The Ashton Lundeby Case

William Grigg has a very thorough rundown of both sides of the Ashton Lundeby case, in which federal agents have been holding a 16 year old child without bail (flight risk? haha!) on a (as all federal juvenile cases are) sealed docket, evidently stemming from a bomb threat that was phoned in via VOIP, in another state. Initially it was reported that the case was being processed under provisions of the USA S.U.B.J., er P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, but in fact, this is unlikely, as there are plenty of old overreaching federal laws with which to denigrate children and other "threats." 

You should read it here.

Securing your Right to Free Speech

Summary and Fundimental Assertions:

1. Free Speech is a protected Natural Right, recognized in many places.
   
2. Alienated or marginalized individuals are able to coalesce into a cohesive movement through a common language of resistance
   
3. An open free speech area that promotes ideas on their own merit will aid in the development of a Manyspeak democracy
   
4. Free Speech frightens the State because it threatens the illusion and control of a unified Onespeak Democracy.
   
5. The state identifies, regulates and infringes free speech.
   
6. The state is very likely to continue to infringe further and further.
   
7. You can take measures now to protect yourself and your right to free speech. 
   
8. Further measures of protection should be developed and more regularly employed.
   
9. We are afforded, currently, a tremendous opportunity to unshackle our society from an engineered Onespeak Democracy
   
10. The challenges presented by a Manyspeak Democracy can be overcome by the restoration of Freedom and the Rule of Law. 
    

The Right To Free Speech:

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution reads as follows:

"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"

 

But congress has made laws, haven't they? From the Biden-Feinstein Act to bills that speak of "Homegrown Domestic Terrorists", they write bills, and vote, and appoint watchers and listeners, and our rights are continually infringed and eroded.

The Nineteenth article of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

But all around the world governments, from China to California, tell their people what information may and may not be imparted or received, dont they? And then they watch and listen to what is said, seeking out violations of their oh so important regulations, for "the good of the state."

Eric Holder, the Attorney General apointee of President Obama, the highest law enforcement office in the land, has stated that he does in fact support "Reasonable Restrictions on Free Speech" especially concerning that all too scary boogieman "Internet."

The Internet, as you will no doubt hear more and more in the coming months, is a danger to the status quo, the stability of systems, because it is essentially unregulated. What they wont say is that it is essentially equal, and it is this equality that poses the real risk. All forms of expression that can be used to impart information are to be feared by those who prefer safety and stability to freedom, and are in danger, but the Internet is a special case. While people like Chuck Schumer wont come out and say it, the reason he says that the Internet "should be regulated like pornography" is that the Internet has very little in the way of class or caste controls. As many members of blog sites, such as this one, show, Anyone Can Have a Voice. This is a scary idea for the controlling oligarchy, and if you contrast this with the historical emphasis on freedom of the press, which was intended to be in fact free; but only at a price, you will notice a stark difference, a difference with a huge and beneficial impact on democracy.

In 1791, at the adoption of the first amendment, "Freedom of the Press" only applied to a handful of pressowners, all well-to-do members of their communities, often businessmen with a variety of other investments. The ordinary citizen could not afford a printing press. In short, these were all men who were part of the system, and who, if they strayed from the system, had something the system could hold over them to bring them back into the fold.

Its true, people who weren't connected, or well-to-do, were still able to speak their minds and could often still hand letter handbills or letters and make their viewpoints know, but to who? a handful of bills or letters at most, and in this way, this freedom of speech, and of the press was protected, but always slanted through the screened voices of class separation. The mass influence of the modern press was unrivaled, even up into the technological age, where its class tradition was preserved in the new worlds of Radio and Television. As these new technologies developed, there arose private newsletters and shortwave radio stations, even small mail order video distributors, with alternative viewpoints, but still, the influence of the status quo, the system of the affluent, far exceeded the influential impact of a few people here and there who might receive such mailings, or such broadcasts, and so, while the movement of information was free, it was always essentially controlled, at least enough for a democratic society to maintain its equilibrium through majority influence and preserve the status quo. This is the essential point of maintaining mob rule, with the viewpoint that unbridled democracy is inherently instable, tumultuous and undesirable. In effect, the idea that The Masses can't be trusted.

The accessibility of the Internet, however, is quite different from the mass media concept of tiered information, as not only can anyone, at almost no charge, post their opinion, anyone can reach, and read it, and with exactly the same investment, is able to repost it, or forward it, if they so desire. In this way information is uncontrolled, and in fact viral. It is true that no one web journal article or independent web page is read by as many people as say the front page of CNN, so in a way that tiered propagation of viewpoints is maintained, even on new technology, but at the same time, one article, or idea can be spread from person to person, from web journal to web journal in a matter of minutes, often traveling further than a single article from a big news site ever could. This propagation of information, spreading like the branches on a tree, is what has made the Internet a powerful tool for the conveyance of ideas.

