Prosecution would have used false evidence to execute Casey Anthony

One of the main sticking points by the lynch-mob couch-lawyers that Casey should have been hanged, is the supposed computer search for information on chloroform. During the trial the prosecution claimed that Casey had searched the term 84 times, based on the testimony of their computer expert John Bradley. Now it appears that not only was that information false, but that the prosecution knew that it was false, and never corrected the matter to the jury or shared the revelation with the defense.

This matter is not only a sticking point in the trial-by-media which still continues, but was in fact a primary reason that the prosecution intended to seek a death sentence against Casey. So not only did the prosecution let the jury believe that Casey had searched for chloroform 84 times, but they were going to execute her knowingly based on false evidence.

Was it really false evidence though? It does appear that the term was in fact searched one time from the Anthony home computer. But is that enough for a conviction? Is that enough to execute someone? I can tell you that I have searched chloroform a number of times since this trial, and on at least one occasion before the trial after I saw the movie The Vanishing. We also must consider too, who actually did the search.

Suppose this is why the State Attorney’s office has decided not to seek perjury charges against Cindy Anthony? Casey's mother testified at trial that she put in a search query for chlorophyll, and mistakenly entered chloroform. As anyone who as ever Googled knows, when you begin to spell out a word, it pops up with a list of closely spelled suggestions. One click is all it takes to land you someplace other than where you searching originally, either mistakenly, or because a new topic or term catches your interest in the moment.

When clarifying the error in an interview with the New York Times...

The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.

So, in a nutshell, the police used an incompetent programmer to design the software for their invesitgation, the prosecution used false evidence in order to prosecute someone and then did not disclose that fact to the defense when the programmer discovered an error, and were also planning to use that false evidence in order to execute someone. And you really want to give those people MORE power?

Say No To Cayleee's Law

Be sure to check out these two related articles from the big boys of media for more details:

Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial

Casey Anthony Trial Witness John Bradley Backtracks After Blasting Prosecutors

Alert: Americans are stupid! (terror threat issued)

Well well well. Surprise surprise. All the money spent, all the citizens harassed, all the children molested at airports, all the fascist expansion of power with the newly minted TSA, etcetera, and what do we wind up with? A terror alert that verifies exactly what anyone with half a friggin brain said right from the start, when the government started with the pat-downs and nude imaging back-scatter x-ray machines at the airports. That these new measures would do nothing to stop terrorists.

Alert: Terrorists Look to Implant Bombs in Humans

Wow, I am stunned, no one would have ever thought of that. Yeah, that was sarcasm. Wake the fuck up people. You are twice as likely to die from being crushed under a vending machine than be killed in another terrorist attack. I don't see any guards posted to make sure you get your corn-chips and cola safely. The government could give a shit less if a plane blows up, and they don't give a shit about al-Qaeda either. The people, you and I, the American who has not been lobotomized by television and junk-food, WE are the threat to their power, not some phony terror cartel. WE are the ones they are watching. We are the ones being forced to live in a prison without walls.

So they pump the propaganda at us, sell us fear, so that we beg to be deprived of freedom. They give us these bullshit alerts telling us what we already knew as if it was suddenly some genuine revelation. As if it were a plot cracked wide open by some clandestine operative embedded deep within a terror network. It's bullshit. They rattle the public, as an excuse in order to justify...

"...travelers may find themselves subjected to more scrutiny when flying in the heart of summer vacation season..."

...despite the fact that...

"Still, there is no current information that points to a specific plot involving surgically implanted explosives, a U.S. security official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss such sensitive matters."

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off for a second. "Such sensitive matters" huh? Hate to tell you guys that just got the memo, but this is not breaking news, this is not ingenious tactics of a terror mastermind uncovered by a super-spy. Drug-smugglers have been doing this for years. This is a bullshit propaganda piece spun out by the Associated Press to hit the front page of every mainstream media news source across the nation.

"Aviation continues to be a special target, and evidence from Osama bin Laden's compound showed that the al-Qaida leader retained his fascination with attacking airplanes until his death in May."

Oh, is that so? First I'm hearing about it. Are you telling me that the grand mastermind of the most devastating terror attack in the history of the world, couldn't bring down another plane at any point in the next decade after the 9/11 attacks? But since we are on the topic, how about you SHOW US the evidence in documents, tapes, whatever, of this "fascination." In fact, show us some evidence that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11 in the first place, since he was never indicted and even his FBI Most Wanted profile did not mention 9/11. Better yet, show us one bit of proof that he was even killed in that compound.

Okay, so what are we going to do about this terrible threat of terrorists packing their ass with plastique or stitching a mini-nuke into their abdomen?

