The Coward Republican Party is starting to issue the empty platitudes about needing to secure the border.
Sorry, Mr. Frist. Your 11th hour electioneering won't work on people who have actually been paying attention to the Senate's actions - or lack thereof.
While I think that sex offenders, especially child molesters, are vile creatures, I firmly believe in the right of due process, something which is denied to the accused in this first-of-its-kind “civil registry”. I am supremely confident that other states will enact measures similar to this one.
I’ve been saying for the last few years that “sex offenses” would be the new Scarlet Letter. I guess that time is now here.
Could it be that our elected criminals officials are finally getting the message that the citizens want border security? One can only hope.
Last week, in a move that surprised absolutely no one, that same Senate voted 71-29 to deny funding for the construction of the previously mentioned fence.
This kinda puts the government’s priorities into perspective, doesn’t it. The Republicrats running the show are more interested in regulating the private lives of citizens than it is in doing its Constitutionally mandated job of protecting those citizens.
The Federal Theocratic We-Control-Your-Life Amendment was shot down in the House, falling short of the 2/3 majority needed to pass in the House. The bill was also shot down in the Senate last week.
My opinion about government intervention in personal relationships has been well documented on my own blog. I go on the record once again saying that the government has absolutely no business dictating what two consenting, non-related adults do in their relationship.
Yet, religious nuts are positively apoplectic that their most recent attempt to force their outdated superstitious beliefs on us unwashed heathens has failed. Yeah, I hate linking to Newsmax, which, in my opinion is about as credible as the National Enquirer or the New York Times, but I want to show the nutcases as they exist in their own environment.
Dobson and his ilk, however, are merely a symptom of a much larger problem, and that problem is that a significant percentage of the population feels the need to force their own beliefs down everyone else's throat. This occurs in both major parties, which is why I see no real difference between the two.
Proponents of this theocratic amendment fail to realize the history and the intent of the Contitution. The Constitution was designed to impose limits on the government and to prevent the government from becoming an all-powerful, all intrusive entity. It was not, despite what is taught at the nations' brainwashing centers (collectively known as "churches"), a vehicle for controlling the actions of the citizenry. Such an effort was done in the past (the 18th Amendment), but that was such as disaster it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. I find it interesting to point out that religious nuts were behind that fiasco, as well.
It's often been said those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. All you need to do is look at a newspaper these days to see the truth in that statement.
I wanted to take a moment to wish everyone a Happy Independence Day. The way things are going in the US with the Republicrats in Washington doing everything possile to erode freedom and independence in this nation, there probably won’t be too many Independence Days left. It will soon be replaced by Nanny State Day.
Enjoy your independence while it lasts.
To the residents on New London who are having their homes stolen “to promote the common good” (read: “generate tax revenue”), I have these words:
Article [II.]
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Police may enter Californians' homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case testing the scope of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 6-1 decision follows similar rulings in about a dozen other states. A dissenting justice said the majority handed authorities a "free pass" to unlawfully enter private homes and arrest people without warrants.
Under the Fourth Amendment, authorities are prohibited from entering a home and making an arrest without a warrant unless so-called "exigent" circumstances are present. Those include "hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence and the risk of danger to the police or other persons inside or outside of a house, among others.
In this case, Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the loss of evidence at issue was obtaining a measurement of the suspect's blood-alcohol level. Baxter added that a contrary ruling would allow "the corruption of evidence that occurs when the suspect takes advantage of any delay to ingest more alcohol -- or to claim to have done so -- or when the suspect evades police capture until he or she is no longer intoxicated."
The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening.
The door was open and a woman said the car's driver was asleep. Moments later, Thompson walked by the officers and they entered the house and arrested him. The neighbor confirmed it was the person she suspected of driving intoxicated and throwing an empty vodka bottle out the car door.
Thompson's blood-alcohol level was 0.21, almost three times the legal limit for driving. He was convicted and handed a three-year suspended sentence. He appealed.
A state court of appeal tossed the conviction, saying Thompson's constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court reversed, saying the lower court misapplied search-and-seizure precedent.
I'm not a big fan of the New York Times. The paper's behavior lately, along with the behavior of many of it's alleged "reporters", has brought its credibility into question. In this case, however, the Times sheds light on our Congresscritters attempting to cover their asses regarding the much-lamented Jefferson raid.
Here we have a Congressmen who was videotaped by the FBI as he was taking bribes. Using this information, the FBI secured and executed a legal warrant to search Jefferson's home and offices. Naturally, the Congresscritters are up in arms about how the raid violated non-existent Constitutional protections.