For the first time in history, information has the potential to be vetted entirely on its merits, and not on the merits of the person or agency providing the information.

If you would, consider the following:

"Colonial rebellions throughout the modern world have been acts

of shared political imagination. Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to

trust other unhappy people, protest remains a local affair easily silenced by

traditional authority. Usually, however, a moment arrives when large numbers of

men and women realize for the first time that they enjoy the support of

strangers, ordinary people much like themselves who happen to live in distant

places and whom under normal circumstances they would never meet. It is an

intoxicating discovery. A common language of resistance suddenly opens to those

who are most vulnerable to painful retribution the possibility of creating a new

community. As the conviction of solidarity grows, parochial issues and

aspirations merge imperceptibly with a compelling national agenda which only a

short time before may have been the dream of only a few. For many American

colonists this moment occurred late in the spring of 1774." -- T.H. Breen, The

Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence,

Oxford University Press, 2004, p.1.

As information and opinion spreads, it can be latched upon by unhappy portions of the masses, who, then, are no longer isolated from the rest of society, and inevitably, through either isolation or re-assimilation, neutralized as mere interruptions of the status quo. Instead, unhappy portions can gather and form their own shadow societies, people with like values or beliefs can gather virtually or physically and reinforce those beliefs and values together, as they communicate and interact separately from the masses that share the beliefs and values pushed down by the tiered and controlled media, society at large. This shared political imagination can spontaneously, organically bloom into a societal revolution of sorts, with a definite impact upon democracy. Just in recent times, i can think of one such "revolution" that did, in fact, have a definite impact on the last presidential campaign, though that movement was only in its infancy.

This sort of organic democracy, is, and always has been a challenge to the authority of the status quo state. As society evolves, an autocratic or unresponsive government will always lag behind the will of the people, which it tries to combat by controlling that evolution. A society that can evolve in many different directions simultaneously is a logistical nightmare for any controlling statist, and therefor, a threat. 

And so, these status quo statists, believe that they must fight this unstable and dangerous force. They pass laws outlawing certain types of speech, they first illegally, and then under protection of law, set up processes and agencies to monitor 100% of the available information, building databases and launching investigations into those that originated it. Examples, or signals of this impending choke hold already abound, both to frighten people into "watching what they say" and to punish those who might originate such language of resistance; ideologically, or through action. 

In 1996 the Communications Decency Act was signed into law, severely restricting online speech that could potentially be seen by a minor – which, of course was argued, is almost all of online speech. (Crying "its for the children!")

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms, and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet.

The Biden/Fienstein Act made it illegal to instruct anyone how to build explosives or other dangerous weapons on the Internet (older pages say to boil bleach outside and add salt to supersaturation) 

Jim Bell has of this year served over 10 years in a federal prison for writing a single article he posted to the net. The original article, entitled "Assassination Politics" was pulled from the internet, and for many years the government forced other servers to remove copies of the article, but soon realized they were fighting a losing battle, and instead creating much more interest, through its big brother censorship tactics, in what was originally an obscure thought exercises in free market impacts on government corruption. Today a simple google search will bring up hundreds of copies. 

Sherman Austin, an 18 year old kid in L.A. was arrested and convicted, not for writing anything, but for merely hosting content on his server, "raisethefist.com" content that the government didn't agree with, and he was convicted of "cyberterrorism" the first such case tried under the S.U.B.J.errr... P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

And its not just Political activists that have been targeted or silenced.

A January 4, 2007 restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein forbade a large number of activists in the psychiatric survivors movement from posting links on their websites to leaked documents which purportedly show that Eli Lilly and Company intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of Zyprexa. The Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed this as prior restraint on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets. The First Amendment Concerns in this case were dismissed by the appeal court.

The authors of PGP (pretty good privacy) a secure encryption scheme for email, were involved in a multi-year court battle over their work, which the government argued could thwart their attempts to secure evidence or perform proper surveillance, under the assertion that encryption was a weapon, and subject to the same controls they hold over missile guidance systems.

This tendency toward increased regulation of content and accessibility to the Internet shows no signs of slowing, nor is it likely that it will, as it is not in the state's interest, the US congress has proposed legislation to ban access of all social networking sites from schools and public libraries, the Deleting Online Predators Act, and numerous bills have been proposed to introduce FCC style regulation of the Internet as a whole, under the misnamed "Net Neutrality" movement, and more recently there has been a number of vocal proponents, like Chuck Shumer, for regulating political speech under the guise of "Fairness Doctrines" As the state marches on with these limits, it becomes ever more clear that, if we wish to retain this right to free speech, not just in private conversations, but in the public forum of the world wide web, we must guard both against laws that would give watchers more power, and that we must guard the ability to defeat the detection of the watchers entirely.

