Tag Archives: homeland security

Uncategorized

Did Congressman Lungren Ignore Potential National Security Threat?

This is a local story that bleeds into the area of national security and the congressional races.  Dan Lungren was warned about the situation last year but apparently completely ignored it.  This involves the smuggling of foreign soils into the United States.  These soils contain biological matter and in particular micro fungi and other microbes.  This company then bio-engineered these organisms to create “organic pesticides.”  Unfortunately one worker at least is now gravely ill and company employees bragged of smuggling the soil past customs.

Lungren may be locked in a competitive race with Bill Durston, this is a seat we could take away from Republicans if this type of news gets out and catches the attention of local voters.  Lungren sits as a Ranking Member on Homeland Security Subcommittee in the House.  He brags of his SAFE ports act from 2006, but here is a case where he was less than enthusiastic about going to the mat for national security.

From the People’s Vanguard of Davis:

   Did Congressman Lungren Ignore Potential National Security Threat Posed by AgraQuest’s Importation of Foreign Soils?

   Last week, the Sacramento News and Review reported that an AgraQuest worker David Bell contracted a series of respiratory infections during his time working for the company in 1999. Now nearly nine years later, he continues to suffer from the debilitating illness.

   The Vanguard raised questions about the environmental impact at the Kennedy Place location for AgraQuest. Questions were most specifically brought forth from Mr. Bell himself who informed the Vanguard that as an employee of AgraQuest he was told to dispose of waste material on a concrete culvert. The Vanguard also showed photographic evidence taken from several years later that suggests the possibility of contamination of the outside worksite.

   In a follow up interview with David Bell, he warned us that the ventilation system at the 1105 Kennedy Place office building needs to be fully investigated as well due to the activities that took place in the building and the possibility that microbes ended up in the ventilation system.

   During the course of the investigation into both Mr. Bell’s health and the workplace conditions, the Vanguard has learned that AgraQuest may have been shipping soil and other biological samples into the United States on commercial flights without proper licenses. Moreover, David Bell reports that employees at AgraQuest at the time of his employment bragged about sneaking a green suitcase full of dirt past U.S. customs on a flight from Chile.

   Doug Haney, an advocate for human and patients’ rights, who specializes in mold and microbe exposure, reported this to Congressman Dan Lungren in November of 2007 during a meeting with Gold River Field Office Staffers Alexandria Snyder and Michelle Panos. Congressman Lungren (R-CA) is the ranking Republican member on the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Interestingly enough, in 2006 he co-authored the SAFE Act (Security and Freedom Enhancement Act) with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), a bill that was designed to improve security at U.S. ports.

   Despite warnings about the possible implications from such lax customs handling in our war on terrorism, it appears at least from Mr. Haney’s viewpoint that neither Congressman Lungren nor his staff followed through on these warnings.

FULL ARTICLE

Uncategorized

Jane Harman’s H.R. “1984”

2 Comments

I have to admit that I was initially a smidge skeptical about the progressive outcry over Jane Harman’s bill, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” which passed the House by a 404-6 count back in October.  While I believe staunchly in the protection of civil liberties, I guess I took “homegrown terrorism” to mean groups like right-wing militia, terror groups who bomb abortion clinics, purveyors of racist hate speech, and the like.  As David Neiwert said, it appeared to be an attempt to make counter-terrorism more comprehensive and complete.  But when you look under the hood, there’s a great deal to be scared about with this bill.

One of the findings of the bill is that, “the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”

And the remedy to that is… closing off the Internet?  Reading everyone’s blog posts for “extremist” rhetoric?  

The bill calls for heightened scrutiny of people who believe, or might come to believe, in a violent ideology. (ACLU policy counsel Mike) German wants the government to focus on people who are actually committing crimes, rather than those who are merely entertaining violent ideas, something perfectly legal.

Harman’s bill would convene a 10-member national commission to study “violent radicalization” (defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”) and “homegrown terrorism” (defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States […] to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”).