"Officials did not want to discuss specific security measures under consideration so as not to tip off terrorists who could seek ways to get around them."

Don't want to rile up the public just yet and tell them that by this time next year it will be full cavity searches for random hot chicks, dudes that give them a hassle, and well, kids and old folks too just to make it unbiased. Wait, here we go, the excuse for feeling up women's breasts, gotta love it.

"Surgery to implant explosives could be done a couple of days before a planned attack, said James Crippin, an explosives expert in Colorado. In order for it to work, there would need to be a detonation device, and it's conceivable that if the explosive was implanted in a woman's breast, the detonator could be underneath the breast so that all the operative would have to do is press downward, Crippin said."

So we better be diligent about really getting up under some titty fellas. Because terrorists would never think to use a remote detonator or a timed charge. Well, maybe they really wouldn't I guess. Seems to me that every terror plot since 9/11 has been carried out by some bumbling buffoon with matches and a propane tank, or underpants that sizzled rather than bring down an airliner.

"The al-Qaida offshoot in Yemen has emerged as the most inventive terror organization these days and has been behind two plots that nearly brought down planes over the U.S. The group, known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, was behind the Christmas Day attack in 2009 when a Nigerian hid a bomb in his underpants and nearly brought down an airliner over Detroit."

Oh good, more official sounding horse-shit. AQAP, are you friggin kidding me here? Couldn't the propaganda artists at least come up with something a little more clever sounding? There isn't even any such thing as al-Qaeda in the first place anyway, so there sure as hell is not some organization called AQAP, but your average Joe Six-Pack eats that shit up like a bag of Doritos when you make things sound all official like that using acronyms and titles. Here, let me try. Arabs who Stalk, Shoot, Hate, American Troops. ASSHAT.I hope I never run into an ASSHAT  operative on a plane.

"'Due to the significant advances in global aviation security in recent years, terrorist groups have repeatedly and publicly indicated interest in pursuing ways to further conceal explosives,' TSA spokesman Nick Kimball said..."

No shit Sherlock. Did you really think the terrorists were going to say, "Oh darn, backscatter x-ray machines, guess I'll go back to selling used cars."

"...adding that passengers flying into the U.S. may notice additional security. 'Measures may include interaction with passengers, in addition to the use of other screening methods such as pat-downs and the use of enhanced tools and technologies.'"

Nothing new there either geniuses. Passengers are already subject to the most intrusive, un-Constitutional searches on a regular basis than any nation on the planet has ever seen. And we call this the land of the free? Pardon me while I fart in your general direction TSA.

So all in all, we have this big headline news piece, blaring an alert, for news that is decades old and reinforcing lies that have been told time and time again. This is news how? It's not. It's propaganda.

Here, get the propaganda "main-lined."




And it certainly looks like we will be seeing a LOT more of this...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I need some music...

Why drug testing of welfare recipients is a bad idea

On July 1st, Florida will become the first state to begin mandatory drug-testing of welfare recipients. While at first glance this may seem to be a great idea, really it is an appeal to emotional rhetoric and typical knee-jerk reaction by the public which sells this bill. Under closer scrutiny, the public would see that this is a terrible idea, more bureaucracy, more government control, with no net gain for the public at large or the taxpayer. So let us look at the reasons, point by point, why drug testing of welfare recipients is actually a very bad idea.


Cost effectiveness

It's not. Plain and simple. The biggest reason that people are supporting this new law is that they believe there will be a major savings to the taxpayer by kicking a bunch of people off of welfare. Even if there were a savings, the voter must make an erroneous assumption that any such savings would grant them any tax relief in the first place or that the money would then be spent on “people who really need it.” But more to the point, this program will be enormously expensive and yet another huge burden on the taxpayers. A Congressional committee found that drug-testing government employees, would cost $77,000 for each positive drug test in 1992 dollars. Is it really worth spending somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred-grand, just to catch one drug user who may be getting twelve-grand a year in benefits?

According to some sources, drug tests may run as high as $75 per test. The average is expected to land around $42 per test. With 100,000 people on the welfare rolls in Florida, you are looking at a cost of $4.2 million to test everyone once a year for the 420. An expense that the very poorest people of the state will be expected to pay up-front, and then be reimbursed later if they pass the drug test. Of course, the cost of the tests are only the tip of the iceberg too, as all of this information will now have to be digested by the welfare bureaucracy. It would probably be conservative to estimate that the true cost might be three times the cost of the actual test itself, when you consider all the different social workers who will have to check and double check the paperwork, meet with recipients, speak with clinics, etcetera. A red-tape nightmare with a very hefty price tag. And for what? Arizona has also considered such a law. They projected they would save a measly $1.7 million by kicking people off of welfare. That is a net loss of $2.5 million to the taxpayer by comparison. And that is of course, if each person were only tested once per year.