In response to the execution of the warrant, Congress is threatening to subpeona U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before a committee to explain why the warrant was carried out. There's even talk of impeaching him for this.
To further prove that our "leaders" feel the laws of the land should not apply to them, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is proposing legislation to prevent the legal warranted search of the homes and offices of Congresscritters. This sounds suspiciously like Congress is trying to remove the Constitutional "checks and balances" on the Legislative branch.
The only thing missing here is a Congressional Marie Antoinette claiming "Let them eat cake."
President Bush’s constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.
• presidential power to ignore federal statutes governing treatment of enemy prisoners—as well as other federal laws that impinge on practices the president believes to be useful in fighting the war on terror;
• unilateral executive authority over questions of war and peace; and
• the power to designate American citizens “enemy combatants” and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror—in other words, perhaps forever.
Early on in the president’s first term, Attorney General John Ashcroft made clear that it was the Bush administration’s position that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to bear arms. In two federal cases, the Bush administration argued in formal court papers that the "Second Amendment... protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia... to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or... firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." That was a significant, if symbolic, victory for those who believe that the Second Amendment means what it says, that “the right of the people” means an individual, personal right, just as it does in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. The president has also appointed a number of federal judges who appear to take constitutional limits seriously and may be expected to look skeptically at broad claims of legislative power. However, whether the same judges will look skeptically at broad claims of executive power remains very much in doubt.
A prematurely grey soul singer from Alabama who was once likened to a drunken dad at a wedding triumphed in the American Idol finale, which drew more votes than have ever been cast for a president in a US election.
"The Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Louisiana Senator David Vitter, in letter obtained by Bayoubuzz.com, rejected any defense of Bill Jefferson--or condemnation of the raids--by members of his own party. Addressing the note to leaders of the U.S. Senate GOP caucus, Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell, Vitter states, "I write to disagree in the strongest possible terms with the statements of some Congressional leaders which suggest that the court-approved search warrant which allowed the FBI to search a Congressional office is an abuse of power, something illegal or unconstitutional because of separation of powers. I urge you not to make such arguments or propose any policy that would bar or require notice for such court-approved search warrants in the future."
"In offering these views," Vitter continues, "I make no judgment whatsoever on the ongoing Jefferson investigation; that is for the justice system to sort out. And I agree with the practical, common sense rule that such searches of Congressional offices should be used sparingly and after very careful, apolitical review by both the prosecutors involved and an appropriate judge. But no location should be off limits and no one should be above the law."
The Louisiana Senator continued in the document to point out that the separation of powers arguments coming from Congress, in his view, had little basis in law.
Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, who has not been charged, called an FBI search of his Capitol office “an outrageous intrusion,” telling reporters: “There are two sides to every story. There are certainly two sides to this story.”
On Sept. 2 — five days after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast — Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who represents New Orleans and is a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was allowed through the military blockades set up around the city to reach the Superdome, where thousands of evacuees had been taken.
Military sources tells ABC News that Jefferson, an eight-term Democratic congressman, asked the National Guard that night to take him on a tour of the flooded portions of his congressional district. A five-ton military truck and a half dozen military police were dispatched.
Lt. Col. Pete Schneider of the Louisiana National Guard tells ABC News that during the tour, Jefferson asked that the truck take him to his home on Marengo Street, in the affluent uptown neighborhood in his congressional district. According to Schneider, this was not part of Jefferson's initial request.
Jefferson defended the expedition, saying he set out to see how residents were coping at the Superdome and in his neighborhood. He also insisted that he did not ask the National Guard to transport him.
...federal agents are investigating whether Rep. Jefferson illegally pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars of investors' money from business transactions. According to sources who spoke with The Washington Post, a high-tech company that was starting up in northern Virginia agreed to cooperate with the FBI and conversations with Rep. Jefferson were secretly recorded. Rep. Jefferson allegedly agreed to invest in the start-up company and use his congressional influence to bring in business.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert questioned whether the raid of the congressman’s office, believed the first in history, overstepped constitutional limitations on executive powers.
“Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years,” the Illinois Republican said in a statement.
"There is no excuse for the FBI for the first time in history searching a congressional office and apparently doing so in total [dis]regard of due process as it relates to the legislative branch," former Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., wrote Sunday night in an e-mail to several members and aides obtained by CongressDaily. Gingrich was particularly critical of what he described as the executive branch trampling constitutional lines of authority.
