According to this article at Global Research:

229 – suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters currently held in Guantanamo and potentially moved to a facility in the U.S.

60 to 80 - detainees the Justice Department believes could be prosecuted either in military or federal criminal courts

170 – detainees at Guantanamo unlikely to be prosecuted

small – number of detainess who will not face trial because intelligence and counterterror officials conclude they are too dangerous to risk being freed

some - are being held indefinitely because government officials do not want to take the chance of seeing them acquitted in a trial

all – have yet to be charged

Says it all, doesn't it...

I'm sure you heard about the shooting of two soldiers today in Little Rock Arkansas. I was reading the CNN article about the shooting and noticed this (emphasis mine):

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad -- a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe -- faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

That got me to wondering about what charges were brought against Scott Roeder, who is accused of shooting abortion doctor George Tiller to death in his church yesterday. I was surprised at the fact that Roeder actually hasn't been charged with anything yet - but what really interested me was what he may be charged with (again, emphasis mine):

Today, a 51-year-old Johnson County man could be charged with murder and aggravated assault in the shooting of Tiller, who had been shot before by an anti-abortion foe.

Now, this may simply be a case of different charges applying in different jurisdictions - but if Muhammad is subject to a terrorism charge for shooting into an occupied building, shouldn't Roeder be liable for the same charges?

...is that he was having drunken, clothes-off sex on a sidewalk with an adult female.

An Oakland County Commissioner is facing an indecent exposure charge, accused of being naked and engaged in sex on a city sidewalk last month, police said today.

Commissioner Kim Capello, R-Novi, appeared before Novi District Judge Dennis Powers today on the charge, a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and fines. Capello, 56, was released pending a June 3 sentencing date. He could not be reached for comment and his attorney did not return a call from The Detroit News.

Police had little to say of the April 18 incident, other than to confirm Capello, a former Novi councilman, and the woman had both been questioned about 2 a.m. by a police officer following a complaint by a resident of "two people in stages of undress" near the rear parking lot of The Post Bar on Main Street in Novi.

"The officer responded to the complaint and wrote up a report of indecent exposure which was reviewed by our city attorney," said Novi Deputy Chief Thomas Lindberg. "Both he and the woman, who lives nearby, were released pending further investigation."

The resident said he was driving by the bar and called police about "two naked females" on the sidewalk near a residential area just A few feet off of Pennsylvania Avenue. The man said he had his children in the back of his car and was concerned they might have seen a sexual act between the two people.

When police responded, the officer reported shining a spotlight on two figures leaning on a three-foot tall brick wall who "looked as if they were engaged in sexual intercourse."

Police said Capello identified himself and immediately pulled on his clothes but the woman denied the clothes on the ground next to them belonged to her. The officer said both appeared intoxicated and both said they had been drinking prior to the incident.

Gotta love those Republican values...

Pretty unbelievable...

Roderick Daniels was traveling through East Texas in October 2007 when, he says, he was the victim of a highway robbery.

The Tennessee man says he was ordered to pull his car over and surrender his jewelry and $8,500 in cash that he had with him to buy a new car.

But Daniels couldn't go to the police to report the incident.

The men who stopped him were the police.

Daniels was stopped on U.S. Highway 59 outside Tenaha, near the Louisiana state line. Police said he was driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. They hauled him off to jail and threatened him with money-laundering charges -- but offered to release him if he signed papers forfeiting his property.

"I actually thought this was a joke," Daniels told CNN.

But he signed.

"To be honest, I was five, six hundred miles from home," he said. "I was petrified."

[...]

Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson said they agreed to forfeit their property after Russell threatened to have their children taken away.

Like Daniels, the couple says they were carrying a large amount of cash --- about $6,000 -- to buy a car. When they were stopped in Tenaha in 2007, Boatright said, Russell came to the Tenaha police station to berate her and threaten to separate the family.

"I said, 'If it's the money you want, you can take it, if that's what it takes to keep my children with me and not separate them from us. Take the money,' " she said.

[...]

Maryland resident Amanee Busbee said she also was threatened with losing custody of her child after being stopped in Tenaha with her fiancé and his business partner. They were headed to Houston with $50,000 to complete the purchase of a restaurant, she said.

"The police officer would say things to me like, 'Your son is going to child protective services because you are not saying what we need to hear,' " Busbee said.

Guillory, who practices in nearby Nacogdoches, Texas, estimates authorities in Tenaha seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008, and in about 150 cases -- virtually all of which involved African-American or Latino motorists -- the seizures were improper.