As the measures taken against free speech on the Internet become more totalitarian in nature, those who wish to preserve those rights must become more defiant of those infringements, while protecting themselves from being targeted or eliminated for what they say, believe, or read online. While no measure of security is invulnerable, there are many common techniques any advocate or supporter of real change must familiarize themselves with, and depending on their personal circumstances and content, begin using even now, as a small measure of protection, and more importantly, to raise awareness of what really is going on behind the scene with big brother.

It is in this vein that i have introduced a series of articles on "Some Semblance of Privacy." The first article, on creating a portable thumbdrive with a browser that disables some tracking scripting as well as anonymize the orgin of browser traffic, is already up. This double layer of protection, in both the drive being usable from anywhere, as well as the traffic being rerouted to various secure proxies around the world, is a good start, but we will need to know more than just how to view a webpage securely. We might need an encrypted Chat, or Anonymous Email, or... and the list goes on. As time permits, I will add to it, but it is a good starting point, from a practical application standpoint, and something you can do today.

• Some Semblance of Privacy (in browsing) 
  

In the future it is possible that we will need something like public decentralized servers to host dissident content or discussions, and i hope that someone is working now on a simple user friendly solution to that now. The Freenet Project is an excellent example of uncensorable internet, but it isnt particularly user friendly, and doesn't work for static reference materials, as all content expires and is eventually purged from the network. It is still, however, important that we continue to work to protect the opportunity provided to us by continued development of the electronic networks, as it is the last great hope we have, and the best chance an ordinary person has to help save the world, so to speak. 

 

It was thought at one point that the technology of mass media would put an end to ideological factionalism, or Manyspeak, by influencing the very thoughts of the Masses through the uniformity of information and presentation of values, or Onespeak. Aldous Huxley's speech at Berkley in 1962 is the penultimate illustration of this concept, which he called "The Ultimate Revolution" (listen to it, if you have never heard of it, and the same goes for Brave New World)

"It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this, that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy, who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude. This seems to me the ultimate malevolent revolution... This is a problem which has interested me for many years and about which I wrote, 30 years ago, a fable Brave New World which is essentially the account of a society making use of all the devices at that time available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible, making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, so to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some kind of a scientific caste system. Since then I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay that a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them 30 years ago have come true or seem in process of coming true. A number of techniques about which I talked seem to be here already, and that there seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of ultimate revolution, this method of control by which people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs which by any decent standard they ought not to enjoy. I mean the enjoyment of servitude." -- Aldous Huxley

But people can only be made to love an identical servitude if they are given identical "facts" about reality, and identical experiences to back them up. Alternatively, they can be given different forms of servitude if they divided into castes and kept seperate, as they were in Brave New World, and given seperate "facts" for each caste, with seperate experience to reinforce each of the respective facts about what constitutes reality and propriety.

 Once individuals are free to discover their own facts, and share "facts" and experiences between classes or castes, the illusion begins to waver, the un-uniform nature of reality becomes evident and this type of control is nearly impossible. Instead of adhering to one of the roles set forth for them by society at large, individuals again begin to form their own roles, and reach out to strangers for support, discovering that common language of resistance, outside of the structures set up by society at large. This creates friction in the well oiled machine of public relations democracy, and does in fact result in a democracy that is inherently instable, tumultuous and undesirable.

That is why, as a society, as we continue to develop, we must not only rely on the ideals of democracy, as the more free we become with information and comunication, ideals, experience, and growing understanding of the nature of reality, the harder uniform stable democracy can be. This is exactly why these statis quo statists are afraid of these developments. As Nigel Lawson, former UK finance minister, recently wrote:

"Democracy is nowadays a greatly over-hyped blessing, particularly by Americans, who have no pre-democratic history to provide a perspective. It is clearly less important than freedom, the rule of law and constitutional government, which ideally it should entrench, but may well not do so."

It is exactly with the understanding of the dangers and instabilities of democracy, that documents such as the Bill of Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were drafted, so that democracy could flourish, but be kept from destroying itself. It is through the rule of law, and the aportionment of power among people that mob rule and the resultant chaos of factionalism must be kept in check, as democracy itself can be transformed from a fight between factions over what beliefs or ideals can be forced upon others, into a discussion of what beliefs or ideals we all hold in common. It is most likely that this discussion, far from the partisan bickering we see today, will show that we do, in fact, hold the common ideals of Freedom, the Rule of Law, and a constitutionaly protective structure of government. Any challenges to order presented by factionalism or seperate beleifs will be overcome by embracing those beleifs we hold in common.

