ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Ma svestan je svako ko ima ikakvu kreditnu karticu za početak.

Ja sam mislio na Internet. Dovoljno je da te neko označi kao sumnjivog i da bi valjalo malo te nadzirati.

Pa i tu većina nas obavlja posao  sama: fejsbuci, tviteri, guglovi itd.

Iiii pravda pobedjuje jos jednom:

City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant lot

Yahoo! – A business developer in the Philadelphia neighborhood of Point Breeze is facing legal action after voluntarily cleaning up more than 40 tons of trash from a vacant lot neighboring his local business. As the old adage goes, no good deed goes unpunished. Ori Feibush says he visited the local offices of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority four times, sent in seven written requests and made 24 phone calls to the agency asking them to take care of a major eyesore: an empty lot next to his coffee shop was home to more than 40 tons of debris. Not only did the agency fail to act but it also denied Feibush's offer to clean up the mess himself. But the Daily News reports that Feibush went ahead with his plans anyway, reportedly spending more than $20,000 of his own money not only to remove the trash but also to level the soil; add cherry trees, fencing and park benches; and repave the sidewalk. However, the city agency was less excited, demanding that Feibush return the vacant lot to its previous condition and saying it is considering legal action against him. "Like any property owner, [the authority] does not permit unauthorized access to or alteration of its property," Paul D. Chrystie, director of communications at the Office of Housing and Community Development told the paper. "This is both on principle (no property owner knowingly allows trespassing) and to limit taxpayer liability."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/city-may-sue-developer-spent-20k-remove-40-200922350.html

To znači da svaki put kad uklonim prazne omote i boce iz parka u susedstvu rizikujem da me gradski organi ganjaju zbog uzurpiranja njihovog prava da to urade.

Kaci na "Serbia today" kad te komunalna obradi. 

Američko društvo je kanibalističko. Tamo svako može svakoga da tuži zbog bilo čega i da ga odere do gole kože.
Pa skoro su onog mladića najurili s posla zato što je spasio dečka izvan plaže u kojoj je bio nadležan, a hitna pomoć je njemu ispostavila račun...

Ako se neko davi, obavezan si da pozoveš nadležnu službu, a počinićeš ozbiljan prekršaj ako sam pokušaš da spasavaš jer si nestručan.

Je li neko čito skoro Puž golać na urvini od Strugackih? 

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/QE3%20Confirms%20the%20Economic%20Implosion%2009-13-2012.pdf

QE3 Confirms the Economic Implosion

Mnogo su ga naduvali.

Devojčica objasnila... bukvalno

fantastic 12 yr old Victoria Grant explains how banks commit fraud.mp4

Navodno, iza aktuelnih hakerskih napada na američke banke stoji - Iran.

Officials see Iran, not outrage over film, behind cyber attacks on US banks

Quote

National security officials told NBC News that the continuing cyber attacks this week that slowed the websites of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America are being carried out by the government of Iran. One of those sources said the claim by hackers that the attacks were prompted by the online video mocking the Prophet Muhammad is just a cover story.
A group of purported hackers in the Middle East has claimed credit for problems at the websites of both banks, citing the online video mocking the founder of Islam. One security source called that statement "a cover" for the Iranian government's operations.Advertise | AdChoices    The attack is described by one source, a former U.S. official familiar with the attacks, as being "significant and ongoing" and looking to cause "functional and significant damage." Also, one source suggested the attacks were in response to U.S. sanctions on Iranian banks.
The consumer banking website of Bank of America was unavailable to some customers on Tuesday, and JPMorgan Chase on Wednesday had the same problems, which multiple sources linked to a denial-of-service attack, in which a website is bogged down by a large number of requests. A Chase spokesman said Wednesday that the consumer site was intermittently unavailable to some customers, but did not acknowledge then that there was an attack. On Thursday, Chase said slowness continued but was resolved by late afternoon Eastern Time. Bank of America acknowledged on Tuesday that its site had experienced slowness, but would not say what caused it.
Senior U.S. officials acknowledge that Iranian attacks have been the subject of intense interest by U.S. intelligence for several weeks. Last week, the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Intelligence Directorate, known as J-2, confirmed continuing Iranian cyber attacks against U.S. financial institutions in a report described as "highly classified." The report was posted on internal classified U.S. government sites last Friday, September 14.