Now I’m getting nervous.  over…

It’s clear that any organization studying “violent radicalization” could head down some blind alleys pretty quickly.  The FBI’s domestic terrorism unit cites as among its greatest threats to the homeland… the Earth Liberation Front, the group that blows up Hummers.  Animal rights groups also frequently show up on these domestic terror lists.  And this national commission that would be created would be insular and potentially susceptible to politicization.

“The bill replicates what already exists without peer review and safeguards,” says Chip Berlet, a senior policy analyst for Political Research Associates, an independent non-profit research organization that studies political violence, authoritarianism, and homegrown terrorism […]

The broad wording of the bill leaves open many questions. If homegrown terrorism is defined to include “intimidation” of the United States government or any segment of its population-could the Commission or the Center of Excellence task itself with investigating groups advocating boycotts, general strikes, or other forms of non-violent “intimidation”?

“While we wholeheartedly support efforts to curtail terrorism, primarily coming from white supremacists, we would also like to see legislation that more vigorously defends civil rights,” says Devin Burghart, an expert on domestic terrorism at the Center for New Communities, a national civil and human rights organization based in Chicago.

My friend Marcy Winograd, who challenged Rep. Harman to a primary in 2006, is alarmed about this bill and thinks it needs to be blocked in the Senate.

Senator Boxer, one of our more courageous lawmakers, needs to put a hold on this bill before we see a return of the McCarthy hearings, with committees interrogating conscientious Americans who have spoken out against the war and globalization. This legislation ostensibly targets those who promote violence and extremist ideology, but if that were really the case the lawmakers supporting this legislation would be impeaching and indicting Bush and Cheney for war crimes.

During my congressional challenge, Boxer campaigned for Harman so I can only assume, since their political views often differ, that she felt a personal loyalty to the former ranking minority leader on the House Intelligence Committee. Now, however, it is time for Boxer to set aside personal loyalties and consider one’s allegiance to the future of our democracy.  Harman’s bill, though seemingly benign, would actually give the green light to multiple simultaneous cross-country hearings aimed at intimidating those who question the government.  Even if the bill were benignly conceived, its effect will be to silence debate and foster a climate of suspicion.

I think that’s slightly extreme, but it certainly COULD go that way, and the value of yet another “blue ribbon panel” is certainly outweighed by the potential loss of civil liberties and monitoring of groups who are Constitutionally engaging in their right to dissent.  So if you are concerned about this legislation, you ought to call Senator Boxer and urge a hold on it.  The bill number in the Senate is S.B. 1959.  

Environment, Orange County

Is This Why We Fight?

7 Comments

When will American Jews wake up to the absolute wickedness of the Islamic religion. Every single follower of Islam: man, woman, and child, is taught nothing but such anti-semitism from the second they are born. The death cult of Mohammed is the biggest threat to American Jewry.

It would be a great service if Amir Abdul-Malik Ali would tell us how to recognize a Zionist Jew when wrapped from head to foot like a Muslim terrorist. If someone looking like that emerged out of the restroom on an airplane, it would be comforting to know that it is only some Jewish guy trying to make Muslims look bad. Then I can go back to reading my magazine.

These are just a couple of the many hate-filled comments that can be found on the recent Red County/OC Blog, which have now been “reprinted” at The Liberal OC. Now these folks were accusing the Muslim Student Union at UCI of inciting hatred by inviting a Muslim cleric to speak about the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. However, look at this video and try to find any “hate speech”. Maybe they’re just looking in the wrong direction.

But look at this. The Orange County Human Relations Commission reported in its 2006 annual report on hate crimes that attacks targeting Arab/Middle-Eastern/Muslim Americans have DOUBLED in the past year. And worse yet, the OC Human Relations Commission suggests that this may be due to the Iraq War.

Wait! Hold on here! Is this why we fight? Follow me after the flip for more…

Now on this Memorial Day today, we remember our fallen soldiers. We honor their fight to preserve our freedom. We honor their commitment to this land of liberty and justice for all.