This great discussion can only be begun in a public and equalitive venue, and it is up to us to guard the one we have now, even as we begin to develop new ones, as this may be the most important discussion in the future of our society.

Libertas Quae Sera Tamen

Pete Seeger's 90th Birthday

What are your kids going to learn in school tomorrow?

Even Judges are Confused

As to how exactly the Rule of Law gave way to the Rule of Men.

Passages like this one:

'An enactment in which section 31 (6) and (7) of the Criminal Law Act (1977) (pre-1949) enactments produced the same fine of maximum fine for different convictions shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if there were omitted from it so much of it as before 29th July, 1977, had the effect that a person guilty of an offence under it was liable on summary conviction to a fine or maximum fine less than the highest fine or maximum fine to which he would have been liable if his conviction had satisfied the conditions required for the imposition of the highest fine or maximum fine.' (Criminal Justice Act, section 38, sub-section 4)

...have British Judges wondering:

So, yet again, the courts are faced with a sample of the deeply confusing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the satellite Statutory Instruments to which it is giving stuttering birth. The most inviting course for this Court to follow, would be for its members, having shaken their heads in despair to hold up their hands and say: "the Holy Grail of rational interpretation is impossible to find". But it is not for us to desert our judicial duty, however lamentably others have legislated. But, we find little comfort or assistance in the historic canons of construction for determining the will of Parliament which were fashioned in a more leisurely age and at a time when elegance and clarity of thought and language were to be found in legislation as a matter of course rather than exception.

...what exactly they are supposed to make of the reams upon reams of rubbish legislators spew forth every year, when what they really would like to do is rule cases fairly, while relying on the order of law.

Read the rest here, being sure not to miss some of the very thoughtful comments, like this one:

[...]One day you are innocently reading your Bible and staying out everybody else's way. The next, Janet Reno's goons are using a tank to break into your property with guns blazing and burn down your home with your children inside. And then, to make sure you get the message, you end up on trial -- not Janet Reno.

The end result of that kind of behavior is a spreading contempt for the Rule of Law -- which leaves us with a non-sustainable society. The current insanity will end. Unfortunately, it will end in tears.

In today's legal world, Ignorance of the law is not a defence, it is a presupposed fact, for all parties involved.

Targeted For Termination - Political Assasination in the Twenty-First Century

Joint Force Quarterly has recently published an article by Colonel Peter M. Cullen, the Staff Judge Advocate, 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, on the legality and suitibility of military and covert use of "Targeted Killing" against non-state actors. Targeted Killing is a euphemism for Assasination used in a military context, though the term "Extrajudicial Punishment" is also used, mostly by critics. The process of targeted killing was pioneered in modern warfare by Israel, (of which much has been written) but has been adopted to some measure by the united states since 2001, primarily outside of the realm of public scruitiny.

In the article Col. Cullen states:

This article examines the legality, morality, and potential efficacy of a U.S. policy of targeted killing...

The conclusion is that, in spite of the genuine controversy surrounding this subject, a carefully circumscribed policy of targeted killing can be a legal, moral, and effective tool in a counterterror campaign. (emphasis mine)

While the United States has not explicitly acknowledged pursuing a policy of targeted killing, insights can be gleaned from published national security documents and official statements that shed light on U.S. willingness to employ targeted killing as a tactic in the campaign against terror.

This was most recently demonstrated in January 2007 by the use of an Air Force AC–130 Spectre gunship to target suspected al Qaeda terrorists in Somalia. Based on publicly available information, if the capture of designated terrorists is not deemed feasible, the United States is prepared to use Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or U.S. military assets to target them in lethal operations.8 In addition to the recent operations in Somalia, targeted killings attributed to the United States since 2001 have included attacks in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan and in Yemen.These actions resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians,

The campaign against transnational terrorism represents a new paradigm with which international law has yet to come to terms. Public international law, accustomed to regulating actions by states, is in uncharted territory when dealing with nonstate actors and their involvement in the changing face of war.

The case for targeted killing must demonstrate that the United States is authorized to use force against terrorists in compliance with the law of conflict management, or jus ad bellum, and that the manner in which targeted killings are executed complies with the law on the conduct of war, or jus in bello.

Article 2 of the United Nations (UN) Charter outlaws the use of aggressive force by a state in its international relations. One recognized exception is a state’s inherent right of self-defense as found in Article 51 of the UN Charter. This authorizes a state to use military force to defend itself against an armed attack and the continuing threat of such an attack.13 The limitations on this right of self-defense are that the force used to defend against the attack must be both “necessary” and “proportionate.”