---

Because of the level of classification, the officials refused to provide or confirm any specifics on these attacks. However, one official noted that Iran's uranium enrichment program had been the target of the STUXNET worm in 2010. The worm was reportedly developed by the U.S. and Israel. "The Iranians are very familiar with the environment," quipped the official.


A conservative website, FreeBeacon.com, initially reported on the Pentagon analysis, quoting it as saying,  "Iran's cyber aggression should be viewed as a component, alongside efforts like support for terrorism, to the larger covert war Tehran is waging against the west." U.S officials did not deny the FreeBeacon report when queried by NBC News.
A financial services industry group,  the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center, warned U.S. banks, brokerages and insurers late Wednesday to be on heightened alert for cyber attacks. FS-ISAC also raised its raised the cyber threat level to "high" from "elevated" in an advisory to members, citing "recent credible intelligence regarding the potential" for cyber attacks as its reason for the move.
The former head of cyber-security for the White House testified Thursday that "we were waiting for something like this from Iran."  Frank Cilluffo, who served as Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, is currently an associate vice president at George Washington University and heads the Homeland Security Policy Institute. Cilluffo testified in a previously scheduled appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Homeland Security, saying "the government of Iran and its terrorist proxies are serious concerns in the cyber context. What Iran may lack in capability, it makes up for in intent.  They do not need highly sophisticated capabilities—just intent and cash—as there exists an arms bazaar of cyber weapons, allowing Iran to buy or rent the tools they need or seek."

Follow Open Channel from NBC News on Twitter and Facebook.

Advertise | AdChoices    The statement by the purported Muslim hackers, posted on Tuesday on Pastebin, an online bulletin board, reads in full: "In the name of Allah the companionate the merciful. My soul is devoted to you Dear Prophet of Allah. Dear Muslim youths, Muslims Nations and are noblemen. When Arab nations rose against their corrupt regimes (those who support Zionist regime) at the other hand when, Crucify infidels are terrified and they are no more supporting human rights. United States of America with the help of Zionist Regime made a Sacrilegious movie insulting all the religions not only Islam. All the Muslims worldwide must unify and Stand against the action, Muslims must do whatever is necessary to stop spreading this movie. We will attack them for this insult with all we have. All the Muslim youths who are active in the Cyber world will attack to American and Zionist Web bases as much as needed such that they say that they are sorry about that insult. We, Cyber fighters of Izz ad-din Al qassam will attack the Bank of America and New York Stock Exchange for the first step. These Targets are properties of American-Zionist Capitalists. This attack will be started today at 2 pm. GMT. This attack will continue till the Erasing of that nasty movie. Beware this attack can vary in type. Down with modern infidels. Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest."
There was no report of an attack on the New York Stock Exchange.
Also on Thursday, the U.S. disclosed that it has  bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad which shows President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video. In the ad, President Obama says, "Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others." Clinton appears after Obama and says, "Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."
Pakistan was added Wednesday to the State Department's list of countries to which Americans should avoid travel, joining Lebanon and Tunisia, following protests across the Middle East and North Africa and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which American Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed.
Robert Windrem is a senior investigative correspondent for NBC News. Jim  Miklaszewski is the chief Pentagon correspondent for NBC News. Patti Domm, executive news editor at CNBC and CNBC.com, contributed to this report.

Ma, da. Iran je kriv za atomsku bombu, svetski terorizam, kišne gliste i ko zna za šta još. Pitanje je: Ima li ko normalan ko u to veruje?

valjda nema.

al da ce uskoro da krenu na njega, hoce. a rusi nema sanse da im daju nuclear weapon. tako da, bicemo svedoci jos jednog uvodjenja demokratije. sto bi samo u saudi arabiji bilo dobro & demokratski.

