Could the Tsarnaev Brothers Have Been Stopped?

Tamerlan Tsarnaev (l) and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Source: Business Insider)

When the news came out shortly after the marathon bombings that Moscow had contacted Washington about Tamerlan Tsarnaev's 2011 trip to the Caucasus region in Russia, I wanted to wait for more information to surface because of the very tense history between Chechnya and Moscow. Vladimir Putin's history with Chechen separatists is long and incredibly complex, to say the least. All of this is a large grain of salt when it comes to Russian intelligence on any Caucasus separatist movement and alleged members.

On top of this, the separatist movements found in the North Caucasus region of Russia have one enemy in their eyes: Russia. It makes no sense, as some were quick to rush to postulate in the aftermath of the Marathon Bombings, that the Chechen separatist movement would attack American targets. There's a litany of reasons why this is true, but the main is that it makes no sense to attack a country who is usually at diplomatic odds with the country you view as your sworn enemy. It'd be like Puerto Rico attacking Saudi Arabia because they want to be independent from the United States.

F.B.I. Botches Anthrax Investigation; Competent Enough to Protect America?

Forget about the politicization of 9/11 and the scare tactics thrown around the past seven years. The one thing that you should be afraid of is the absolute ineptitude of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. In a New York Times article today, the story of Dr. Bruce E. Ivins - the Army scientist who killed himself as the media reported that the feds were "closing in" on him in the anthrax investigation - shows some serious flaws in the society of G-Men.

To begin with, the media's assertion that the F.B.I. was closing in on Ivins is false. That term conjures up dramatic images of a SWAT team surrounding a house as the suspect kills himself right before they break down the door. In reality, Ivins was weeks away (at least) from an arrest, as it is now reported that the grand jury who was hearing evidence for the case still had weeks to go before coming to any type of conclusion (and that conclusion could have possibly been not to indict). But not as many people are going to read a story without copious amounts of ex nihilo drama.

Back to the Times article: a source who claims to know a lot about the investigation has said that the evidence that was being rounded up against Ivins was circumstantial (such as he and 10 other people had access to the anthrax spores that were used in the attacks, prosecutors had no proof that he was even in the same town as the mailboxes from which the anthrax letters were sent, etc.). In other words, the prosecutor would have to be very charasmatic to win a case if this was the best evidence that the government could come up with.

Now many would say, "But they had evidence that he may have done it, and if the almost 7 year investigation turned this up, then the guy had to have done it; they must have ruled out all other suspects." If this were the first life that the F.B.I. ruined in this investigation, I would be inclined to lean in the direction that Ivins was guilty. The fact of the matter is, however, that the government really screwed up this investigation from day one. The original focus of the investigation - Dr. Steven Hatfill - has not only been cleared in the case (a federal judge who oversaw Hatfill's civil complaint against the government stated that there was not "a scintilla of evidence" linking Hatfill to the crimes) was given $2.82 million up front and receives another $105,000 a year until 2028 (paid for, by the way, by you the taxpayer). If they were so wrong about Hatfill, why should we believe them about Ivins?

Additionally, many people close to the investigation have criticized it since Ivins' death. Tom Daschle has said "Given the fact that they already paid someone else $5 million for the mistakes they must have made gives you some indication of the overall caliber and quality of the investigation." Other aspects - specfically the gathering of evidence and the constant surveillance of Dr. Ivins - have been criticized as well.

All of this brings up a very important question: if the feds cannot even solve a case involving American citizens who work for the Army allegedly sending out anthrax through the USPS, how are they supposed to prevent terror attacks? This investigation has lasted 7 years and is one of the costliest in the Bureau's history, and all they have to show for it is a $5.82 million civil settlement, a doctor who killed himself, and circumstantial evidence linking anyone to the crime. Are these really the people defending our nation from global terrorism?

This whole case is sad: it is sad for victims of the anthrax and their families , for Dr. Hatfill and his family, and for Dr. Ivins and his family. It is also sad that the F.B.I. wanted to pin someone down for this so badly that they threw out detective work and went on one false hunch and another potential (and fatal) false hunch. If this is the agency charged with preventing a terror attack on domestic soil, I certainly hope they get their act together. Peace.

Photos - Dr. Bruce E. Ivins (www.nytimes.com), Dr. Steven Hatfill, the man the feds first "closed in" on (msnbc.msn.com), An anthrax clean-up demonstration on Capitol Hill (www.daylife.com)

Next Time You're on the Phone, Say Hi to the Government

The Senate yesterday took a massive step backwards when it comes to civil liberties in this country. In a 68-29 vote, the upper house of Congress chose to reject amendments to a new domestic spying bill that would have restricted the government's ability to tramp all over your civil liberties. It's one thing when legislation like this is proposed directly after 9/11 when patriotism and the fear of terrorism has gripped the nation, but we are over 6 years removed from 9/11. The government has offered little to no evidence that the Patriot Act prevented any type of terrorist attack on this country, so why do we need to essentially expand upon it?

One of the more contentious parts of the bill is the fact that is grants legal immunity to those phone companies such as AT&T and Verizon who illegally gave phone records to the government sans warrant (as a refresher, here is a link to the 4th Amendment). The New York Times article I cite (CNN ran nothing on the story as of 2:30 pm today, deciding that whatever Roger Clemens put in his ass or wondering if anyone gave a shit about the Oscars was more important) says that those who supported immunity for the phone companies said that the companies gave up the records out of patriotism. With such logic, doing anything that the president does not want you to do (like opposing the war, calling for equality for gays, etc.) is unpatriotic. That is a highly dangerous way of thinking (I could point you in the direction of a dictator from Germany a while back who used the guise of patriotism to do horrific things). Obviously we are not at 1930s and 1940s Germany's point, but why even take a baby step in that direction?