So why must House Minority Leader John Boehner defile the US House of Representatives with such a bizarre and downright psychotic cry?

“After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat `em?” demanded Boehner. “Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you, if we don’t do it now, and if we don’t have the courage to defeat this enemy, we will long, long regret it. So thank you for the commitment to get the job done today.”

But wait, I thought we were fighting in Iraq for freedom. Didn’t Bush even say that as he admitted that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the war? OK, so we know that this isn’t why we’re in Iraq, either. Whatever reason Bush gives as to why we’re in Iraq, we can count on it being wrong. That’s why Bush should have never started this war in the first place.

But anyways, back to the point of the matter. Are we really fighting to “take on” the Muslims? Are we fighting to just kill them all? Are we fighting to conquer the Muslim World for the sake of the Christian faith? I don’t think that’s why our soldiers want to serve this nation. I think they want to serve because they believe in the innately American value of freedom of religion. I think they want to serve to defend our Constitution.

Why can’t John Boehner and the OC Blog critters just pay attention to Chris Prevatt at The Liberal OC?

There are radicals on all sides of all issues in this world. It is wrong, simply wrong, to paint people of a particular faith, or people of a particular race as terrorists and promoters of hate. The actions of a few, do not speak as the actions of all.

Mr. Boehner, Shawn Steel, Barry, coach, Debbie, and El Liberdator, just because a person is Muslim; just because a person is Arab; just because a person does not look or believe as you do; does not mean that he, or she, or their countrymen and women, are terrorists who must be destroyed.

Mr. Boehner, you are preaching hate on the floor of the United States Congress. I am ashamed that you have a position of power in our country. The rest of you are just simply a disgrace.

So is this why we fight? Are we fighting to defend America from those evil terrorists who want to turn us all into tree-hugging homosexual peaceniks? Check out this story from the AP Wire:

The Alabama Department of Homeland Security has taken down a Web site it operated that included gay rights and anti-war organizations in a list of groups that could include terrorists.

The Web site identified different types of terrorists, and included a list of groups it believed could spawn terrorists. The list also included environmentalists, animal rights advocates and abortion opponents. […]

Howard Bayliss, chairman of the gay and lesbian advocacy group Equality Alabama, said he doesn’t understand why gay rights advocates would be on the list.

“Our group has only had peaceful demonstrations. I’m deeply concerned we’ve been profiled in this discriminatory matter,” Bayliss said.

The site included the groups under a description of what it called “single-issue” terrorists. That group includes people who feel they are trying to create a better world, the Web site said. It said that in some communities, law enforcement officers consider certain single issue groups to be a threat.

Is this why we fight? Are we fighting so that our government can define our freedom of speech as “terrorism”? When did environmental advocacy and speaking up for equal rights for all suddenly become acts of terror? When “single-issue” advocacy become “single-issue” terrorism?

I don’t get it. As I’m sitting here on Memorial Day, I’m remembering those Revolutionary soldiers who fought for independence from the British Empire. I’m remembering those Civil War soldiers who fought to end slavery. I’m remembering those World War II soldiers who fought the Nazi occupation of Europe and the Japanese occupation of East Asia. Didn’t they all fight for freedom? Didn’t they fight for liberty and justice for all?

I don’t think our brave soldiers are fighting so that a few hateful individuals can strike fear in the hearts of American Muslims. I don’t think they are fighting so that gay rights activists and environmentalists can be classified as “terrorists”. And no, I don’t think that they are fighting so that George W. Bush and his good friends can evade the fact that they made a grave mistake.

This shouldn’t be why we fight.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

A Homeland Security Threat in California

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California Highway Patrol — I am not making this up — has taken to warning public interest groups they could be considered a “Homeland Security Threat” for capturing video to put on YouTube.