Kad se reka izlije, onda je svuda plitka.

Ирану нуклеарно оружје може да да Северна Кореја. Трансфер технологија што се ракета тиче постоји већ дуго и на Armscontrolwonku се спекулисало да тестирање ракета већ неко време обавља Иран, док ДНРК ради статичке тестове, без стварног лансирања. Оно што је нејасно јесте да ли је ДНРК успела да модификује SS-N-6 технологију, то јест да ли су "Мусудан" ракете заиста употребљиве.

Друга занимљива ствар јесте то што је била најављивана трећа атомска проба у ДНРК, а то се није догодило. У целом том замешетељству битна је улога Кине која не само да има ДНРК као штит према бедним поданицима Имерије Зла, него се и много ослања на иранску нафту. Кина је најочигледније прекршила ембарго на извоз технике кад је Корејцима извезла мобилне носаче ракета, а ови су их пре неколико месеци изложили на војној паради. Запад је, наравно, хистерисао. Узалуд, наравно. Продаја је, тврде, ишла преко неке белоруске фирме. Тако треба. 

Ma, to s korejskim raketama je običan cirkus. Zna se ko ima upotrebljive rakete i bombe. Oni to dele šakom i kapom, izgleda.
Zar neko zaista veruje da su Rusi ukrali planove za hidrogensku bombu?

Ne znam da li je lažnjak, Romni se pita zbog čega ne mogu da se otvaraju prozori na avionu.

http://www.inquisitr.com/341857/mitt-romney-why-cant-you-roll-down-airplane-windows/

Evo, samo za Mehmeta. Jeste da je iz prosle godine al' je uvek relevantno.

QuoteFear, American Style: What the Anarchist and Libertarian Don't Understand about the US