Cronyism, Politics for Profit

That net loss by the taxpayer is a gross gain for the drug testing companies. As it turns out, Florida's governor Rick Scott co-founded and owns 70% of Solantic, the company that will be doing the drug-testing on welfare recipients.



False-positives

There is substantial risk that people will test positive for drugs even if they did not take any drugs. A “blank” false-positive, or one that would have come up positive regardless of what the specimen actually contained runs about 5-6%, even if it were distilled water. When you add to that the fact that things like poppy-seed buns, or Mountain Dew can trigger a false-positive, the rate increases to about 15%. Not to mention people who are taking prescription medications. Some sources indicate false-positive rates can run as high as 1 in 2. So there we will see 15-50,000 innocent people kicked off of welfare for using drugs, when in fact they were not drug users at all. A first offense will mean that the applicant can no re-apply for one year. A subsequent failure would bar the applicant from re-applying for another three years.

Will a second test be granted, and at who's expense, to re-test to insure that a false positive was not returned? Double-testing would of course double the cost to $8.4 million. But even granting a second test in an attempt to offset false-positives does not guarantee that innocent people will not by kicked off of welfare, leaving them and their kids to starve in the streets.

You can check out a huge list of substances that will return a false postitive at the link below this quote from AskDocWeb...

What is a false positive? It is a test result that is returned when a substance tests positive for another compound. It is a case of mistaken identity. For example if you eat a couple poppy seed cakes before testing, you can get a positive result for opiates.

The chances of you getting a false positive depends on the quality of the laboratory that does the testing. There seems to be about 1,200 of these labs in the United States currently testing for drugs. Less than a 100 of these meet federal standards and most of the individual states do not regulate drug test labs. The number of false positives returned range from 4% to over 50%, depending on the lab.

A concern here is that, if your company tests for drug usage, they are probably not required to use a certified drug testing lab, which means you have a greater chance of getting a false positive.

http://www.askdocweb.com/falsepositives.html

Ineffectiveness of drug testing, and substance bias

The truth is, drug-testing is actually a very ineffective way of uncovering substance abuse and addiction, especially when done randomly or sporadically. To even hope to be effective, recipients would have to be tested once a month or more. For a whopping total of $50.4 million a year cost to the taxpayer for the tests alone, and now triple that to guess what it will actually cost to process those results through the bureaucracy of Social Services.

Alcohol abuse is probably the most prevalent substance abuse problem in our society today, but welfare cannot test for that for two reasons. Firstly, because alcohol is not illegal and secondly, because it processes out of the system so quickly, unlike marijuana which can stay in the system for up to 30 days. Even the casual user can have lingering traces in the system for 10-13 days. Which makes pot smokers the real target of this witch-hunt among welfare recipients. Not drunks, and not even crack-heads or heroin junkies or meth freaks, since those substances only take a matter of hours to filter out of the system. So Florida is going to spend all of this money to catch pot-heads, while likely turning addicts toward harder, more dangerous drugs which are not so easily detected.

Even with just the pot-heads though, how effective will the testing be? Pot smokers have been getting around drug tests for years, with various methods, including elixirs that can be purchased at you local head-shop or online. I'm sure there are similar tricks available for any drug user. More complex tests will only cost even more money. So clearly, many people who are on welfare and doing drugs will never be detected despite the many many millions that will be spent searching for them.


Stigmatizing the poor

There is a false notion in our society today that people on welfare are there as a matter of choice. While there are certainly examples of people who lie and abuse the system, those instances are much more rare than we are led to believe. Again we can take drug abuse as an example. The popular notion is that most people who are poor and on welfare are drug addicts who simply don't want to work. The facts do not support this notion however. Before Michigan's drug testing of welfare recipients was struck down as un-Constitutional, they found that only 3% of recipients were using hard drugs such as cocaine or methamphetamine. That rate is about in line with the general population showing clearly that there is no rampant drug abuse among the poor and disenfranchised. Indeed, another study found that 70% of all drug users in the U.S. were between 18-49 and employed full-time.

Now some might say that if they are employed they have the “right” to do drugs. But by that logic, one must assume that their drug use will not affect their job and finances to the point that they might wind up on welfare in the end thanks to their drug abuse. Which then of course brings up the entire moral basis of even having welfare in the first place.