One interesting thing was that a highly influential individual in the debates arguing for the immunity aspect of this bill came in the form of Senator John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia, who has received considerable money from both AT&T and Verizon. The New York Times article says $42,000 in contributions from executives at these two companies last year and has received $37,600 from AT&T and $30,500 from Verizon since 2003. You don't think that would have anything to do with his pushing for immunity for these companies, do you?

The bill says that the surveillance would only be foreign-based communication and Americans would not be the target. The problem is that there is no court overlooking this surveillance until after the fact. In other words, the government can do whatever it wants and face a slap on the wrist from some secret court tribunal well after the action has been taken. This would not be unprecedented, as reports have come out detailing the abuses that various "intelligence" organizations committed under the veil of the Patriot Act.

The bill has not been passed yet, but the large amount of support in the Senate is highly disconcerting. The House gave them the bill without the immunity for phone companies and also with much more restrictions on governmental spying. The Senate did not like that and is sending it back to the House with the aforementioned revisions.

What does this mean? Well, for one, it shows the massive divide in the Democratic party that has been highlighted in the primaries. Secondly, it shows the inability of the Democrats to stand up for their constituents for fear of being labeled by paranoid Republicans as being weak on terrorism, as Senator Patrick J. Leahy pointed out, and it also shows that money runs certain aspects of politics. So next time you're talking to grandma on the phone to say hi, don't forget to shout out your friends at the NSA. Peace.

Photos - NSA headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland (commons.wikimedia.org), Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) (www.senate.gov), "Wait, who's listening to us? Anyway, have you found a good girl yet?" (www.brianbaumley.com)

FBI Wants to Create Massive Database of Your Personal Traits

Source: NYTimes

First off, sorry for not posting for a while, but the stomach flu and a head cold (back to back) have kept me from this blog. In any event, the feds now want even more power when it comes to knowing exactly what you are doing. First, of course, there is the Patriot Act that allowed Congress and the President to supersede judicial processes to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, among other things. I hoped that the Patriot Act would be the last piece of legislation of its kind, but if the FBI has their way it will not be.

What the feds want to do is simple: create a massive database of people's physical characteristics to better identify terrorists and criminals. It sounds OK at first glance, but the implications of this are huge. The FBI wants palm prints (as opposed to the fingerprints they already have), eye scans, mug shots and pictures of scars and tattoos. Anything that could identify a person.

So what's the problem? With this information the government (and anybody willing to pay the government) will be able to find out where you've been and when you were there. The CNN article on the subject cited a 2006 German study about facial recognition in a train station. It sounded like it was being done through surveillance cameras because it talked about the lighting during the day and during the night, meaning you can be digitally identified by simply walking by a CCTV camera.

NSA Headquarters (Source: NerdyLorrin)

One of the main arguments is that if you're not doing anything illegal then you have nothing to worry about. The problem is I like my privacy. Am I doing anything wrong? No. I just like to know I am not being watched and tracked everywhere I go (a pretty reasonable request). The bigger problem, however, is the "slippery slope" issue. Already there is talk of employers using this technology to keep tabs on their employees. For instance, the CNN article mentions a "rap-back" program in which the feds keep employees' fingerprints on file and if they get arrested or in trouble with the law they will let the employer know that said person's fingerprints came up over the weekend from whatever police department. So now the government will be keeping tabs on you for your employer (at a price, of course). Now say the employer wants to know if you were really sick on the day you called in complaining of the flu. For a little extra money the employer has the FBI run a scan for you that day to see where you've been (using security cameras that are already set up in many cities). Or say your employer just wants to know what you do for fun on the weekends. Just call the feds, they have all your information.

Additionally, if this database is created (and a company is made $1 billion richer because the government, naturally, is trusting the private sector with this) it could be the first step to numerous other blatant violations of privacy. Next could be blood samples or DNA samples to keep in a database. From there insurance companies may want your samples to make sure you're not prone to diseases (which, if you are, your premium would surely go up). The possibilities are endless.

There are those who say that the government will not abuse their power when it comes to protecting citizens. They argue that without it, we will be decimated by terrorists. We never had the Patriot Act before 9/11 and nothing happened (the only other terrorist activity came from home-grown white boys). And don't say 9/11 would not have happened if we had measures like the Patriot Act or this one in place; the warning signs were there. If you really want to improve domestic security, try pumping $1 billion into airport security. Anyway, it has been proven that the government misused the Patriot Act to get information they were not allowed to access. I'm assuming that the estimates are conservative on the feds' misuse because everyone's favorite non-partisan, totally fair attorney general Alberto Gonzales was involved.

CCTV Cameras (Source: Soft Hook)

In conclusion, this measure is one that a) is not necessary and b) highly risky. It opens up the door to so much that should not be property of the government. Eye scans and palm prints will do very little in the "war on terror." It will not make American foreign policy any better and less xenophobic. It won't make people hate America less (it would probably do the opposite). And it certainly does not seem to follow the letter of the law or American principles. Unless you want any conversation you have ever had to be published to those who know you and for everyone to know your every move, there is no reason to support this. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."