Two Fridays ago, I attended an excellent panel discussion on Occupy Wall Street sponsored by Jacobin magazine. It featured Doug Henwood and Jodi Dean—representing a more state-centered, socialist-style left—and Malcolm Harris and Natasha Lennard, representing a more anarchist-inflected left.
Lennard is a freelance writer who's been covering the OWS story for the New York Times. After a video of the panel was brought to the Times's attention, the paper reviewed it as well as Lennard's reporting and decided to take her off the OWS beat.  Despite the fact, according to a spokeswoman for the Times, that "we have reviewed the past stories to which she contributed and have not found any reasons for concern over that reporting."
Even more troubling, Lennard may not be hired by the Times again at all. Says the spokeswoman: "This freelancer, Natasha Lennard, has not been involved in our coverage of Occupy Wall Street in recent days, and we have no plans to use her for future coverage."
This is hardly the first time that the mainstream media has fired reporters for their political activities, even when there's no hint of evidence that those activities have led to biased or skewed coverage. Even so, it's worrisome, and ought to be protested and resisted.
Such political motivated firings fit into a much broader pattern in American history that— in my first book Fear: The History of a Political Idea—I call "Fear, American Style." While people on the left and the right often focus on state repression—coercion and intimidation that comes from and is wielded by the government (politically driven prosecution and punishment, police violence, and the like)—the fact is that a great deal of political repression happens in civil society, outside the state.  More specifically, in the workplace.
Think about McCarthyism. We all remember the McCarthy hearings in the Senate, the Rosenbergs, HUAC, and so on. All of these incidents involve the state. But guess how many people ever went to prison for their political beliefs during the McCarthy era? Less than 200 people. In the grand scheme of things, not a lot. Guess how many workers were investigated or subjected to surveillance for their beliefs?  One to two out of every five. And while we don't have exact statistics on how many of those workers were fired, it was somewhere between 10 and 15 thousand.
There's a reason so much of American repression is executed not by the state but by the private sector: the government is subject to constitutional and legal restraints, however imperfect and patchy they may be. But an employer often is not.  The Bill of Rights, as any union organizer will tell you, does not apply to the workplace.  The federal government can't convict and imprison you simply and transparently for your political speech; if it does, it has to paint that speech as something other than speech (incitement, say) or as somehow involved in or contributing to a crime (material support for terrorism, say). A newspaper—like any private employer in a non-union workplace—can fire you, simply and transparently, for your political speech, without any due process.
On this blog, I've talked a lot about what I call in The Reactionary Mind "the private life of power": the domination and control we experience in our personal lives at the hands of employers, spouses, and so on. But we should always recall that that private life of power is often wielded for overtly political purposes: not simply for the benefit of an employer but also for the sake of maintaining larger political orthodoxies and suppressing political heresies. That was true during McCarthyism, in the 1960s, and today as well.
It was also true in the 19th century. Tocqueville noticed it while he was traveling here in the 1830s. Stopping off in Baltimore, he had a chat with a physician there. Tocqueville asked him why so many Americans pretended they were religious when they obviously had "numerous doubts on the subject of dogma." The doctor replied that the clergy had a lot of power in America, as in Europe. But where the European clergy often acted through or with the help of the state, their American counterparts worked through the making and breaking of private careers.
If a minister, known for his piety, should declare that in his opinion a certain man was an unbeliever, the man's career would almost certainly be broken. Another example: A doctor is skilful, but has no faith in the Christian religion. However, thanks to his abilities, he obtains a fine practice. No sooner is he introduced into the house than a zealous Christian, a minister or someone else, comes to see the father of the house and says: look out for this man. He will perhaps cure your children, but he will seduce your daughters, or your wife, he is an unbeliever. There, on the other hand, is Mr. So-and-So. As good a doctor as this man, he is at the same time religious. Believe me, trust the health of your family to him. Such counsel is almost always followed.
After the Civil War, black Americans in the South became active political agents, mobilizing and agitating for education, political power, economic opportunity, and more. From the very beginning, they were attacked by white supremacists and unreconstructed former slaveholders. Often with the most terrible means of violence. But as W.E.B. DuBois pointed out in his magisterial Black Reconstruction, one of the most effective means of suppressing black citizens was through the workplace.
The decisive influence was the systematic and overwhelming economic pressure. Negroes who wanted work must not dabble in politics. Negroes who wanted to increase their income must not agitate the Negro problem. Positions of influence were only open to those Negroes who were certified as being 'safe and sane,' and their careers were closely scrutinized and passed upon. From 1880 onward, in order to earn a living, the American Negro was compelled to give up his political power.
In the last few months, I've had a fair number of arguments with both libertarians and anarchists about the state. What neither crew seems to get is what our most acute observers have long understood about the American scene: however much coercive power the state wields–and it's considerable—it's not, in the end, where and how many, perhaps even most, people in the United States have historically experienced the raw end of politically repressive power. Even force and violence: just think of black slaves and their descendants, confronting slaveholders, overseers, slave catchers, Klansmen, chain gangs, and more; or women confronting the violence of their husbands and supervisors; or workers confronting the Pinkertons and other private armies of capital.
Update (1:45 pm)
Just got off the phone with my wife, who reminded me of this amazing quote from Leslie Gelb. Gelb, who was once the epitome of what used to be called the Establishment (Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times; former State and Defense Department official; former president of the Council on Foreign Relations), supported the Iraq War. Later, after the disaster of that war became plain, he explained why he  had initially lent his name to the cause:
My initial support for the war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility. We 'experts' have a lot to fix about ourselves, even as we 'perfect' the media. We must redouble our commitment to independent thought, and embrace, rather than cast aside, opinions and facts that blow the common—often wrong—wisdom apart. Our democracy requires nothing less.
"To retain political and professional credibility." We have another word for that: careerism.
I've long wanted—and still plan—to write my magnum opus Careerism: Prolegomena to a Political Theory. But since retirement is still a ways away, let me just say this for now. The official reason Lennard is getting canned—or whatever it is; it's still unclear—from the Times is that the  her political activities could lend her reporting an air of impropriety or bias. In the words of a Times spokeswoman:
All our journalists, staff or freelance, are expected to adhere to our ethical rules and journalistic standards and to avoid doing anything that could call into question the impartiality of their work for the Times.
Yet what Gelb's quote suggests—a while back I wrote a piece for the London Review of Books that went into this in some greater depth, with more evidence from the Iraq War—is that the real bias one sees in mainstream reporting doesn't come from one's involvement in outside political activities. It comes from the desire to do one's job in accordance with the strictures of one's supervisors and peers, for fear that should you break ranks, you'll be fired or somehow blackballed from the profession. Most of the time, that internal policeman will keep you in line. But should he fall asleep on the job, the company's real police will there to toss you out on your ass. Again, Fear, American Style: the state, bound by the First Amendment, does nothing; editors do the job instead. Update (October 28, 6:30 pm) Nearly 10 years ago to the day, there was a Dilbert cartoon that pretty much said it all (h/t John Quiggin).