(Here is an excellent short film about the realities of poverty. It is a little dated in the statistics, but you will get the gist of it anyway I'm sure... )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YYG-f3qYE8



Morality

We as a society have seen fit to put money aside to help our fellow countrymen in their time of need. “Blame” is something that can be thrown around all the livelong day, but at the end of the day we still see a person in dire need of assistance for the basic necessities of life, regardless of the reasons why or how they got there, which more often than not is the result of our nation's terminally flawed economic policy, rather than personal choices. Does that need simply disappear because someone is battling with addiction? Or was their drug addiction necessarily the cause of their economic straits in the first place? Certainly not. As we just noted above, the stigma attached to the poor in regards to drug use is false.

Regardless, it is probably the addict who is most in need of assistance, as much as anyone else suffering from some debilitating disease. Should we kick a homeless vet off of welfare because he chose to join the Army and go to Afghanistan where his legs got blown off? Absolutely not. So we see that choices, mistakes, or anything of the sort is actually irrelevant to the moral question of whether or not a drug user should be given welfare benefits. We do in fact, have a moral obligation to help even the most wretched creatures among us, and the most destitute, regardless of how they got there or what their condition is today.



Forcing the hand is illogical

Simply put, you cannot force people to be, or to do what you believe they should be doing or who you think they should be. All too easy to judge someone else without having walked a mile in their moccasins. There is a long list of medical associations who oppose mandatory drug testing and treatment for any number of reasons.

American Public Health Association, National Association of Social
Workers, Inc., National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Counselors, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National
Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and
Child Health Programs, National Health Law Project, National Association
on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability, Inc., National Advocates for Pregnant
Women, National Black Women’s Health Project, Legal Action Center,
National Welfare Rights Union, Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center,
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform.

http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/marchwinskiamicusbrief1_22_01.pdf

But perhaps the most glaringly obvious reason is that the addict must want to get better. Forcing someone into the streets, starving them, forcing them into a rehab program that they have no interest in is counterproductive and only compounds the addicts justification for their addiction. It will not make them better, it will not help them to become a productive member of society, it will not address the reasons why the addict turned to substance abuse in the first place.

Instead, the end result of forcing the hand will be an increase in criminality as these addicts will only become more desperate than ever. So we can pay to give addicts the basic necessities of life while they try to find their way to their own destiny and hopefully a moment of clarity where they might recover and once again be productive members of society. Or, we can pay to house and feed them in prisons after they have robbed or killed you or someone you love. Keep in mind too, that the U.S. already has the largest prison population in the world, housing a full 25% of the total global prison population.


Constitutionality

Now we come to the very bedrock of what it means to be an American citizen, with the promise of liberty as prescribed by the Founding Fathers in our beloved Constitution. In 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of Marchwinski v. Howard ruled that the state of Michigan's policy for mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients violated our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Some have argued that if we can be drug-tested at work, then the government has the right to drug-test welfare recipients. Again though, this is an illogical apples and oranges comparison. Aside from my own personal opinion that even employers should not be able to test workers without cause, a private company or employer is not the government. You have a choice to go work somewhere else. You have the choice to boycott the company that drug tests their employees. Granting the government this power over all the people of this country is a very dangerous precedent.

It is important to keep in mind here, that this isn't just about welfare recipients. This is about the balance of power between government intrusion into our own personal lives and liberty. This is about your rights, not just the rights of some pot-head buying Doritos with food stamps. You never know when you might be in need of welfare or some other public assistance of some kind. Indeed, this sentiment is echoed by U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts when she ruled ruled that the state's rationale for testing welfare recipients...

“...could be used for testing the parents of all children who received Medicaid, State Emergency Relief, educational grants or loans, public education or any other benefit from that State.”

The ACLU adds...

Indeed, any of the justifications put forth to subject welfare recipients to random drug testing would also by logical extension apply to the entirety of our population that receives some public benefit and/or that is a parent. It is clear that our constitution – and common sense – would object to the random drug testing of this large group of people, making the drug testing of an equally absurd category of people – welfare recipients – unconstitutional as well.

We can even take it a step further and see that the government might use such a precedent to shove us down a slippery slope where you would have to pay for and submit to a drug test for any transaction at the DMV, or any time you are arrested, ticketed, even questioned by police. And then how long before it gets to the point where the government begins drawing blood from whoever they please, and profiling your DNA? How long then before you are forced to be implanted with a government chip that tracks your every movement and every word you say?

Sound far-fetched? If you had told me ten years ago that the government would be molesting children at airports under the guise of looking for bombs I would have told you that you were insane. And I am the police-state conspiracy nut. You can bet that if this is allowed to stand in Florida, the government will use that precedent to get into your life in ways you never imagined.

In conclusion, it is my humble opinion that rather than finding new and clever ways to fuck over the poor, they need to start finding ways to do more to help the poor. Namely, creating more jobs and better paying jobs. The government needs to take responsibility for their failures, rather than spending even more tax dollars to try to sweep the problems under the carpet. There is no reason why in the richest, most powerful country in the world anyone should want for the most very basic necessities of life, no matter who they are.