Clearly, al Qaeda’s actions on 9/11 constituted an armed attack on America, and its subsequent actions and statements confirm that it represents a continuing and serious threat to the United States against which America is entitled to defend itself through the use of force, specifically the targeting of key al Qaeda personnel. It has been argued that the right of selfdefense only applies to interstate conflicts and not to a conflict with a transnational terrorist organization such as al Qaeda and its associated movements (AQAM).

This textual interpretation of the UN Charter, however, is overcome by customary international law, which recognizes a state’s inherent right of self defense. This permits the United States to use force against nonstate actors such as transnational terrorists. It is a right that has not been challenged by the UN Security Council. Since AQAM are a continuing threat, the targeted killing of their key personnel is a military necessity to prevent future attacks. It is not designed to be punitive in nature or serve as a reprisal. This tactic is also a proportionate, or reasonable, response given the serious threat that AQAM pose to America. Article 2 of the UN Charter also requires the United States to respect the sovereignty of other nations. If America wishes to conduct a targeted killing on the sovereign territory of another nation, it must obtain the permission of that government.

Legality of the Tactic of Targeted Killing (Jus in Bello). Although the United States is authorized to use force in self-defense against AQAM for as long as they remain a threat, each specific use of force, such as a targeted killing, must comply with the law on the conduct of war. The primary sources of jus in bello are found in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977.

Application of the law of war is triggered if a state of “armed conflict” exists between America and AQAM. Treaties do not define this term. It is broader than “war,” which is limited to interstate conflict. Commentators recommend looking to the nature, intensity, and duration of the violence to make this determination.

Even if U.S. targeted killing of terrorists is legal under international law, it is also necessary to determine its legality under U.S. domestic law. Some commentators have pointed to Executive Order 12333 and its prohibition on assassination. Although this executive order regulating intelligence activities does have legal effect, it does not apply to actions in time of war or to the Armed Forces. Accordingly, it does not impact military operations that target terrorist operatives outside the United States.

While Executive Order 12333 presents no legal impediment to targeted killings executed by the Armed Forces, it could impact such operations conducted by CIA personnel, who are considered noncombatants under the law of war.

In the context of the armed conflict between the United States and AQAM, this means that active members of AQAM are combatants and may be lawfully targeted at will. Given the status of AQAM operatives as combatants, the United States is under no obligation to attempt to arrest individuals before targeting them. This combatant status remains in effect for the duration of the armed conflict unless the individual takes some action to renounce this status. This analysis raises the question of how active members of a terrorist organization are properly identified.

Unlike combatants in international armed conflicts, they are not required to display “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” Nor should their combatant status be limited to the time that they have a weapon in their hands. The answer lies in designating as combatants those members of the terrorist organization who have taken an active part in hostilities.

Proponents of this position argue that this status is established if the individual takes a direct part in hostilities by planning, directing, or executing attacks or “if there is other evidence of his or her combatant role.” Such evidence will be primarily derived from intelligence information, often supplemented by the statements and admissions of the individuals themselves.

A difficult issue is whether an individual who provides purely financial support for terrorist activities can be targeted as a combatant. Given the critical enabling role of financing in terrorist activities, such individuals should be viewed as having an active role in hostilities

According to the magazine: Joint Force Quarterlyis published for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, to promote understanding of the integrated employment of land, sea, air, space, and special operations forces. The journal focuses on joint doctrine, integrated operations, coalition warfare, contingency planning, military operations conducted across the spectrum of conflict, and joint force development.

The article, (which no longer seems to availiable online) has much more to say, and I'd recomend it as a frightening bed time story to any of you, if you can find it. Email me and ill send it to you, or call up the chairman himself, im sure he has lots of copies. (dont you wish you had a magazine published just for you? and its a pretty, full colour magazine, no newsletter here...)

There is plenty of room for concern here, even if you dont include the moral implications of robot armies, starting with the intended targets. While the article itself is very specific in using the term al Qaeda and its Associated Movements (AQAM), none of the "decentralized" network structure of "al Qaeda" is easily identifiable (hence the use of the word decentralized) and none of the "Associated Movements" are defined at all. What he really means to say (in the context of US Military policy) is "Terrorist!", that infamous and vague term that is so loved by totalitarian statists worldwide.

Noted comentarian Kenneth Anderson states that "...terrorist groups can be strategically understood as a guerrilla organization engaged in a strategy of logistical raiding – in which civilian morale and resulting manipulation of political will is the logistical target" "Manipulation of political will", of course, being the goal of any political movement worldwide, period, and any organization that either arises organically, or outside of state influence, will qualify as a "guerrilla" in nature. Anything between the two is simply a matter of, well, "logistics." Definitions such as these are designed to actually point to any one person, rather, by design, they are inclusionary terms, drawn up so as to provide a label that can be used to justify an action against any opposing force. Now consider that they added to this inclusionary term, which essentially says "any member of a non-state political movement" and turned it into "any financial or material supporter of a member of a non-state political movement." So basicly, Either you sit in front of the TV and do nothing, hold no political goals, and dont get involved with anyone who does have political goals, or Whammo! Its a hellfire missile for you.