Heh, pa jeste relevantno. Ti kad čitaš američke političke rasprave po Internetu vidiš takvu količinu straha od vlade da pomisliš da si zalutao u neku anarhističku basnu, ama su to većinom libertarijanci. I, da, dobar deo njih ne shvata da garancije koje im vlada daje u smislu političkih sloboda bivaju potpuno ignorisane i ismejane od strane biznisa. Anarhisti, barem oni sa kojima sam ja bio u nekakvim kontaktima tokom godina su najčešće imali jednako nepoverljiv odnos i prema korporacijama kao i prema vladi.

Dakle, pošto je suša, jelte, i u Ameriki devastirala prinose kukuruza, sad krave hrane čim god stignu, uključujući gumene bombone. E, sad, ti silni slatkiši koje im daju su ionako puni kukurkuznog sirupa, dakle, sumnjam da je ovo dugoročno rešenje 

Pusti krave, za njih je zadužena Plut. Šta ćemo sa slaninicom?

Kad čovek uđe u određene godine, slaninu samo treba da gleda na televiziji, ne i da je jede. Ja je recimo ne jedem već osam godina 

Lep nacin da se rat iz pustinjskih vukojebina prenese na podzemlje Menhetna:







NEW YORK — New Yorkers are seeing something and saying something as a subway advertisement has some commuters stopping in their tracks. "I think just sensitivities around the subways, considering that was one of the targets considered by other terror groups in the past here in the city, it's probably a bad idea," said Christopher Himes, a straphanger. Just in time for the United Nations General Assembly, straphangers are seeing the pro-Israel ads in 10 subway stations. "It's going to spark controversy obviously when you deem one side savages and the other side civilized," said Colby Richardson. The ads were initially rejected, but the Council of Islamic-American Relations sued and won the right to display the ads — granted by a district court judge. "I am saying jihad, I am not saying all Muslims, and anyone who says that this ad is against all Muslims, in my opinion, is the true Islamaphobe," said Pamela Geller of Stop Islamization of America.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/19631912/2012/09/25/controversial-anti-muslim-ad

Jedino kontroverzno u ovom primeru je tipična glupost na koju se računa. Wait, šta je tu uopšte kontroverzno?

Malo o inteligenciji 

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/388057/20120926/harvard-now-insists-fluoride-lowers-iq-levels.htm#.UGLAdq6cQux

Harvard Now Insists that Fluoride Only Lowers IQ Levels Outside the United States

Intense industry pressure to continue mass medicating Americans with fluoride chemicals via public water supplies has apparently influenced Harvard University researchers to backtrack on a recent study they conducted that verified fluoride chemicals lower IQ levels in children. We are now being told the absurd lie that fluoride is only detrimental to people in other countries, and that Americans need not worry about ingesting and bathing in the toxic brew here in the states.

Kome trebaju robovi sa visokim IQ? Posle balkanizacije imamo fluorizaciju sveta.

