DoJ Launches Study of Right Wing Extremists

Posted on by

Do you ever wonder what the definition of ‘right-wing extremist’ is? Do you ever wonder who actually decides those classified as such? Consider the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law Center who have had constant access to the Justice Department under Eric Holder. Then academia is allowed to have a major voice against conservatives, just perform a cursory look at major universities and their professors.

Enter the a little known division sanctioned the Department of Justice known as the National Institute of Justice.

NIJ Award Detail: An Assessment of Extremist Groups Use of Web Forums, Social Media, and Technology to Enculturate and Radicalize Individuals to Violence

Justice Department Studying ‘Far-Right’ Social Media Use

$585,719 study to combat violent extremism

The Department of Justice is concentrating on “far-right” groups in a new study of social media usage aimed at combatting violent extremism.

The Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded Michigan State University $585,719 for the study, which was praised by Eric Holder, the former attorney general, earlier this year.

“There is currently limited knowledge of the role of technology and computer mediated communications (CMCs), such as Facebook and Twitter, in the dissemination of messages that promote extremist agendas and radicalize individuals to violence,” according to the NIJ grant. “The proposed study will address this gap through a series of qualitative and quantitative analyses of posts from various forms of CMC used by members of both the far-right and Islamic extremist movements.”

The study draws more upon right-wing forums than upon the corners of the web inhabited by Islamist extremists.

“We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement,” the grant said.

“The findings will be used to document both the prevalence and variation in the ideological content of posts from members of each movement,” the grant continued. “In addition, we will assess the value of these messages in the social status of the individual posting the message and the function of radical messages in the larger on-line identity of participants in extremist communities generally.”

The project will also “identify the hidden networks of individuals who engage in extremist movements based on geographic location and ideological similarities.”

The results will be used for a public webinar, and for presentations for counterterrorism experts in the United States.

Holder highlighted the study in remarks this February at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, as an example of the new methods the Justice Department is using to combat terrorist threats.

Holder said the study will “help us develop more effective techniques and partnerships for counter-messaging.”

While the grant does not name the “far-right” groups that would be examined, other federal agencies have devoted their energy to the sovereign citizen movement.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report on the movement, whose members believe that U.S. laws do not apply to them, just as the White House held its summit on violent extremism. The administration did not use the phrase “Islamist extremism” at the summit.

DHS stirred controversy in 2009 when it issued a report on right-wing extremism, which included veterans returning from combat as a potential terrorist threat.

The Justice Department and Michigan State University did not return requests for comment by press time.

 

If Released Gitmo Detainees are no Risk, Then Why?

Posted on by

Mohammed Zahir historyAs of May 31, 2015, 5:00 PM, EST Qatar and the United States have agreed to an extension of detention.

Sample detainee: Mohammed Zahir’s Guantanamo detainee assessment Mohammed_Zahir's_Guantanamo_detainee_assessment_pdf   Who is really deciding who does get released, to what transfer point, why and who approves? What are the conditions of release, is there money paid to the country of last destination? How long are they to stay in the last country of destination and under what conditions? If these people pose no threat, they why are the negotiations not for public release? If they pose no threat, then how come they are not released back to their home country? How come the Obama administration does not offer them refugee status in the United States? Here is a list of the detainees through 2006. Merely skim this list for names and country of origin. See a pattern? The Taliban 5 that were swapped for deserter Bowe Bergdahl are free from their Qatar Club Med fully vacation location, TODAY. What deal did the United States work with Qatar to monitor their future activities? Another secret. If this was such a great swap deal, then why did the White House not advise Congress 30 days prior to the swap, which is law? Do you believe this? (CNN)Senior administration officials said Friday that the U.S. is continuing to hold negotiations with the governments of Afghanistan and Qatar as a deadline to determine the fate of five Taliban figures released in a prisoner exchange with the U.S. looms. Qatar is willing to extend the agreement under exactly the same terms, but will not renegotiate the terms, the source said. The Americans are sending signals they want to add additional surveillance and more restrictions on their movement. “[Qatar] will keep them if both parties agree and if there are the same conditions of the old agreement,” the source said. “[Qatar is] not going to add other terms because [Qatar is] not going to make it more complicated for [themselves].” The source said that although U.S., Afghanistan and Qatar are the main parties, the Taliban do have a say and are welcome to stay in Qatar, noting the five have brought their families to Qatar and now total about 70 people among them. The source emphasized Qataris will not send them back to Afghanistan if the men don’t want to return to Afghan government control. One of the Taliban 5: Mullah-Norullah Nori, Reasons for Continued Detention: Detainee is an admitted senior member of the Taliban and led troops against US and Coalition forces. Detainee was directly subordinate to Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar, commanded Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan, and in late 2001, he was in charge of Taliban troops positioned near Mazar-e-Sharif. Detainee is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites. Detainee is also associated with members of al-Qaida, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and the Hezb-E- Islami Gulbuddin (HIG). His full history is here, this explains just who the United States was taking off the battlefield under the Bush administration. To read about the hearing Congress had on this Taliban 5 swap for a deserter, that document is here. Further, here is Uruguay’s position of the 6 released detainees to took. There are growing concerns in some corners of the American government that six former Guantanamo Bay detainees freed by the Obama administration could pose a threat to the safety of U.S. personnel. Those detainees were sent to Uruguay in December. And in recent months, the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo has substantially expanded its defenses against a possible threat, according to three sources familiar with the matter. The embassy has increased the number of guards present, as well as the size of the embassy’s Marine Guard detachment, adding two more men to the handful who were there previously. The embassy has also taken steps to heighten security for employees. All local hires have been ordered to park two to three blocks from the building so that embassy guards can conduct surveillance more easily over American cars and passengers parked nearby. Some local staff have taken that order as disregard for the safety of foreign nationals working at the embassy. Read the full story here. Repeat, if these released detainees pose no threat, then why?