Oh, but that's not all. It looks like certain people in Tenaha were spending the seizure money on themselves.

Texas law states that the proceeds of any seizures can be used only for "official purposes" of district attorney offices and "for law-enforcement purposes" by police departments. According to public records obtained by CNN using open-records laws, an account funded by property forfeitures in (Shelby County District Attorney Lynda) Russell's office included $524 for a popcorn machine, $195 for candy for a poultry festival, and $400 for catering.

In addition, Russell donated money to the local chamber of commerce and a youth baseball league. A local Baptist church received two checks totaling $6,000.

And one check for $10,000 went to Barry Washington, a Tenaha police officer whose name has come up in several complaints by stopped motorists. The money was paid for "investigative costs," the records state.

If you're driving through east Texas, be sure to take the long way around Shelby County.

Hmm, I thought it was the liberal elite that looked down on regular folk (like that ace political consultant, Joe the Whatever). But it turns out Tony Scalia has his own ideas about whether the Unwashed get to see him and his fellow justices in all their glory:

Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours." Scalia was at the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts in part to do a book signing and wasn't happy at the question.

"Read the next question," Scalia replied. "That's a nasty, impolite question." [....]

Though Scalia passed on Jeck's question, he later told the crowd he didn't like the idea of televising the Supreme Court. He said people probably wouldn't watch whole hearings and would get an incomplete view of what really happens there.

"Why should I be a party to the mis-education of the American people?" he asked.

After the luncheon, Jeck said she wasn't offended by Scalia's chilly response and was excited to see him speak. But that doesn't mean she agreed with him. "I don't think that it should be up to him what parts the American people can and can't see of the judicial process," she said.

Sorry, Sarah, but you're nasty and impolite. Tony said so. Get over it. It's good to be a Supreme and tell others to go fuck themselves, right?

About a month ago, I posted here about a woman in Nassau County NY who was arrested for DUI (she actually was a diabetic in need of meds) and put on Nassau's 'Wall Of Shame,' which included posting her photo and name on Newsday's web site.

Well, Nassau County has now abandoned the practice.

A day after a judge ruled that the Nassau County "Wall of Shame" violates the rights of a woman whose name and photo are posted there, Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi announced Tuesday that from now on he will post names and photos only of those who are convicted.

Suozzi maintained that the online "Wall of Shame" has deterred people from drunken driving, and he vowed to appeal State Supreme Court Justice William Lamarca's decision. But he said he feels it is wise to remove the names to protect the county from a torrent of lawsuits.

"The decision [to post the names of people before they were convicted] was made based upon the information we had at the time," he said. "But we think this is a prudent course of action."

LaMarca ordered Nassau County to remove a woman's name and mug shot from the county's "Wall of Shame," saying that posting the information about her DWI arrest violates her right to due process.

Note that the woman whose information was taken down is not the diabetic woman I posted about. And further note that the 'Wall Of Shame' gallery is still up on Newsday's web site.

Everyone whose picture is on that site should lawyer up and sue both Newsday and Nassau County at this point. They have precedent on their side, and they should rub Suozzi's and Newsday's noses in it..

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

PDF available here.

First one to promise to stop this shit in its tracks gets my vote.

The FBI is gearing up to create a massive computer database of people's physical characteristics, all part of an effort the bureau says to better identify criminals and terrorists.

But it's an issue that raises major privacy concerns -- what one civil liberties expert says should concern all Americans.

The bureau is expected to announce in coming days the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to help create the database that will compile an array of biometric information -- from palm prints to eye scans.

Kimberly Del Greco, the FBI's Biometric Services section chief, said adding to the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in."

'...our children so they can have good jobs??' What the fuck is that all about?

Oh, and one more question - who's getting the contract?

From my local paper (no link available):

The board also accepted an $18,675 grant from the state Division of Criminal Justice Services for a license plate recognition system, a device that is permanently attached to a marked patrol car that can scan and process thousands of license plates per minute across four lanes of traffic. The numbers are compared against a wirelessly downloaded database that is updated daily.

The system identifies stolen cars, drivers with suspended licenses and registrations, and local scofflaws.

Scary stuff.

This needs passed as soon as possible.

via Crooks & Liars

The bill would re-open hate crime cases during the Civil Rights Era, focusing on investigating and prosecuting murder cases occurring prior to 1970. Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Hulshof (R-MO) sponsored the legislative counterpart in the House. Only Congressman Paul and Westmoreland voted against the bill. It was set to sail through the Senate via unanimous consent. And then, Tom “rampant high school lesbianism” Coburn put a hold on the bill.