Akademsko istraživanje (američko) o efikasnosti i etičnosti korišćenja dronova

http://livingunderdrones.org/

Ovo je sažetak

Quote
Executive Summary and Recommendations  In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling "targeted killing" of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.[1]
This narrative is false.
Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.
Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.
It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account.
First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been "no" or "single digit" civilian casualties."[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.
Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[4] Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, "drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants."^[5] Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani rel­ations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.^[6]
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government's failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.
In light of these concerns, this report recommends that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits. A significant rethinking of current US targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue. US policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.
This report also supports and reiterates the calls consistently made by rights groups and others for legality, accountability, and transparency in US drone strike policies:

   
• The US should fulfill its international obligations with respect to accountability and transparency, and ensure proper democratic debate about key policies. The US should:
  
        
  • Release the US Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis for US targeted killing in Pakistan;
  • Make public critical information concerning US drone strike policies, including as previously and repeatedly reques­ted by various groups and officials:[7] the tar­geting criteria for so-called "signature" strikes; the mechanisms in place to ensure that targeting complies with international law; which laws are being applied; the nature of investigations into civilian death and injury; and mechanisms in place to track, analyze and publicly recognize civilian casualties;[8]
  • Ensure independent investigations into drone strike deaths, consistent with the call made by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in August 2012;[9]
  • In conjunction with robust investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions, establish compensation programs for civilians harmed by US strikes in Pakistan.
• The US should fulfill its international humanitarian and human rights law obligations with respect to the use of force, including by not using lethal force against individuals who are not members of armed groups with whom the US is in an armed conflict, or otherwise against individuals not posing an imminent threat to life. This includes not double-striking targets as first responders arrive.
  
        
  • Journalists and media outlets should cease the common practice of referring simply to "militant" deaths, without further explanation. All reporting of government accounts of "militant" deaths should include acknowledgment that the US government counts all adult males killed by strikes as "militants," absent exonerating evidence. Media accounts relying on anonymous government sources should also highlight the fact of their single-source information and of the past record of false government reports.

A ovo je tekst iz Gardijana koji priča o njemu:

Drone attacks in Pakistan are counterproductive, says report

Quote
US academics' report says drones kill large numbers of civilians and increase recruitment by militant groups

  The CIA's programme of "targeted" drone killings in Pakistan's tribal heartlands is politically counterproductive, kills large numbers of civilians and undermines respect for international law, according to a report by US academics.
The study by Stanford and New York universities' law schools, based on interviews with victims, witnesses and experts, blames the US president, Barack Obama, for the escalation of "signature strikes" in which groups are selected merely through remote "pattern of life" analysis.
Families are afraid to attend weddings or funerals, it says, in case US ground operators guiding drones misinterpret them as gatherings of Taliban or al-Qaida militants.
"The dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killings' of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false," the report, entitled Living Under Drones, states.
The authors admit it is difficult to obtain accurate data on casualties "because of US efforts to shield the drone programme from democratic accountability, compounded by obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan".
The "best available information", they say, is that between 2,562 and 3,325 people have been killed in Pakistan between June 2004 and mid-September this year – of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians, including 176 children. The figures have been assembled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which estimated that a further 1,300 individuals were injured in drone strikes over that period.
The report was commissioned by and written with the help of the London-based Reprieve organisation, which is supporting action in the British courts by Noor Khan, a Pakistani whose father was killed by a US drone strike in March 2011. His legal challenge alleges the UK is complicit in US drone strikes because GCHQ, the eavesdropping agency, shares intelligence with the CIA on targets for drone strikes.
"US drones hover 24 hours a day over communities in north-west Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning," the American law schools report says.
"Their presence terrorises men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.
"These fears have affected behaviour. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims."
The study goes on to say: "Publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best ... The number of 'high-level' militants killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low – estimated at just 2% [of deaths]. Evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks ... One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy."
Coming from American lawyers rather than overseas human rights groups, the criticisms are likely to be more influential in US domestic debates over the legality of drone warfare.
"US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents," the report says, questioning whether Pakistan has given consent for the attacks.
"The US government's failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killings policies, to provide details about its targeted killing programme, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy.
"US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase."
The report supports the call by Ben Emmerson QC, the UN's special rapporteur on countering terrorism, for independent investigations into deaths from drone strikes and demands the release of the US department of justice memorandums outlining the legal basis for US targeted killings in Pakistan.
The report highlights the switch from the former president George W Bush's practice of targeting high-profile al-Qaida personalities to the reliance, under Obama's administration, of analysing patterns of life on the ground to select targets.
"According to US authorities, these strikes target 'groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren't known'," the report says. "Just what those 'defining characteristics' are has never been made public." People in North Waziristan are now afraid to attend funerals or other gatherings, it suggests.
Fears that US agents pay informers to attach electronic tags to the homes of suspected militants in Pakistan haunt the tribal districts, according to the study. "[In] Waziristan ... residents are gripped by rumours that paid CIA informants have been planting tiny silicon-chip homing devices that draw the drones.
"Many of the Waziris interviewed spoke of a constant fear of being tagged with a chip by a neighbour or someone else who works for either Pakistan or the US, and of the fear of being falsely accused of spying by local Taliban."
Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith, said: "An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups.
"George Bush wanted to create a global 'war on terror' without borders, but it has taken Obama's drone war to achieve his dream." 