Of course, in the past (the fairly recent past, i might add) it has been consistently held that no further protections are granted to members of these vast qualifying terms, even if only suspected, based on their nationality or citizenship, including one particularily american in nature. As of yet, no legal ruling, or even official position from the white house, has reversed this, and in a sobering essay published by Foreign Policy, former Bush administration National Security Council member Philip Zelikow points out that there simply is no legal firewall protecting U.S. citizens from the torture methods used against foreign terrorist suspects.

None. At all.

As such, advocating the legality of mass assassination, outside of the rules of either law, or war, in such a perversion of intention to justify the means is a dangerous possition to take, as if it can be applied so liberally over there, it can be applied just as easily here. But even if it was only intended for targets in Iraqi and Afghanistani militia's, and not against the American variety; Whats the difference?

An excelent, if older, article tackled the subject of the propiety of full utilization of technology against an organic militia movement such as what we see in Iraq and afghanistan. You can, and should, read it here, but here is an excerpt:

The US military has been fighting a war against the people of Iraq. The Iraqi “militias” are directly equivalent to the well regulated militia that the Founding Fathers discussed as the last line of defense against government oppression - US government oppression. The fact that this oppression is occurring in Iraq rather than on US soil does not change the role of guns as tools of self-determination. The Second Amendment is guarantee of a right, but that right is based in observable reality. It is operating in Iraq today, and the streets run with blood as people exercise their right to die and kill for what they believe, however misguided it may be.

The Iraqi people are demonstrating the Second Amendment.

The US must not develop the ability to win in future wars against populations like we see in Iraq if it wishes to remain a good nation.

The focus of the article is very different, focusing on technology rather than tactics, but the end conclusion is the same:

If it can happen over there, it can happen here.

And further; I'd say that any country that can reasonably justify the targeted annihilation of an organic idealogical political movement, at will, outside of these guidlines of law or active combat, within its enterpretation of propriety, legality, and morality, will be incapable of supporting any organic political movement of its own.

A good nation will always require the ability to adapt beyond its established systemic doctrines in order to cope with its generational and situational challenges, past examples, of course, ranging from secession to the civil rights movement. The key phrase to consider here is proportionality. While any system, of any sort, will always, naturally, suppress any challenges or adaptations to it structure, an unjust system will act ill proportionally to any challenges, oversuppressing the direct challenges, without alleviating the underlying situational or generational changes that were precursive of those direct challenges, in effect creating a powderkeg that will, at some further point explode in some other, much more violent way, instead of resisting proportionaly and assimilating those changes neccisary to establish ballance.

According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama is currently reviewing a potential escalation of exactly the type of "Targeted Killing" we are talking about here, in the tribal lands of pakistan, with concerns that it will further destablize the already tumultuous pakistani government, and justly so, as years of US puppetry in the region have left it with little trust in its own non representative state, which is now divided upon invisible lines into two countries within one land. Attacking the rural of the two will only create more outrage against the official government and create further challenges to its authority, or even its desirability. Most of these missions will be flown from the pilots complex that was built in the center green of CIA headquarters, again, the legality of which is not a position that even the bold and hawkish article presented here supports, but seems unchalleneged by the White House.

As this month was the deadliest month in Iraq in over a year, you would think this sort of pressure = escalation might be better understood, but this article clearly shows that at least some of the people involved, are absolutely unconcerned, and would seek to drive us right to the edge of a terrible and tumultuous robot war against any and all dissenting voices, no matter the price to our liberty or freedoms.

Compare this to the much more logical warnings against secret wartime assassination and covert war outside the legal protections of war in J. Kinsella's Rise of the Shadow Warriors.

And then, consider if you have ever belonged to, listened to, or supported in any way, a grassroots, or non state sanctioned, movement, that sought to challenge or influence the existing political will?

Tempus Fugit

Some Semblence of Privacy (in Browsing.)

In a more technical than political vein, I'd like to document how i have created a semi private browsing experience i can take with me, use from nearly anywhere, and then have little fear of finding my name on some new-fangled Homegrown Terrorist list, or some other governmental nonsense, for something google pre-cached, or that came up in a pop up window. This also has the very much wanted side effect of blocking most ads, and seems all around like a handy thing to have.

This solution uses Google Chrome, the newest browser on the scene, but you can in fact use any browser that you can run as a standalone, ie; without having installed directly on the computer.

Before we get started, go ahead and visit whatismyip.com and make a note of what it shows as your ip.

I started with an ordinary USB Thumb Drive, which these days you can pick up for nearly nothing at any electronics store. 