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

-James Madison

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." -Adolf Hitler

For further consideration:

Economic Bill of Rights

Unemployed forced to clean subways

Prison labor re-education camps for welfare recipients 

Botox Mom was a hoax

Well well, another media sham. Another good reason to not trust the news. It appears that the entire story was a hoax, that the child is not even a pageant contestant, and that they didn't even use their real names in the interview. The mother was paid $200 by British tabloid The Sun to carny out the media campaign. Sadly, the child actually did get taken away from the mother, and now she is being accused of having form of Munchhausen's Syndrome. Nevermind of course, the fact that the blame really lay with the media for starting this whole thing and then running with the ball for ratings. Some are calling this is a hoax, I call it a psyop. Look at the buzz it created. Do you really thing the powers-that-be were not collecting data on everyone's tweets and FB posts to get a profile of public reactions? This is how social engineering works people. This was an experiment, a data-mining psychological profiling operation, not a hoax. Just like the Airforce One flyby over Ground Zero a few years ago.



http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/thefamous/botox-mom-made-200-off-her-hoax/1325

Congressional hearings on Islam: Rise of the Fourth Reich

Congress will begin hearings Thursday on the threat of radicalization of Muslims, despite protests and questions of Islamophobia. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) who is the the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has stated that the goal of the hearings is "to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community."

So in other words, it's stated purpose is propaganda. King has already made up his mind and now seeks evidence to support his biased position after the fact, and a pulpit from which to spread his message to the American people. In one breath he says that his only target is al-Qaeda, but in the next he talks about how the Muslim community is not doing enough to deter extremism in their midst.

But let's stop right there for a moment. Al-Qaeda. While the government and the media still use the term to instill fear in the hearts of Americans each day, it has been well established that there is no such thing as al-Qaeda. There is no monolithic terrorist network, there is no organization taking orders from Osama bin-Laden or any successors.



Okay, so there really is no al-Qaeda. But is there a threat from radicals and fundamentalists on American soil among American-Muslims? King brings up 9/11, of course. So ten years after the fact, Congress suddenly now finds the need to have these hearings on the threat of Muslim radicals in our midst? Let's not forget that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were not Americans. Not even Afhganis of Iraqis for that matter. They were mostly Saudi Arabians. That is of course, if you take the government's word for it.



Okay, so maybe there are still questions about 9/11, but we know there are religious radicals. The question then is, are religious fundamentalism really a threat here in America, domestically? Well, we know that the Oklahoma City bombing was done to avenge the deaths of radical Christians. That bombing was entirely domestic. Everyone involved were American citizens. So why did we never see Congressional hearings about Christian fundamentalists? Or, for that matter, radical elements within the U.S. Military? After all, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated war hero.



See our related article: Border War: The Blind Eye of America

In the wake of 9/11, such domestic threats are overshadowed by the fear of Muslim extremists, the sort who are alleged to have carried out the most spectacular act of terrorism the world has ever known. So how many extremist are there in the world? What are the chances of something like that actually happening again ? What is the real threat? One in five people on the planet are Muslim, yet the world is not ablaze with daily horrific acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. The reason for this is that the fraction of Muslim fundamentalists which exist could be likened to what the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Now among that faction of radical Islam, we actually have to look a little deeper too. How many Muslims are really so committed to their rhetoric, that they are willing to die for it? How many would act, and not just spew hate speech? A much smaller percentage again, to be sure. Just like the KKK and their ilk, they talk a good line, but when was the last time you heard of a Klansman even going to prison for his beliefs, much less dieing for them? But let's go ahead and assume that some of these Muslim radicals are a little more committed than their Christian counterparts Out of what is estimated to be a few thousand truly hardcore radicals around the globe, from more than a billion Muslims, how many would actually be able to carry out an attack on American soil? Especially one anywhere near the scale and complexity of 9/11. How many radicals would actually have the will, the commitment, the capability, the skills, the connections, and the resources to carry out such an attack? When you think about it that way, it's pretty hard to imagine how a ragtag group of hard-drinking strip-club visiting cocaine snorting supposedly strict adherents of fundamentalist Islam were able to even carry out 9/11 in the first place.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Muslim terrorists didn't actually carry out the 9/11 attacks. That can be debated elsewhere. It also doesn't mean that it would be impossible for Islamic radicals to carry out a terror attack, on any scale, here on American soil, however unlikely that prospect might be. But is that enough to have Congressional hearings singling out Muslims as a threat or as harboring a threat against the American people?