Dobar je taj američki kapitalizam...

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/10/01/ca-anti-arizona-legislation-gives-undocumented-immigrants-license-to-drive/

CA 'Anti-Arizona' Legislation Gives Undocumented Immigrants License to Drive

 

NYC gym teacher claims 6-year-old student beat him up





http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/nyc-gym-teacher-claims-6-old-student-beat-195314203.html;_ylt=AjYwLLvMRyZDrwKeJy3m.Ctqted_;_ylu=X3oDMTUwYWcyc3NkBGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTW9zdCBQb3B1bGFyBHBrZwNmOWY5NzgwNC0yZGZmLTM1ZjQtYThiMC1jNjMzZDcwMWJiNTkEcG9zAzYEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3RNaXhlZE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0FUZW1wBHZlcgM5MzRjZGYyMS0wYzAzLTExZTItYWQ1Ni00OTQ0ODI5M2M2Nzc-;_ylg=X3oDMTJvNGQzbGkwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNmE2MTFjMDYtYTcxZC0zZTU2LWFiNDYtODAyOWJiMzQ0YzVmBHBzdGNhdANzeXJpYQRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/us-naval-surface-warfare-center-helps.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ActivistPost+%28Activist+Post%29&utm_content=FaceBook

U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center helps create app to secretly monitor, reconstruct user environment in 3D
image source - click to enlarge
Madison Ruppert, Contributor
Activist Post

We have covered a great deal of highly questionable smartphone software, as well as the fact that current software can easily be leveraged as a surveillance tool and games have even been created which use "soft control" to encourage citizen spying.

New technologies are going to make ultra-precise location information the norm which is especially troubling since our government claims that such data is not protected by the Constitution.

It just gets worse when we realize that mobile phone companies are responding to massive amounts of government requests and scientists have demonstrated the ability to accurately predict future movements based on location data.

Let's not forget the increasingly popular citizen spying applications and the microchips which actually can allow mobile devices to see through walls and other materials.

Now the United States Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana, in concert with researchers at Indiana University, have created a brand new kind of malicious software known as "visual malware" with their program named "PlaceRaider." Visual malware is capable of secretly recording and then reconstructing the environment surrounding a user in full 3D.

"This then allows the theft of virtual objects such as financial information, data on computer screens and identity-related information," according to the Physics arXiv Blog.