Nazis on Social Security got Millions

Posted on by

On Nazis and Nazi collaborators getting visas to the United States

In the early months, and first few years after the war, beginning in mid-1945, [there were] only a very limited number of immigration visas to get into the United States.

Filing for refugee status in the United States and being approved is a stage for entitlement abuse, years ago and especially today. One of the most quiet and effective investigative Senators in Congress is Chuck Grassley. He worked the Fast and Furious operation, the Security and Exchange Commission abuses and even Medicare fraud. One of his recent investigations is in to Nazis getting Social Security benefits.

After so many years?

The Ex-Nazis Collecting Social Security

They reportedly received millions of dollars in government benefits even after being expelled from the United States.

On Monday, an exhaustive two-year Associated Press investigation concluded in which it was determined that dozens of former Nazis collectively received millions of dollars in Social Security benefits from the United States. Worse yet, according to the report, once these former Nazis were discovered, payments continued after they were expelled from the country in a bid to encourage them to leave the United States peacefully.

“Since 1979,” the AP analysis found, “at least 38 of 66 suspects removed from the country kept their Social Security benefits,” the report read. These weren’t lightweights either. Suspected activities of the recipients range from participation in the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto to the use of slave labor and the round-up and killing of thousands of Jews. At least four of these men are said to still be alive and receiving money from American taxpayers.

One of the many unsettling revelations from the AP report:

The Justice Department denied using Social Security payments as a tool for removing Nazi suspects. But records show the U.S. State Department and the Social Security Administration voiced grave concerns over the methods used by the Justice Department’s Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of Special Investigations.

State officials derogatorily called the practice “Nazi dumping” and claimed the OSI was bargaining with suspects so they would leave voluntarily.

One enduring criticism of the American response to World War II is the belated enactment of a rescue policy for Jewish refugees seeking to emigrate to the United States. It wasn’t until 1944, roughly two years after the systematic deportation and extermination of Europe’s Jews had begun, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the most aggressive action to aid the persecuted millions by creating the War Refugee Board.

Decades later, historians continue to debate what more could have been done beyond the military effort that ultimately brought about the war’s end. The unfilled immigration quotas from Roosevelt’s first term continue to haunt his record. In 1942, in another symbolic step, Roosevelt promised that all war criminals would be pursued at the war’s end.

That unfortunate history only adds to the messy dimensions of this story. It’s not just the idea that former Nazis found safe haven in the United States, and it’s not just that the former Nazis were able to flourish and pay enough into the American system to ultimately receive benefits, although that’s certainly part of it as well.

Beyond all this, and the fact that thousands of people were denied this opportunity in America, the loophole that allows the payments is still open. Meanwhile, according to the Office of Special Investigations’ own figures, only ten of the men who were removed from the United States were ever actually prosecuted for their crimes.

Here it Comes: ATF Regs Unified Agenda

Posted on by

As Obama begins to finalize his regime in the White House, he is reviewing his to-do list and checking it twice. Several items remain unfinished and he aims to get his gold star to complete all of them. One of them is moving to deeper restrictions on gun-ownership.

Barack Obama has a new chief lawyer at the Justice Department, Loretta Lynch and she is in full lock step to lead the ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division to complete the Unified Agenda. ( You will note if you click Unified Agenda, the .pdf document is not there….hummm). For some real lengthy reading here is the full federal government Unified Agenda.

ATF weapons definitions are here and updated as of 2011.

Administration preps new gun regulations

The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.

But the gun lobby contends that such a sweeping ban would unfairly root out a number of prospective gun owners who are not a danger to society.

“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” said Luke O’Dell, vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights.

The Justice Department plans to issue new rules expanding criteria for people who do not qualify for gun ownership, according to the recently released Unified Agenda, which is a list of rules that federal agencies are developing.

Some of the rules come in response to President Obama’s call to reduce gun violence in the wake of Sandy Hook. He issued 23 executive actions shortly after the shooting aimed at keeping guns away from dangerous people, and some of those items remain incomplete.

“If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown,” Obama said at the time.

“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale,” he added.

Gun control groups have rallied around Obama’s call to action, zeroing in on polices that would keep guns away from the mentally ill and domestic abusers.

Congressional efforts to expand background checks and keep guns away from dangerous people have failed in recent years, but the legislative defeats won’t stop the Justice Department from regulating.

The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is looking to revive a rule proposed way back in 1998 that would block domestic abusers from owning guns.

