's request for identification, the man began to taunt the officer by placing his hands behind his back and telling the officer to arrest him and take him to jail. This routine kept up for several minutes: the officer asked for identification 11 times and was refused each time. After warning the man that he would be arrested if he continued to refuse to comply, the officer placed him under arrest.".

A great example of "Ask and ye shall receive". Or of "it's not smart to piss off a cop". Investigating an assault complaint and running into an obnoxious intoxicated man is enough to give Dep. Dove a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Gilmore v Gonzales has to do requiring passengers to show ID in order to be allowed on an airplane flight. Not really bothersome to me, except for the part about the "secret directives" allegations. Requiring airline passengers to show id is reasonable and I can't imagine why the law/regulation imposing the requirement would need to be secret.

In Hiibel's case, the call reporting the assault and describing the truck makes the difference. If Dep. Dove had just come upon a "...truck parked on the side of the road. A man was standing by the truck, and a young woman was sitting inside it. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel behind the vehicle, leading him to believe it had come to a sudden stop." it might generate a reasonable suspicion that the truck had broken down but not much more.

Which is not to say that Dep. Dove isn't justified in using caution when approaching the situation. But if there's a reasonable explanation for what the Hiibels were doing on the side of the road, maybe that's as far as it goes.

[GomJabbar]

I read today in The Washington Post:
Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake
German Citizen Released After Months in 'Rendition':

The CIA inspector general is investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions," according to several former and current intelligence officials.

One official said about three dozen names fall in that category; others believe it is fewer. The list includes several people whose identities were offered by al Qaeda figures during CIA interrogations, officials said. One turned out to be an innocent college professor who had given the al Qaeda member a bad grade, one official said.

"They picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague association" with terrorism, one CIA officer said.

One case in particular is highlighted:

Khaled Masri came to the attention of Macedonian authorities on New Year's Eve 2003. Masri, an unemployed father of five living in Ulm, Germany, said he had gone by bus to Macedonia to blow off steam after a spat with his wife. He was taken off a bus at the Tabanovce border crossing by police because his name was similar to that of an associate of a 9/11 hijacker.
--------------------
In the first weeks of 2004, an argument arose over whether the CIA should take Masri from local authorities and remove him from the country for interrogation, a classic rendition operation.

The director of the al Qaeda unit supported that approach. She insisted he was probably a terrorist, and should be imprisoned and interrogated immediately.

Others were doubtful. They wanted to wait to see whether the passport was proved fraudulent. Beyond that, there was no evidence Masri was not who he claimed to be -- a German citizen of Arab descent traveling after a disagreement with his wife.

The unit's director won the argument. She ordered Masri captured and flown to a CIA prison in Afghanistan.
--------------------
Masri said his cell in Afghanistan was cold, dirty and in a cellar, with no light and one dirty cover for warmth. The first night he said he was kicked and beaten and warned by an interrogator: "You are here in a country where no one knows about you, in a country where there is no law. If you die, we will bury you, and no one will know."
--------------------
Back at the CTC, Masri's passport was given to the Office of Technical Services to analyze. By March, OTS had concluded the passport was genuine. The CIA had imprisoned the wrong man.
--------------------
Meanwhile, Masri was growing desperate. There were rumors that a prisoner had died under torture. Masri could not answer most questions put to him. He said he steadied himself by talking with other prisoners and reading the Koran.

A week before his release in late May 2004, Masri said he was visited in prison by a German man with a goatee who called himself Sam. Masri said he asked him if he were from the German government and whether the government knew he was there. Sam said he could not answer either question.

"Does my wife at least know I'm here?" Masri asked.

"No, she does not," Sam replied, according to Masri.

Sam told Masri he was going to be released soon but that he would not receive any documents or papers confirming his ordeal. The Americans would never admit they had taken him prisoner, Sam added, according to Masri.
--------------------
Masri has been reunited with his children and wife, who had moved the family to Lebanon because she did not know where her husband was. Unemployed and lonely, Masri says neither his German nor Arab friends dare associate with him because of the publicity.

I guess the moral is: It doesn't pay to fight with your wife. And "Teachers, leave them kids alone".

EDIT: Addendum. Here is an OP-ED article that gave me a few laughs on a serious subject. From The New York Times, By MAUREEN DOWD Published: December 7, 2005 Torturing the Facts