According to the official story, Muslim radicals are responsible for 2,998 American deaths, in one, single, coordinated attack on American soil. Last year, 5,890 people were murdered by a black person. This means that in 2009 you were almost twice as likely to be murdered by a black person, than you were to be killed by a radical Muslim in the year the attacks actually happened. Now compound those odds over a ten year period, since 2001, in which no more attacks have happened, and you can see that blacks are are a far greater threat to Americans than any Muslim.

Oh, did you find that offensive? Good. Because these hearings are just as offensive, with even less merit.

Some have called these hearings a return to McCarthyism. No folks, it is far worse than that. This is the face of Fascism, on the order of what happened in Germany in the few short years before the Holocaust. This isn't about political ideals. This is about the United States Congress making an open attack on a religion, with strong racial and ethnic overtones.

The only question then is, why? Feel free to contact us if you really don't know at this point, but let's finish off with this. There is no real threat from Muslims. No more so than any other group of people, far less in fact. You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Your odds of being killed in a 9/11 style terror attack are about 8 million to one. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning... four times.

Top Secret America: Bombshell Expose by the Washington Post

The real question is, what aren't they telling us? Still, interesting material just the same. Enjoy...

TOP SECRET AMERICA

L.A. Touts Serial Killer Arrest to Quash Civil Liberty Concerns (UPDATE)

Today the topic is DNA, with the arrest of Lonnie David Franklin Jr., charged in a string of murders dating back to 1985. Dubbed the Grim Sleeper, for a long stretch of inactivity, a profile was built of a serial killer who preyed on women in south L.A. and dispatched them using the same small caliber pistol each time. Police reportedly recovered DNA evidence from at least two victims, but never had a person to match it to. That was until Mr. Franklin's son was convicted on a weapons charge. His son's DNA was entered into a database where it was then processed by California's familial DNA search program, which then led to the identification and arrest of Mr. Franklin. Seems like a win for the good guys right? Science being used to get an evil person of the street, simple as that?

Not quite. It wouldn't be the first time that science has been wrong. Police already bungled the investigation once and arrested the wrong person based on ballistics evidence. They had termed that arrest to be a "solid case" as well. No wonder victims' families are cautiously optimistic this time around. Former governor and state Attorney General Jerry Brown has no such reservations however, boldly stating, "This arrest provides proof positive that familial DNA searches must be a part of law enforcement's crime-fighting arsenal. Although the adoption of this new state policy was unprecedented and controversial, in certain cases, it is the only way to bring a dangerous killer to justice."

So much for the presumption of innocence.

How does one go about implementing a totalitarian police state in a free country? Say it's for our own good of course. Whenever the police and prosecutors want to move the goalposts ever closer to state dictatorship over every facet of our lives, they tell us it is for our own good, for our own safety, to protect us from evil things, and then march out before us some heinous criminal who "might never have been caught if it weren't for..." whatever new law or technology they are trying to implement. They raise a rabble by selling fear and vengeance to silence those who might question yet another violation of the liberty spelled out by the nation's founding fathers. Most folks go ahead and fall right in line with the agenda. After all, no one wants to side with some brutal killer, even if it means saying goodbye to the last few essential rights we have. In this way, we not only hand over our liberty and everything it means to be an American, but we demand it!

No doubt there are many draconian dragnet fishing expeditions the police could go on that would bring up results. Like calling every citizen out of their houses and onto the street at 1 a.m. to submit to a DNA test and a retina scan perhaps. The only real question here is, where does one draw the line? Clearly, the police and prosecutors see no line to be crossed and won't be happy until everyone in America is swabbed for DNA and implanted with a microchip to monitor every movement and thought process. Maybe we should just go ahead and put everyone in prison right now, to be on the safe side. It isn't enough that we already keep more people in prison than any other country in the world. (The U.S. has less than 5% of the world's total population, but 25% of the world total prison population.) For now though, it is time to push this agenda of the presumption of guilt by association.

Maybe, just maybe they happened to be right this time, and nabbed a viscous serial killer. That is no guarantee of future results. What it does guarantee is that suspicion will be cast on many innocent people simply because they are related to someone who was once arrested. (14 states hold DNA records on people who are arrested, regardless of whether or not they are actually innocent or convicted.) Folks will be plucked from their daily lives and then dragged in for interrogation. In some instances they will be held indefinitely without a lawyer, as is becoming more customary in many cases. (In another recent case, police held two men suspected of setting booby-traps against police officers in an L.A. suburb for five days without charges. It is not known whether or not they were given access to a lawyer during that time.) They will be subject to every sort of threat and coercion that the police can muster in a closed room, free from the prying eyes of the public or a lawyer, not only to force them to confess but to submit to their own DNA testing as well. (The Supreme Court has ruled that police may now continue an interrogation, without a lawyer present, even after the "right" has been invoked and a lawyer requested.)