"The protection of the legislative branch from the executive branch's policing powers is a fundamental principle which goes all the way back to the English Civil War," he added, describing the incident as "the most blatant violation of the constitutional separation of powers in my lifetime."
I'm going to sidestep the normal focus of this blog for a moment. Instead of posting a Constitutional issue, I'm going to ask a question that is of significance to U.S. veterans, then follow it up with important information.
After reading this article, I had to ask myself: What was this guy doing with the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of 26.5 million veterans on his laptop?
I strongly advise vets to notify credit agencies of potential fraud. Here are some numbers. You’ll only need to call one, and the others will be notified as well.
TransUnion
Fraud Victim Assistance Department
Phone: 800-680-7289
Fax: 714-447-6034
P.O. Box 6790
Fullerton, CA 92634-6790
Equifax
Consumer Fraud Division
Phone: 800-525-6285 or: 404-885-8000
Fax: 770-375-2821
P.O. Box 740241
Atlanta, GA 30374-0241
Experian
Experian’s National Consumer Assistance
Phone: 888-397-3742
P.O. Box 2104
Allen, TX 75013
The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.
"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.
The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.
The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being "tracked."
"Think of it more as backtracking," said a senior federal official.
But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.
In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.
"The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information," the statement said.
Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.
Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).
The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The owners of a Spartanburg apartment complex have asked residents to stop a Bible study held in a common area.
The owners of Heritage Court said the study violates the Fair Housing Act. The apartments are privately owned by One Management of Raleigh, N.C., but many residents have their rent subsidized by federal vouchers.
"It's not our rule. It's Fair Housing law, which says you cannot discriminate against religion," One Management Vice President Jenny Petri said. "It's unfortunate, but we are required to comply to Fair Housing laws. We hope that the residents can continue doing what they're doing within their own apartment."
But the owners may be misinterpreting the law, said William Dudley Gregorie, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's field office director for South Carolina.
The Bible studies are likely OK as long as permission was also given to any other religious group who wanted to use the area, Gregorie said. "In other words, if you let one, you have to let all," he said.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(05/08/06 -- APEX) - Wake County school officials have suspended a boy for having sex during school hours.
Ryan Biggar, 16, and his 17-year-old girlfriend had permission to leave Middle Creek High School for an off-campus program. When their event was canceled for the day, they were caught having sex in the girl's home.
It violated school rules, and officials say those rules apply no matter where you are during school hours.
But the Biggar's family is filing a lawsuit against the school system, saying his suspension for the rest of the school year is unconstitutional. He says he had no notice that private, consensual, off-campus sexual activity could subject him to school suspension.
Some students told Eyewitness News that the rules are unclear.
"I think he shouldn't get suspended because he was at his house. What he does at his house should stay at his house," said senior Jajuan Blanton.
A mother disagrees.
"Restrictions say you're on school time, then you are on school time whether you're at lunch or not," said Mary Ann Buesing.
Wake County school spokesman Michael Evans says that having sex during school hours breaks the rules - - even in a private home.
"Whereever you are during school hours. It's a privilege to leave campus for lunch and you sign a form to that effect, as do your parents," Evans said. "So it was with full consent and knowledge that they participate under these rules and if they chose to break them then disciplinary action will come into play."
Court documents include a copy of the lunch permit application, which states that students exercising off-campus lunch privileges are subject to the rules of student conduct, as applicable to the regular school day. Biggar and one of his parents had signed the application.
Biggar is appealing his suspension. A hearing is set for May 15. It is unclear if his girlfriend was suspended, since she is not suing anyone and school records are not public.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. ... I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place [of] probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
BERLIN (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said he would like to close the U.S.-run prison at Guantanamo Bay -- a step urged by several U.S. allies -- but was awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on how suspects held there might be tried.
"Of course Guantanamo is a delicate issue for people. I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial," Bush said in comments to German television to be broadcast on Sunday night. The interview was recorded last week.
Human-rights groups have accused the United States of mistreating Guantanamo detainees through cruel interrogation methods, a charge denied by the U.S. government.
They also criticize the indefinite detention of suspects captured since the military prison was opened in 2002 at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, as part of the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
Bush was asked by the German public television station ARD how the United States could restore its human-rights image following reports of prisoner abuse.
"Our top court must still rule on whether they should go before a civil or military court," he said.
"They will get their day in court. One can't say that of the people that they killed. They didn't give these people the opportunity for a fair trial."