I then reassigned the drive letter, so that no matter what computer we end up plugging our drive into, that letter will not be in use, and our later references to it can remain static. If you want to skip this, it doesn't effect the functionality at all.

Reassigning the drive letter:
This is done (at least in XP) by 

1)going to Start>Settings>Control Panel>Administrative Tools>Computer Management.

2)Then double click on Disc Management under the Storage heading in the Left Pane. 

3)Locate the USB Drive 

4)Rightclick on it and select 'Change Drive Letter and Path' This will allow you to set the drive letter to something specific, Y: in this example.

Install Chrome Portable:
Opening the drive, I installed Chrome Portable, which you can download from HERE. You can download the initial file to anywhere, it doesn't extract anything until you run it. When prompted, ask it to extract all files to root of your Y: drive (again, if that's the drive letter you chose) This will extract all your needed files into a folder named "Y:/Chrome-Portable-blah-blah-blahXXX" Go ahead and rename this folder to just "Chrome", for ease in remembering later.

Running Chrome:

Thats all you need to go ahead and start using the internet's newest and most formidable browser, with its own built in 'Incognito Mode' (just right click on any link and ask it to "Open in Incognito Window" and it will then not keep any privacy info like cookies or history entries when that window closes) from any windows pc with a usb port, just by going into your "Chrome" folder and running ChromeLoader.exe. 

But we want to go a step further and anonymize it. There are many software solutions out there but i went ahead and chose Privoxy (which blocks certain types of content, including ads, and if properly configured, tracking scripts embedded into some webpages) in combination with Tor (which makes it very difficult to tell exactly where a particular electronic packet of data came from, or is going, let alone, who is responsible for originating it.)  These two, excellent pieces of software which you can obtain, and learn much about at http://www.privoxy.org/and http://www.torproject.org/will do us quite nicely, in our quest for some semblance of privacy, on the internet.

Since both of these are designed really to run on only one machine after they are installed, we are going to cheat a little to get it to run smoothly hand in hand with our thumbdrive portable version of Chrome. That is where PortableTor comes in, fantastically.

The application, which will fit nicely on our thumbdrive, is a tweaked bundle of the TorVidalia package and the proxy-server Privoxy. Once you extract PortableTor and fire it up, it automatically launches the two apps and connects to the Tor network. From there out all you have to do is make sure that your web browser is configured to use a proxy (we will get to that in a bit) and all your traffic will be sent on a privacy-producing trip through the many layers of the Tor network. You can download it here or by navigating through the PortableTor Homepage to make sure you have the most recent version.

The file you download is just a self extracting archive, so just extract its contents onto the thumbdrive. It extracts its own folder, so the root of the drive is fine. 

If you like, just go into that folder, "PortableTor" and run PortableTor.exe, it should pop up with a window that shows itself connecting to the Tor network, and finally, that it successfully connected. Pretty easy, right?

Well, not so fast, as by default, Chrome will still just connect directly to Internet content, and give us all away, instead of connecting to the Tor Network and anonymizing us. We need to configure Chrome to use the proxy we have just set up and started.

Configure Chrome to Use a Proxy*:

1) open the Chrome browser from Y:/Chrome/ChromeLoader.exe
2) Click on the Wrench icon in Chrome in the upper right corner
3) Choose "options"
4) Open the tab titled "Under the Hood"
3.) Underneath the Network title, select "Change proxy settings"
4.) A windows box pops up, click the box that says "LAN settings" 
5.) Check off “Proxy settings” or "Use a proxy server for your lan" depending on if you are running XP or Vista and in the address setting add "127.0.0.1" and in the port "8118" (without the quotes.
6.) If you have the option, you can also check off “Bypass proxy for local settings”
7.) Click “Ok”, close chrome and restart it.

Now that is the slightly disappointing part, as you may not be able to do this on every computer, depending on permissions, and it has to be done on every computer you want to comandere anonymously, be it the local library, work, or any number of other public accesses that one would use for completely secure or sensitive browsing. 

Fortunately, we only have to do it once for a personal computer, as theres no harm in using a proxy (Privoxy) all the time, even if we dont want to use our anonymizer (Tor.) Why wouldnt we want to use our anonymizer, you ask? well, secure practices are never without their downsides, and in this case, its speed. While the Tor network isnt tortoise slow, you will probably notice the difference, and as it relies entirely on private volunteer servers, we really cant complain. 

Besides, as my friend Vistonie says, you have to slow down, if you want to be sneaky.

With that done, you can now test your new found security by visiting either one of these two sites: Whatismyip.com and https://check.torproject.org/

  the first one should display something other than your actual IP, and the second should congratulate you on using Tor. 