Perhaps some folks would be willing to subject themselves to such an ordeal, and face the idea of going to prison as an innocent person, in the name of public safety. Especially since it is only being used against the most dangerous sort of criminals, right? Wrong. In one of the first cases of its kind, police in Denver, Colorado used familial DNA to catch a person who had broken into a car to steal $1.40 in change. But the problems with this sort of evidence do not end there. Aside from the fact that DNA science itself it not as foolproof as late night dramas would have the public believing, this familiar DNA search is extremely biased against men and blacks. Because black Americans constitute a larger portion of people arrested by police, this means that the black population as a whole, regardless of any criminal activity, will be genetically profiled to a much larger degree than other races. Furthermore, females cannot be accurately identified with familial DNA profiling. as this technology is based on mapping Y chromosomes.

Aside from presumption of guilt over innocence, guilt by association, racial and sexist bias, the undermining of Constitutional values, and a whole host of other concerns that are now being overlooked with the arrest of this man said to be a prolific serial killer, there is also the concern of how this may impact family relations. What will this do to family and personal privacy in regards to adoption, children born of affairs or incest, transgendered persons, estrangement, etcetera? How will this play out when it comes to twins? All of these concerns are being brushed aside in a public outcry of support for the invasion of our own rights, disguised as justice. How many innocents will be persecuted, how many lives turned upside down, for the extremely rare instance that a deranged maniac is actually caught based on this technology?

Raising these questions though, will not be popular at all now, and the media is helping to ensure that. A CNN article pulls at the heart strings by specifying one victim over all the others, since she was only 18. The old "it's for the children" propaganda being played there with some subtlety. Southern California Public Radio had this to say...

"The familial DNA search had been criticized as an invasion of privacy but now that it’s yielded amazing results, should it [be] used without hesitation?"

How can the question even be asked before a conviction is brought? An arrest is certainly no "amazing result" at the cost of privacy and the violation of liberty. According to the National Research Council of National Academies who advises the government on scientific matters, these sort of databases should never have been created in the first place, noting "serious issues of privacy and fairness." Of course, the warnings will go unheeded as they always do, drowned out by the mass of short-sighted, historically forgetful, fearful and vengeful citizens so easily manipulated into knee-jerk reactions. Another sad day for liberty, and another victory for tyranny. All in the name of public safety.

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." ~Benjamin Franklin

7/10/10 UPDATE:

Reports out today show that suspect Lonnie David Franklin Jr. was arrested at least 15 times in the past four decades, but was never sent to prison and never had a DNA sample taken in recent arrests. He was arrested for serious crimes including burglary, car theft, firearms possession and assaults, but despite recommendations of probation officers, he was still never sent to prison or had a DNA sample taken. So clearly, this familial DNA technology is not, in fact, "...the only way to bring a dangerous killer to justice," as stated by Attorney General Jerry Brown. Now the public is supposed to submit to even more infringement upon their own rights and liberty because the government can't even use the tools it already has effectively? Tell us Mister Brown, how is your incompetence, "proof-positive" as you put it, "that familial DNA searches must be a part of law enforcement's crime-fighting arsenal" when you and your office let this man go free time and time again? According to the Associate Press article on Yahoo News, one of his victims was killed in 2003 when Mr. Franklin should have been in jail for stealing a car, but was instead released early.

Of course, some will use these revelations to endorse a "build more prisons, get tough on crime" agenda once again. Sure, give even more money and power to those who don't even know how to do their job. Feed the incompetence. The answer is not more jails and stiffer sentences. It's about picking and choosing the battles. Rather than keeping a bunch of people locked up for selling some marijuana, maybe the government should let them out and make room for the real criminals. Violent repeat offenders with multiple felony convictions. And in the bigger picture, maybe the leadership of this nation should get things on track economically so that folks don't become so desperate that they feel they have to resort to crime in the first place. That would certainly help to smoke out the real maniacs, if they weren't camouflaged by so many would-be regular folks being persecuted as arch-criminals just for trying to survive on mean streets.

Back to the topic of DNA specifically, there is another troubling aspect of this case. The manner in which they collected the DNA sample from the suspect. As reported by the same AP article linked above, "An undercover officer pretending to be a waiter in Los Angeles collected tableware, napkins, glasses and pizza crust at a restaurant where Franklin ate, allowing detectives to obtain a DNA match."

By what right do the police clandestinely collect DNA material from a citizen? They had no other evidence linking this man specifically to any of the killings, or even to the familial DNA sample taken from his son. They had no reason to suspect him specifically, other than a hunch. They had no way of knowing if Mr. Franklin was indeed his son's genetic father. Nor could they be certain that it wasn't any number of other people with a similar DNA profile. This reeks of typical police fishing expeditions under the guise of "you match the description" just because he happened to be a black man related to a felon.