The quotes were translated by Reuters from a German transcript.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on whether military tribunals of foreign terrorist suspects can proceed.
Bush's comments were a reiteration of long-standing U.S. policy, Frederick Jones, spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said in Washington.
"The United States has no intention of permanently detaining individuals, that is not our goal. We want to see all these individuals brought to justice," he said, whether in their home countries or in the United States.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, has dismissed calls for the prison to be closed.
"Every once and a while someone pops up and gets some press for saying 'Oh let's close Guantanamo Bay.' Well, if someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it," Rumsfeld said in a February speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The United States has 480 detainees at Guantanamo and has freed or handed over to their home governments a total of 272. The Pentagon has said it has no interest in holding anyone longer than necessary but that it has been unable to arrange for some to return to their home countries.
The Pentagon says the detainees come from 40 countries and the West Bank, with the largest number from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen.
In a report last week for the U.N. Committee against Torture, Amnesty International said torture and inhumane treatment were "widespread" in U.S.-run detention centers, including Guantanamo Bay.
The United States defended its treatment of foreign terrorism suspects in a hearing before the committee in Geneva on Friday, saying it backed a ban on torture.
The Hercules City Council will consider whether to use eminent domain to wrest a 17-acre property from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. after the nation's largest retailer rejected a city offer to buy the site with views of San Pablo Bay, city officials said Thursday.
The council asked that a "resolution of necessity'' be brought to it for discussion, City Manager Mike Sakamoto said. The matter has been put on the council's May 23 agenda. Efforts to reach council members about Thursday's announcement were unsuccessful.
Wal-Mart bought the property overlooking central Hercules in November after another developer received city approvals for a neighborhood shopping center.
In February, city planners recommended denying Wal-Mart's proposal for a big-box store on its property, saying the plan was not in keeping with what had been approved for the location, which commands a view of one of the Bay Area's most vaunted New Urbanist communities, with pedestrian-oriented streets and large open-space set-asides, as well as sweeping views of the bay.
The company withdrew its application before it went to the city Planning Commission. In response, the City Council voted to make an offer for the land for an undisclosed amount of money.
On March 31, however, Wal-Mart submitted a new application that it said substantially conforms to city requirements. The same day the company submitted its revised proposal, Councilwoman Charleen Raines was hardly welcoming, although she said she had not read it.
"What the council has said is that we want to buy the property,'' she said, describing the tussle with Wal-Mart as a "David and Goliath'' struggle. "At this point, we're concerned about moving ahead on this property. It's been hanging over us for a long time.''
Wal-Mart's new proposal, which is still hotly opposed by some residents, calls for a general retail and grocery store, as well as a pedestrian plaza, two outdoor dining areas and other small shops and general merchandise stores, including a pharmacy.
"We're disappointed that the city is really playing politics with the future of Hercules rather than looking at the big picture,'' company spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said.
"Many residents of the city who we've talked to are frustrated and anxious for this much-needed retail project to move forward.''
A U.S. appeals panel sharply challenged the Bush administration Friday over new rules making it easier for police and the FBI to wiretap Internet phone calls. A judge said the government’s courtroom arguments were “gobbledygook.”
The skepticism expressed so openly toward the administration’s case encouraged civil liberties and education groups that argued that the U.S. is improperly applying telephone-era rules to a new generation of Internet services.
“Your argument makes no sense,” U.S. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards told the lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission, Jacob Lewis. “When you go back to the office, have a big chuckle. I’m not missing this. This is ridiculous. Counsel!”
At another point in the hearing, Edwards told the FCC’s lawyer that his arguments were “gobbledygook” and “nonsense.”
The court’s decision was expected within several months.
In an unrelated case last year affecting digital television, two of the same three judges determined the FCC had significantly exceeded its authority and threw out new government rules requiring anti-piracy devices in new video devices. Lewis was also the losing lawyer in that case, and Edwards also was impassioned then in his criticisms of the FCC.
In the current case, Edwards appeared especially skeptical over the FCC’s decision to require that providers of Internet phone service and broadband services must ensure their equipment can accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.
The new rules go into effect in May 2007.
The 1994 law was originally aimed at ensuring court-ordered wiretaps could be placed on wireless phones.
The Justice Department, which has lobbied aggressively on the subject, warned in court papers that failure to expand the wiretap requirements to the fast-growing Internet phone industry “could effectively provide a surveillance safe haven for criminals and terrorists who make use of new communications services.”
