Obama's Not So Secret Plan to Close Gitmo

The Obama administration has faced criticism that they have no plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. President Barack Obama campaigned on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Obama has been blocked by both parties in Congress from closing Gitmo.

Candidate Obama was asked on 60 Minutes if he would use the power of executive order to close Gitmo. Obama said yes. Obama has never been the wisest tactician. The Senate voted to block funding for transfers of Gitmo prisoners. The vote was held on May 20, 2009. Obama should have just moved the prisoners when he came into office.

The Obama administration's secret plan really isn't that secret. A two page memo really isn't much of a plan. It does cast a lot of blame on Congress. Much of that blame is deserved.

Prosecution and Detention. The U.S. Government will prosecute detainees in federal courts or military commission proceedings to the extent feasible and in the national security interest. The President has directed the Department of Defense to identify a site in the United States for military commission proceedings. But current law bars the transfer of detainees to the United States for any reason. As a result, the Government is prohibited from prosecuting any detainees in a military commission in the United States or in a federal court, even if it represents the best – or only – option for bringing a detainee to justice. This is true even though the Government has successfully prosecuted more than 490 terrorism-related cases in federal courts since 9/11. For those not prosecuted, the Administration will use the PRB process to regularly and carefully review the threat posed by detainees and, where appropriate, they will be designated for transfer.

The leaked secret plan. It really isn't a secret plan if the memo lists prisoner policies the Obama administration has been pushing for and that this secret plan was handed to the media by White House staffers.

White House Plan to Close Guantanamo

City of Tampa May Make Unauthorized Peeking Cameras Legal

I can't believe the Tampa City Council is even debating whether or not surveillance cameras can peek into homes without a warrant.

Today Tampa City Council approved changes to an ordinance reinforcing that would make it a crime for Tampa Police to use surveillance cameras purchased for the Republican convention for unauthorized peeping on residents inside their homes. But they put off a decision about whether the cameras will be a permanent part of the city’s landscape. There’s been ongoing friction between council and the mayor’s administration about who has the authority to authorize deployment of the cameras. To help clear that up council scheduled a workshop for next August suggested by member Harry Cohen.

The correct answer should be no one should have the authority for "unauthorized peeking." Perhaps Mayor Bob Buckhorn and the Tampa City Council need a refresher course on the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Tampa Police chief Jane Castor says that the cameras will not be used to peek into homes. We were goiven assurances that the Patriot Act was temporary and would only be used against terrorists. We have seen warrantless wiretapping on law-abidding American citizens since the Patriot Act became law.

I was in downtown Tampa during the Republican National Convention. The excessive security kept Tampa residents away from downtown. Out of town Republicans went to Ybor City to spend their money. Downtown Tampa is already a mess. Intrusive surveillance cameras will only make downtown Tampa less friendly to visitors.

Update: Mitch Perry reports that the decision to have the surveillance cameras is strictly up to Mayor Bob Buckhorn. He has already decided to keep the cameras. It appears that the ACLU is going to have the City of Tampa to court.

Judge Strikes Down Florida Drug Testing Law

Alex Leary reports Gov. Rick Scott struck out in court again.

Miami judge rules that Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing for state workers is unconstitutional, violates 4th Amendment.

I challenge a reporter to ask Scott does he know what the Fourth amendment is? Does Scott even care. I will post the Fourth amendment to help our governor out.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Florida House Brings Back Drug Testing

Gov. Rick Scott and Republicans in the Florida legislature haven't learned from their defeat in court. The Florida passed passed HB 1205. The bill would make it mandatory for state workers to submit to a drug

Drug-free Workplaces: Requires drug testing to be conducted within each state agency's appropriation; authorizes agencies within state government to require employees to submit to periodic random drug testing; revises provisions relating to discharging or disciplining certain employees; authorizes agency to refer employee, at employee's expense, to employee assistance program or alcohol & drug rehabilitation program if not discharged; requires employer to transfer employee to job assignment he or she can perform safely & effectively while participating in employee assistance program or alcohol & drug rehabilitation program or place employee on leave status if such position is unavailable; authorizes employee to use accumulated leave credits before being placed on leave without pay; provides that employer remains qualified for insurer rate plan that discounts rates for workers' compensation & employer's liability insurance policies if employer maintains drug-free workplace program that is broader in scope than that provided for by standards & procedures established in act; authorizes public employer to conduct random drug tests of certain employees under specified conditions; provides requirements for public sector employer assigning public sector employee to position other than mandatory-testing position.

Effective Date: July 1, 2012

The Supreme Court ruled, in Skinner v. Railway Lab. Execs Ass'n that state employees can be randonly tested, if public safety is at risk. Otherwise, it is a violation of the Fourth amendment. Florida has tried to test state workers before under Gov. Jeb Bush. Roderick Wenzel took the Department of Juvenile Justice to court. Wenzel objected to being drug-tested by the DJJ. The ACLU represented Wenzel and won. Judge Robert Hinkle found the reasoning to randomly drug test Wenzel laughable.

But as Chandler teachers, this test cannot be met by ordinary public employees , or even high public officials, who work in offices and ought to be sober, but who do not have direct contact with the drug trade, and whose impairment would not pose the kind of public safety risk that attends to operation of a train or other dangerous instrumentality.