As proposed, the regulation makes it illegal for some who has been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense to own a gun.

The ATF plans to finalize the rule by November, according to the Unified Agenda.
But gun rights advocates are concerned the Obama administration will use this rule to unfairly target certain gun owners.

“That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” warned Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Americans for Responsible Solutions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

But Everytown, a group financially backed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has argued that keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers can be a matter of life or death.

“American women are 11 times more likely to be shot and killed than women in other developed countries,” the group argues. “The high rate of domestic violence deaths in America is directly related to our weak gun laws. But we know that smart gun laws can—and do—stop domestic abuse from turning into murder.”

The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms, which is attracting even more criticism from gun rights groups.

“The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist,” Hammond argued.

The NRA contends that many people who are mentally ill may not necessarily pose a danger to society — or as the gun lobby puts it, the policy “snares masses of mostly harmless individuals.”

Gun rights advocates argue it would be more effective to ban people on an individual basis, as opposed to banning all people who are mentally ill.

“A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA wrote.
“Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness,” it added.

Aside from these issues, some gun rights advocates have also raised concerns about upcoming ATF rules that would require gun dealers to report gun thefts, provide gun storage and safety devices, and place restrictions on high-powered pistols, among other things.

“The Obama administration hates the Second Amendment, and it’s clear that every place where it can push, it will,” said Hammond. “This is an indication of an anti-gun administration trying to annoy us in any way it can.”

Surveillance State, Your Touch and Your Smartphone

Posted on by

There was a Rand Paul filibuster last week over the NSA broad sweep of citizen’s private affairs. Senator Paul does have a major point in his efforts to protect our privacy yet to what ends when it comes to national security? He pledges to take the matter of the vote on the NSA to see the Patriot Act end.

There is yet another piece of legislation that is important to understand. The USA Freedom Act. In part:

Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet Collection, and Online Monitoring Act

H.R. 3361/ S. 1599

Purpose:  To rein in the dragnet collection of data by the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies, increase transparency of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), provide businesses the ability to release information regarding FISA requests, and create an independent constitutional advocate to argue cases before the FISC.

End bulk collection of Americans’ communications records

• The USA Freedom Act ends bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.
• The bill would strengthen the prohibition on “reverse targeting” of Americans—that is, targeting a foreigner with the goal of obtaining communications involving an American.
• The bill requires the government to more aggressively filter and discard information about Americans accidentally collected through PRISM and related programs.

Reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

• The USA Freedom Act creates an Office of the Special Advocate (OSA) tasked with promoting privacy interests before the FISA court’s closed proceedings. The OSA will have the authority to appeal decisions of the FISA court.
• The bill creates new and more robust reporting requirements to ensure that Congress is aware of actions by the FISC and intelligence community as a whole.
• The bill would grant the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight  Board subpoena authority to investigate issues related to privacy and national security.

Increase Transparency

• The USA Freedom Act would end secret laws by requiring the Attorney General to publicly disclose all FISC decisions issued after July 10, 2003 that contain a significant construction or interpretation of law.
• Under the bill, Internet and telecom companies would be allowed to publicly report an estimate of (1) the number of FISA orders and national security letters received, (2) the number of such orders and letters complied with, and (3) the number of users or accounts on whom information was demanded under the orders and letters.
• The bill would require the government to make annual or semiannual public reports estimating the total number of individuals and U.S. persons that were subject to FISA orders authorizing electronic surveillance, pen/trap devices, and access to business records.

DONT APPLAUD JUST YET…this next introduction of technology is very chilling. When does it all stop with surveillance?

NSA will Track Your Smartphone Finger Strokes

Smartphone technology built by Lockheed Martin promises to verify a user’s identity based on the swiftness and shape of the individual’s finger strokes on a touch screen. The mobile device feature, created by Lockheed Martin, verifies a user’s identity based on the swiftness and shape of the individual’s finger strokes on a touch screen. The technology is but one incarnation of handwriting-motion recognition, sometimes called “dynamic signature” biometrics, that has roots in the Air Force. “Nobody else has the same strokes,” said John Mears, senior fellow for Lockheed IT and Security Solutions. “People can forge your handwriting in two dimensions, but they couldn’t forge it in three or four dimensions. Three is the pressure you put in, in addition to the two dimensions on the paper. The fourth dimension is time. The most advanced handwriting-type authentication tracks you in four dimensions.”  The biometric factors measured by Lockheed’s technology, dubbed “Mandrake,” are speed, acceleration and the curve of an individual’s strokes. “We’ve done work with the NSA with that for secure gesture authentication as a technique for using smartphones,” Mears said. “They are actually able to use it.” According to Defense One . Lockheed officials said they do not know how or if the agency has operationally deployed the Mandrake smartphone doodling-recognition tool. The company also is the architect of the FBI’s recently completed $1 billion facial, fingerprint, palm print, retina scan and tattoo image biometric ID system. That project, called the Next Generation Identification system, could tie in voice and “gait matching” (how a person walks) in the future, the bureau has said. Mandrake potentially might be useful for emergency responders who often do not have the time or capability to access an incident command website, Mears said.