Here is the background. This is the final week of California’s legislative session, so lawmakers and lobbyists get together for literally dozens of fundraisers each day as legislators decide the fate of bills. Today’s LA Times headlined an article, Checks Roll In as Laws Flow Out which noted $193,000 moved Monday alone. Even worse, the lobbyist have found a new way to dodge reporting until after the session ends, making accountability reports like this LA Times story more difficult. The tactic is called “pledging” where the lobbyists show up at the big money fundraiser to demonstrate support for a legislator and talk shop, but the money doesn’t actually change hands until after the session is over to dodge the disclosure requirements.

To cast some sunlight on this process and help support this fall’s Clean Money, Proposition 89 initiative, a government watchdog group started showing up at the fundraisers with a video camera and started a website — Channel 89 — with links to all the YouTube video of the events.

The response: intimidation:

Proponents of Proposition 89, which would reduce the role of big money in politics, were warned by a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer yesterday that they could be considered a “homeland security threat” as they filmed lawmakers and lobbyists wrapping up end of the session deals.

“When did the CHP become a private security force for corporate lobbyists? Prop 89, the campaign finance overhaul, will make the Capitol a public space again,” said Jerry Flanagan of the nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

FTCR’s public interest news crew, Channel 89, was in the Capitol yesterday filming lawmakers and lobbyists as they exchange favors and campaign contributions in the final days of the legislative session. A CHP officer warned the Channel 89 staff that they could be considered a “homeland security threat” for filming the democratic process in the Capitol. Shortly after, Channel 89 staff members were stopped as they tried to interview Assembly Speaker Nuñez outside his office. The CHP called FTCR staff to suggest they were breaking the law.

It is easy to understand why the powers that be fear Proposition 89. In addition to strict contribution limits and tough enforcement, Prop 89 also creates public financing of elections in California. Not only would this clean up the special interest strangehold on the state, but by fundamentally reforming the political economy of the largest state, Prop 89 would be a beacon for electoral reform nationwide. Apparently, clean elections and accountability are a threat to Homeland Security.

You can stay up to date on this historic campaign at the Proposition 89 Blog.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California

Why is Arnold Spying on You?

Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office spying on you?  Arnold is releasing a bucketload of documents for reporters to review, and claims it was an oversight by an independent contractor:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office said Saturday he was ordering the release of dozens of intelligence reports prepared for the state Office of Homeland Security — a step that comes as lawmakers from both parties are denouncing a practice in which state intelligence agents compiled information about political and antiwar protests and rallies.

Schwarzenegger administration officials say there were only two cases in which state homeland security agents collected material on political protests in recent months. Releasing the full trove of intelligence reports will prove that point, assuring the public that the practice was not more widespread, according to those officials.
(LA Times 7/2/06)

More on the flip…

So, you ask, just who is he spying on?  Well, George Miller, the Alameda County Congressman, for one.

Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) said in an interview that there should be a “very, very high threshold” for removing anything and that the reports should not be sanitized. The congressman attended an antiwar rally in Walnut Creek in March that was listed in one of the intelligence reports, in a section called “Upcoming California Protests.”

You would think that this is an outlier. A one-off bad incident.  It will never happen again.  Except that it’s happened before, and the department assure the legislature that it wouldn’t happen again.

State Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana), who led the hearings on the National Guard, said the homeland security episode is fresh proof of the need for greater oversight.

Dunn said he wants to create a special legislative intelligence committee that would monitor California’s fast-growing homeland security apparatus. Lawmakers serving on the committee would receive a special security clearance. He said he has broached the idea with the Senate leadership.

“I am very pleased that they’re willing to share all the reports,” Dunn said. “However, I was assured after the one spying incident in May 2005 by the California National Guard that the practice was not more widespread at the state level. We now discover that those assurances were patently false. I hope the current assurances are a little more truthful than the ones of a year ago.”

First of all, I’m more than a little bit troubled that we have some outside private contractor conducting spying missions on the people of California.  Isn’t that the job of this “homeland security” infrastructure?  And then, of course, there is the general idea of spying on anti-war protesters.  Is there a reason for this at all?  Assumptions of anti-Bush positions?

Arnold himself needs to promise that this will never happen again.  Dunn’s idea of legislative oversight is an important first step to assure the privacy of all Californians.