Pressed at oral argument to explain just what a drug-using long-range planner might do with his position, the defense in the case came up short. The suggestion was made that the planner could access confidential information on juveniles, learning the identity of a drug offender, and then contact that person or his family and demand drugs, threatening adverse consequences for any failure to go along. The defense offered no evidence that in the real world any such scheme had ever been devised, let alone carried out, even once, in Florida or anywhere else. To call this theory far-fetch would be charitable.

State Rep. Joe Negron is hardly a bleeding heart liberal. Negron sees no need for HB 1205.

“I haven’t been running across drug-addled employees who haven’t been able to do their jobs,” said Sen. Joe Negron, a Stuart Republican with a libertarian streak. “I’ve heard no evidence whatsoever why we need it."

Before the unemployment compensation drug testing, signed by Scott, was blocked by the courts, only 2 percent of people applying for unemployment tested positive. The drug testing was actually increasing expenses for the state. The state had to payback unemployment recipients that paid to be tested. Scott never got the magical savings he promised. There really is no evidence that state-wide drug testing is needed.

TSA Saving Nude Pictures

Remember when the Obama administration was telling Americans that the TSA body scanners did not save images of people naked? They were lying. A lawsuit by the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the Department of Homeland Security for access to 2,000 copies of images from TSA body scanners.

Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that the Homeland Security Department is not obliged to provide the images under the Freedom of Information Act because disclosure of the images may provide terrorists and other groups with higher ability to prevent detection by TSA and bring into aircraft prohibited materials.

I don't take the security issues lightly. However, I'm sure terrorists are aware that TSA uses machines that scan through clothing. Federal courts usually rule with the government on security issues. The ruling is not surprising. It does make me wonder why TSA is saving these pictures.

Rapiscan is one of the companies that makes the scanning machines for TSA. The CEO of Rapiscan is Deepak Chopra. It is a troubling potential conflict of interest when Chopra accompanies President Obama on a trip to India. On the trip, Obama announced a $1.7 billion deal between India and Boeing. The Wikileaks revealed the Obama administration has used legally shady behavior to secure contracts for Boeing.

Thom Hartman has a good commentary on how President Obama has blurred the line between lobbyists and government Hartman discusses Obama's India trip with Chopra.

John Edwards Against FISA Bill

John Edwards has come out publicly against the FISA bill.

In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

I received an Edwards campaign asking Floridians to voice their disapproval of the Bush administration-backed FISA bill to Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez.

Mel Martinez, (R): (202) 224-3041
Bill Nelson, (D): (202) 224-5274

Edwards has come out against the bill. Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going to show leadership and use their pulpits to sway colleagues. Their silence have spoke volumes about their political courage.

The lobbying power of the telecommunication companies can not be underestimated. The telecom industry has contributed $2,834,423 this election cycle. The Senate voted 76 to 10 to vote on the bill. The bill would have easily passed if not for Christopher Dodd placing a hold on the bill.

The issue is that the bill violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court secretly presides over federal requests for wiretaps. The FISA court rarely turns down requests. The first appeal was filed by the Bush administration. Judge James Robinson resigned in protest. The Justice Department incompetently improperly filed 75 applications. FISA historically rubber stamps wire tap requests. The Bush administration went beyond the court's legal tolerance. The Bushies decided they would still wiretap.

The White House refused to allow Congress to see documents pertaining to the warrantless wiretapping program. The administration relented, to convince Congress to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies. Which begs the question: if the program is legal then why is legal immunity needed.

FISA In Wonderland

Only the Bush administration would have the audacity to admit to warrantless wiretapping and then back a Senate bill granting immunity to telecommunication companies.

WASHINGTON —An intelligence bill the Senate is scheduled to take up after it returns Dec. 3 would block Americans from learning details of any warrantless surveillance program the federal government conducted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the American Civil Liberties Union says.

The bill would grant immunity from lawsuits to communications companies for any "intelligence activity involving communications" that was "designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack" or attack preparations. Telecoms would need to show they received a "written request or directive" from the administration vouching that the programs were "lawful" to stop lawsuits.

Liz Rose, spokeswoman for the Washington office of the ACLU, says the language is a "blank check" that would cover not only a warrantless wiretapping program the Bush administration has acknowledged but any unconfirmed or previously unknown program. Last year, USA TODAY and other media reported that some U.S. telecoms also shared customer calling information with the National Security Agency as part of an anti-terrorism program that the administration has not confirmed.

Many of the illegally monitored calls were domestic. The White House has not explained why it is necessary to listen to the calls of American citizens. What is clear is the Bush administration has used the NSA to violate the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Christopher Dodd has been outspoken against the FISA bill. Qwest admitted they were approached by the Bush administration to paticipate in warrantless wiretapping. They declined because of legal concerns. Verizon and AT&T have been silent on the matter.

We know that the Bush administration has admitted to warrantless wiretapping. Quest told the media they were asked to paticipate. Why haven't members of the administration being brought up on criminal charges?

Another matter is how can lawmakers consider legislation that clearly goes against the Constitution? The federal government has become as surrealistic as Alice In Wonderland.