So it seems now that the police can take anyone's DNA sample at will, so long as they have a hunch that you might be a criminal. A very dangerous precedent indeed in what was once a free country, where people had inviolable rights to privacy. How long before police are putting citizens up against the wall for a cavity search and a genital swab, just because they happened to be in a ten block radius of a crime scene? But of course, no one complains about it right now, because police got the big fish on their expedition this time, as they trampled all over the Constitution. What happens though, when they start spending more of your tax dollars hand over fist on these expeditions, coming up short more often than not, or for something as petty as $1.40 in change, leaving a trail of wrecked homes and lives behind them? If the police could just go in and secretly take Mr. Franklin's DNA at will, who is to say they won't simply start doing this to everyone at will? What is to stop crooked cops like murderous Louis Eppolito and Steven Caracappa from taking your DNA evidence and planting it on a murder victim? How would crooked cops like them even be caught once they have their manipulative hands on the Holy Grail of evidence? What is to stop a lab from making mistakes, or even being willfully fraudulent in their findings with your DNA in hand? There's an old adage that the founding fathers no doubt knew. "Never trust someone who doesn't trust you." They certainly trusted no government, and saw it only as a necessary evil, meant to be limited in every respect possible.

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

~Thomas Jefferson

Trial update of BART officer who killed suspect (with verdict)

On New Year's Day 2009, Bay Area Rapid Transit officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed unarmed civilian Oscar Grant, as the victim lay face-down on an Oakland, California train platform. It is not unreasonable to question whether or not charges would have ever been filed, had it not been for the cell-phone video taken by several witnesses and widely circulated on the internet. Prosecutors have gone ahead with a murder charge however, contending that the officer did in fact intend to shoot the suspect out of fear that he and his colleagues were losing control of the situation. Shortly after the shooting the officer resigned, and has since pled not-guilty to the charge of murder, contending that the shooting was an accident, and that he had intended to use his Taser on Mr. Grant.

There are several different clips available on Youtube showing the shooting, but here is a short one...

Because Mr. Grant was black and the accused is white, there have been considerable racial tensions stemming from the incident, which is one reason that the trial was moved to Los Angeles from the Alameda County courthouse. Another reason cited was "intense media coverage." So there we see a deliberate "brown out" of the public's right to know. But thanks to Fox News, we have this article...

Ex-BART officer got minimum amount of stun gun training weeks before he shot unarmed black man

Well kudos to Fox for even bringing us the story, but there's some slant there. First off, he didn't just "shoot" a black man, he killed him. Second, the headline is completely focused on the man's defense. Of course, this probably reflects the testimony of the day to some extent, so it's really not inordinate spin, especially for Fox, except for the fact that I have not seen any headlines from them or any other media outlet with the emphasis on the prosecution's case. Or even their take on the day's testimony. The article goes on to say that Defense attorney Michael Rains "...appeared to try to show jurors that Mehserle got the very minimum amount of training on how to use a stun gun." So right there we see that Fox is stating as a matter of fact, what is really more a matter of opinion for the defense.

Was this training not sufficient for all other officers? If police in America are so poorly trained that it excuses reckless homicide, perhaps they shouldn't be carrying guns and Tasers in the first place. Would it be a viable defense for a civilian? Let's say someone who had a pistol permit, but had little training on when and how to use their weapon. Better yet, a black civilian who had just shot and killed a cop. What defense attorney would even recommend an "it was just an accident" defense in such a case?

At the end of the day, it doesn't seem very reasonable that the officer confused his pistol with the Taser. The weapons are holstered differently, feel different when grasped,  and are carried on opposite sides of the body. Mehserle would have had to reach around his body with his dominant hand to grab the Taser weapon. Instead, he simply dropped down to the pistol at his hip, clutched the firearm with both hands, and fired.
Was it his intention to actually fire the weapon? What was he thinking? Did he perceive some threat erroneously? Was it really a cold-blooded murder? We may never know. But one thing is for certain, the negligence of this now former officer has left a man dead. So at the very least, Johannes Mehserle is just as guilty in the death of Oscar Grant as a reckless or drunken driver who kills someone on the highway.
Special thanks to the Lunaticoutpost forum, and forum member Geogal for regular updates as the story unfolds. Discussion and updates can be found here...

http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-BART-shooting-update?page=1

EDIT to add verdict:
After 6 1/2 hours of deliberation, the jury found Johannes Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter, with gun enhancement. He faces 5 to 14 years in prison. He escaped being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and murder in the second degree.