Now you can take your drive anywhere, and browse securely:

1)Plug drive into USB

2)Open the drive in My Computer

3)Go to the TorPortable folder and run TorPortable.exe

4)Go to the Chrome folder and run ChromeLoader.exe

5)Follow the proxy configuration above (you may want to keep it in a text file on the drive)

Welcome to the privacy elite of the internet.

If it didnt work, go back to the proxy configuration in Chrome, and make sure you configured it properly, or read any error messages you find.

Tor has alot of options, which are well covered on the Tor page, but works pretty well right out of the box. I will mention one option, that is of some interest, is the setting up of your own Tor relay, not only is plain nice to give back to the people who are helping you, its a good practice, as a particular packet of information, if ever traced back to your computer, network traffic will show little to no forensic evidence that it was requested by your computer. Plausible Deniability is the word of the day.

The main Tor window, after showing a successful connection, can be closed, which doesn't really close it, but instead sends it to the system tray, in the form of a small green onion icon. right next to it is a blue P icon, that is Privoxy.

If this is your first introduction to Tor, here are a couple links with a decent overview: how to browse the internet anonymously with Tor or this guide to anonymous web browsing for a great overview of how Tor protects your privacy.

There are also a lot of individual settings you can look at, and customize at will. Browse away anonymously anywhere you like, any computer running windows that you have access to.

When you are done, you will need to remove the proxy settings you added, essentially a reversal of what you did earlier.

1) Chrome should already be open, if not open it as before.
2) Click on the Wrench icon in Chrome in the upper right corner
3) Choose "options"
4) Open the tab titled "Under the Hood"
5) Underneath the Network title, select "Change proxy settings"
6) A windows box pops up, click the box that says "LAN settings" 
7) uncheck  “Proxy settings” or "Use a proxy server for your lan" depending on if you are running XP or Vista.
8) Exit Chrome
9) Rightclick on the Green Onion in the systray and select "Exit"

10)Rightclick on the Blue P in the systray and select "Exit"

11) Remove your thumbdrive, and make a stealthy exit, knowing you have just pulled one over on big brother...

Remember, we only have rights as long as we exercise them, and we must, frequently, if we wish to keep them.

Ill add an update when i can make this a little faster.

Nordyke and The Nunchukas

I stated in my discussion of the 9th circuit's Nordyke ruling, the incorporation language held there may be extended to other states of the plaintiff files an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States, and if the court decided to hear it, but it appears that we may not have to wait that long.

From SCOTUSblog:

Somewhat surprisingly, the case now most likely to reach the Court first on that issue will not be about guns, but about “chuka sticks.”  Still, those are treated, at least by New York state, as a personal weapon, and the legislature there has banned even their possession in the home.  Formally named a “nunchaku,” a chuka is two pieces of rigid material joined by a thong or rope.  The legislature found they could be used to injure — or even kill — someone by striking them or choking them with one of the sticks while holding the other.  But martial artists also use them in training exercises.

A Port Washington, N.Y., lawyer, James M. Maloney, was arrested for having a chuka stick in his home nearly nine years ago. His case has become a significant test of whether he had a Second Amendment right to have that weapon for personal use. 

Maloney’s petition, his lawyer wrote, will argue “that the individual right conferred by the Second Amendment should be held incorporated against the states,” through the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Second Circuit, in a decision Jan. 28 (Circuit docket 07-581), dismissed Maloney’s challenge to the New York law.

That conclusion, however, conflicts directly with the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision last Monday in Nordyke, et al., v. King, et al. (Circuit docket 07-15763).   That is the sort of conflict that can lead the Supreme Court to step in to resolve the dispute. If the lawyers in the Nordyke case pursue an early appeal to the Court (a decision not yet made), both cases could be up for consideration together by the Justices.

[...]

The Maloney case on “chukas” — and perhaps the Nordyke case on guns, as well — could be ready for the Justices’ action early in the new Term starting in October.

This is particularily interesting, as not only did i bring up Nunchukas in my original discussion of Heller, but because i happen to know that in Arizona, which is in the 9th circuit, there is an outright ban on these particular weapons of ninja self defense. 

So, AZ, do we move now for the restoration of rights involved here, as the 9th circuits holding of incorporation in this district already primes the ground for the dismissal of that unjust law rooted in racist anti-turtle history, do we wait to see if a Nordyke appeal tosses out the incorporation talk or reinforces it,  or if the supreme court hears Maloney and makes it abundantly clear that not only do such radical awesome tiny pieces of wood connected with a little chain not only qualify as "arms" but that the second amendment is in fact held to be incorporated against the states and their status, in all cases, should be legal? 

What to do?

Untill y'all figure it out, ill be at the dojo, getting ready to take on the Foot Clan in the open again, its been rough having to hide my  quest all these years...