Critics said the new FCC rules are too broad and inconsistent with the intent of Congress when it passed the 1994 surveillance law, which excluded categories of companies described as information services.
The FCC asserted that providers of high-speed Internet services should be covered under the 1994 law because their voice-transmission services can be considered separately from information services. “Congress intended to cover services (in the 1994 law) that were functionally equivalent” to traditional telephones, Lewis said during the hearing in U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
“There’s nothing to suggest that in the statute,” Edwards replied. “Stating that doesn’t make it so.”
The panel appeared more inclined to support the FCC’s argument that Internet-phone services — which allow users to dial and receive calls from traditional phone numbers — may be covered under the 1994 law and required to accommodate court-ordered wiretaps. The technology, popularized by Holmdel, N.J.-based Vonage Holdings Corp., is known as “voice over Internet protocol,” or VOIP.
“Voice-over is a very different thing,” U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle said. He said it offered “precisely the same” functions as traditional telephone lines.
Edwards told the lawyer for the civil liberties groups, Matthew Brill, that on his challenge that VOIP services aren’t covered under the surveillance law, “I didn’t think you have it.”
Education groups had challenged the FCC rules because they said the requirements would impose burdensome new costs on private university networks.
The third judge on the panel, Janice Rogers Brown, did not comment or ask any questions during the arguments.
Broadband providers and Internet phone companies will have to pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory wiretap access for police surveillance, federal regulators ruled Wednesday.
"The first obligation is...the safety of the people," said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. "This commission supports efforts to protect the public safety and homeland security of the United States and its people."
(4/13/06 - DALLAS, TX) - The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Wednesday it has suspended a crackdown on public intoxication after a public outcry over the program that sends undercover officers into drinking establishments.
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is being sued by Dallas Night Club.
The club`s suit alleges that the state agency unfairly targeting the club and not using a consistent standard to decide if club goers are legally drunk.
A saliva sample for narcotics testing can often give a more accurate representation of what’s really going in the body than urine, Cone said. Some drugs, like cocaine, can appear in the saliva long before they show up in urine, and a saliva sample is less susceptible to tampering than the "go off by yourself and put some in a cup" method.
Collecting saliva is painless, less invasive and easier.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control system has banned gossiping and threatened to fire anyone who tells tales or spreads rumors.
Gene Webb, the system’s general manager, issued the order in February, making employees sign a statement that says, “Take care of the business in your individual store; do not try to get involved in the business of another store or employee.”
He declined to elaborate on what prompted the gag order.
“It’s really a problem with one or two employees,” he said Tuesday.
Bar Sweep Sparks Controversy
Comedian Weighs In On Public Intoxication Arrests
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.
TABC agents and Irving police swept through 36 Irving bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. Agency representatives say the move came as a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving.
North Texans interviewed by NBC 5, however, worried that the sweep went too far.
At one location, for example, agents and police arrested patrons of a hotel bar. Some of the suspects said they were registered at the hotel and had no intention of driving. Arresting authorities said the patrons were a danger to themselves and others.
"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk," TABC Capt. David Alexander said. "It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."
Dallas comedian Steve Harvey agreed with the Texas residents who said the arrests infringed on individual rights.
"If a guy's got a designated driver, go ahead and let him get toasted," Harvey told NBC 5.
Texas law states that inebriated individuals could be subjected to arrest anywhere for public intoxication. Harvey and other North Texans called the measure extreme.
"That seems to be an extreme case," one man said. "You are self-contained, in the hotel, you're not going in the streets, it seems a little ridiculous."
TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Harvey and others interviewed by NBC 5 said they believe drunken driving to be unacceptable, although Harvey wanted to confirm that the United States remains a free country.
"Freedom of drinking should always be allowed, and it is only American to let a guy get drunk where he wants to get drunk," Harvey said.
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission sent a message to bar patrons last week.
TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights.
Folks, most of you know how decent, passionate, intelligent and dynamic Angel Shamaya is. He has committed himself to freedom, and I know of few people who are as dedicated to the cause of freedom as Angel. He is also a personal friend to many of us, and now he needs our help.
Today he was arrested, and he is currently in jail. Please read the link below and take a few minutes to write the judge on his behalf. I have National Drill this weekend, and I'm sending this from my hotel room. I won't be around much until Sunday night, but I'm counting on you guys to spread the news and help Angel through this. Please!
This link includes an address where to send your letters of reference. Please do so as quickly as you can!