Gosh, what would a Conservative White Man like Tom Coburn possibly want to keep buried by stopping this Bill's passage?

Oooohhhhh.... perhaps it's...

COINTELPRO: The FBI's War On Black America:"

Heaven forbid a discouraging word even has the possibility of reaching the ears of the Shrub, even in a public forum. It's official: the Republican party line is only toadies may approach the presence of His Ineptitude:

Lawyers for two men charged with illegally ejecting two people from a speech by President Bush in 2005 are arguing that the president’s staff can lawfully remove anyone who expresses points of view different from his. [....]

Mr. Young and Ms. Weise filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court here, saying they were ejected [from a public presidential forum on Social Security in Denver] shortly after they had arrived in a car that had an antiwar bumper sticker, although they had done nothing disruptive. The suit charged Mr. Casper and Mr. Klinkerman with violating Mr. Young’s and Ms. Weise’s First Amendment right to free speech.

Mr. Casper and Mr. Klinkerman lost their motion for dismissal, and this week their lawyers filed an appeals brief arguing that their clients had the right to take action against Mr. Young and Ms. Weise precisely because the two held views different from Mr. Bush’s.

You can understand the reasoning here. Who wants to risk the spectacle of a grown man sticking his fingers in his ears and loudly humming "La la la la"? I'm guessing it'll be fun to see how these lawyers establish that everyone who *was* admitted did indeed hold exactly the same views as George, straight down the line. What's that, an audience of two?

Last week was the first meeting of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, whose creation had been recommended by the 9/11 commission. It got off to an impressive start:

The first public meeting of a Bush administration "civil liberties protection panel" had a surreal quality to it, as the five-member board refused to answer any questions from the press, and stonewalled privacy advocates and academics on key questions about domestic spying. [....]

The three-hour meeting, held at Georgetown University, quickly established that the panel would be something less than a fierce watchdog of civil liberties. Instead, members all but said they view their job as helping Americans learn to relax and love warrantless surveillance. [....]

[For example,] Lisa Graves, the deputy director of the Center for National Security Studies, asked the board two simple questions: Did they know how many Americans had been eavesdropped on by the warrantless wiretapping program, and, if so, how many?

Raul acknowledged in a roundabout way that the data existed, but said it was too sensitive to release. Graves then asked if the board had pushed to have that data made public, as the Justice Department is required to do with typical spy wiretaps.

Raul declined to say. "It is important for us to retain confidentiality on what recommendations we have and haven't made," he said.

Graves tried to push the issue of whether the board was going to be public or private, but chairwoman Carol Dinkins politely cut her off and ended the question-and-answer session.

There, are all you worry-warts happy now?

...or you could end up here.

Go visit Kevin at Cryptogon and watch what he has on offer. It sure will make you want to scream...

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Massachusetts v. EPA today, where the state and environmental organizations are trying to force the feds to do more about greenhouse gas emissions. The conservative justices were doing their best to belittle the plantiff's arguments, with Scalia opening up the questioning with the sarcastic question "When is the predicted cataclysm?" Later, he got into this hilarious exchange:

Scalia prompted laughter when he questioned whether carbon dioxide was an air pollutant or a stratosphere pollutant.

"Respectfully, your honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere," said Milkey, referring to atmospheric layers that can be affected by pollution.

"Troposphere, whatever," Scalia said as the normally silent gallery erupted in chuckles. "I told you before I'm not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming."

Scalia went on to explain that he also wasn't a woman, so he didn't feel concerned about any of their rights; he wasn't poor, so he didn't share any of their concerns; he wasn't being discriminated against, so...well, you get the idea. But since this whole administration wants to address global warming by saying "gee, that's a big topic and we just don't know what to think about it," then why shouldn't he follow their pea-brained lead?

When the UK government tried to pass a law enabling the indefinite detention of ‘terror suspects’, they were told in no uncertain terms just how illegal it was. Hence the introduction of Control Orders:

Control orders were brought in for cases where people are suspected of being involved in terrorism-related activity, but there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution.

They were introduced last year after Law Lords ruled it was illegal for the government to hold terror suspects indefinitely in jail without charge or trial.

When placed under a control order, suspects can be tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others.

They are said to be reserved for dangerous terror suspects.

So it does come as a surprise to learn that when asked about two ‘terror suspects’ who are currently on the run, one for a fortnight and one for some months, whether or not they could carry out attacks at any time, the answer was "On balance, I don't think that's the case at all."

Go figure...

Tags: Control Orders, UK Terror Fight