Then, I urge you to pass this email to everyone you know. Post it on your websites and blogs, pass it on to fellow bloggers and help us ensure that this gets the widest possible dissemination. Yes, this is about freedom -- but right now, we need to ensure he is, first and foremost, released and that charges are dismissed, so please toe the line on this one. For Angel.
Thanks!
Nicki Fellenzer
The Supreme Court had put the Texas cases on the fast track, scheduling an unusually long two-hour afternoon session.
The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.
The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.
Police chief wants surveillance cameras in Houston apartments
HOUSTON Houston's police chief is suggesting putting surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets and even private homes.
Chief Harold Hurtt today said it's another way of combatting crime amid a shortage of officers.
Houston is dealing with too many police retirements, too few recruits and a population increase of about 150-thousand hurricane refugees.
Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf coast in late August.
Rita hit southeast Texas about one month later.
The Houston City Council is considering a public safety tax to pay for more officers.
Scott Henson with the American Civil Liberties Union calls Hurtt's proposal to require surveillance cameras as part of some building permits -- "radical and extreme."
Houston Mayor Bill White hasn't talked with Hurtt about his idea, but sees it as more of a "brainstorm" than a "decision."
HPD may add video cameras to its ranks
Feb. 16, 2006, 1:09PM
HPD may add video cameras to its ranks
Officer shortage leads city to look at surveillance of streets, malls — even some homes
By ALEXIS GRANT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Facing a shortage of police officers, Police Chief Harold Hurtt called Wednesday for a new type of patrol: surveillance cameras on downtown streets, apartment complexes and shopping malls — and in extreme situations, private homes.
"If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Hurtt told reporters.
His remarks came as the City Council approved a financial-incentive program to help the Houston Police Department recruit officers.
The department is struggling with a manpower shortage as well as a spike in violent crime. To supplement officers on patrol, HPD is considering installing five video cameras downtown, Hurtt said. He also suggested that new apartment complexes and malls be required, as part of the building-permit process, to provide security cameras.
And when asked whether the need for cameras extends to private homes, he said, "If they're putting a burden on the criminal justice system and cheating the other residents of Houston, yes."
He did not elaborate on how police would accomplish such surveillance or when it would be appropriate.
Source of funds
The downtown-camera project already has a group to fund it: the Houston Downtown Management District. Once the cameras are installed, the project would be carried out by HPD. Officers would monitor video feeds from a new storefront office planned for downtown.
"It's going to be a lot less expensive than having officers standing in those locations or responding to all those calls," said Hurtt, who wants to have the cameras up by the end of this year. "What we need is a combination of technology and human resources to deal with this issue."
The Downtown Management District, which works to improve the central business district using taxes paid by downtown property owners, has proposed five sites for cameras at intersections on and around Main. They are high-pedestrian-traffic, not high-crime, locations, said Bob Eury, executive director of the district.
Mayor must approve
"The goal is for people to feel safe," said Eury, who compared the cameras to those at shopping malls. "We're finding new ways to make it basically safer in reality and perception."
The program would cost tens of thousands of dollars, Eury said, declining to estimate more precisely since the project will be put out for bids.
The emphasis on new police and surveillance is part of the city's response to a recent spike in violent crime.
It was up 2.3 percent through November 2005, compared with the same period in 2004, though the overall crime rate was down 2.2 percent.
Mayor Bill White, who must approve the camera program for it to go into effect, said he had not yet discussed it with Hurtt.
"There's a legitimate right to privacy," White said. "On the other hand ... if there are some crime hot spots, then we want something where we don't have to have uniformed officers staring at a particular spot 24 hours a day."
The City Council's Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will consider the program Feb. 28.
Some privacy concerns
Some privacy advocates questioned whether apartment owners should be required to install cameras.
"It's radical and unheard-of," said Scott Henson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Texas Police Accountability Project.
But on city streets, it's a different story. Cities across the country, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Minneapolis, already use surveillance cameras in public places. In London, where cameras are commonplace, the technology helped police solve last year's transit bombings.
Technology isn't the only tool HPD is using to fight crime. The understaffed department hopes to entice experienced officers nationwide to work in Houston by offering a $7,000 bonus and increased pay under a program approved Wednesday by City Council. By hiring 700 new officers every year for the next three years, Houston would have 2.8 officers for every 1,000 people, the national average, instead of the current 2.2 per 1,000 people, Hurtt said.
Under the incentive program, HPD officers who have less than five years' experience will also get a pay raise.