The truth about a few 'facts' you may hear at the debate 

Quote
Ideally, when the curtain rises on the first presidential debate at the University of Denver on Wednesday night, President Barack Obama and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will spar over the issues shaping this election with honesty and clarity.
But let's face it, the debates are yet another chance to deliver campaign talking points in 60-second, uninterrupted bursts—pitches, according to a recent Y!/Esquire poll, which many Americans think stray from the truth.
[Slideshow: Great debate moments]
In anticipation of the spin, we've rounded up some of the debate's top topics and fact-checked the candidates' tropes in advance.
Taxes

Romney: Before either candidate muddles this up, here are the key planks of Romney's tax plan:
-       Bush-era income tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts become permanent.
-       All income tax rates are cut by an additional 20 percent.
-       The Alternative Minimum Tax and the estate tax are repealed.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton at the DNC, the problem is arithmetic: While Romney denies this, FactCheck.org notes the idea that his plan can somehow "slash individual income tax rates without losing federal revenue or favoring the wealthy remains at best unproven and, in our judgment based on available evidence, impossible."
GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan recently had to dance around this fact when pressed on it by Fox News. Exasperated, he sighed and said, "I don't have time—it would take me too long to go through all the math."
Romney should probably have a better answer ready—he's likely to be grilled on the plan thanks to his recently released 2011 tax return, which revealed a 14 percent tax rate. Obama has questioned whether that's a fair rate, claiming Romney pays less in taxes than many middle- and low-income Americans (a claim that itself is true only if payroll taxes are included in the comparison).
The president will likely try to paint the 14 percent tax rate as an omen of things to come under Romney's plan, alleging that it would benefit the wealthy.
Jobs
Romney: As soon as you hear the former Massachusetts governor assure you of his plan to create 12 million jobs in only four years, remember this: Moody's Analytics and Macroeconomic Advisors predict that no matter who wins this election, broader economic factors ensure that level of growth by 2016.
Romney is dressing up an apolitical projected figure as something his jobs plan could uniquely generate. It's a bit like promising a plan to keep the Earth rotating around the sun for the next four years.
Obama: The president, for his part, will take credit for creating an impressive "4.5 million jobs." He's playing a bit fast and loose to get that number, however, citing only private-sector job growth, and only over the past couple of years, without mentioning the job losses on his watch.
Obama has actually presided over a net increase of about 300,000 private-sector jobs and, including the straggling public sector, a net decrease of about 300,000 total jobs. But you probably won't hear that from him onstage tonight.
Medicare

Romney: The GOP's "Medicare raid" meme alleges that Obama is about to rob Medicare to the tune of $700 billion in order to pay for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This line earned Ryan a storm of jeers at a recent AARP conference—but Romney may still try to float it for its sheer scare value.
In fact, the oft-cited $700 billion figure represents the savings the ACA yields over 10 years by reducing Medicare spending, and it's chiefly the providers rather than beneficiaries who pony up to finance the long-term spending cut.
Obama: If during the debate, however, the president starts bashing the "Romney-Ryan plan" on Medicare, claiming it costs seniors an extra $6,400, know that he's actually referring to the obsolete Ryan budget from 2011, not the plan backed by the Republican ticket. The actual plan shares the Democrats' goals of capping Medicare spending.

Health care
Romney: Ever since the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional, Romney has backed off from his more hyperbolic criticisms of the law, now stating that he'll repeal it and keep the good bits. He has yet to say, however, how he'd pay for those select parts.
Also during the debate, Romney will likely try to fuse Americans' concerns over jobs with lingering doubts about the ACA by repeating the old, standard line that "Obamacare" is "killing jobs in small business." As FactCheck.org notes, this line is a serious misreading of a report by the Congressional Budget Office, which actually says that due to the subsidies provided by the ACA, about 800,000 workers will retire earlier or juggle fewer jobs.
Deficit
Obama: The president is correct when he says that he "inherited the biggest deficit in our history," as he recently told Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes." But he tends to use that fact as a shield against any Republican criticism about his own contributions to the deficit, which are considerable. To both Kroft and the AARP he stretched the premise to its limit, claiming that all his policies, from the stimulus to the rebooted war in Afghanistan, account for only about 10 percent of the nation's deficit over the past four years. He blames the rest on President Bush.
That's what some would call a whopper—but because Romney is probably eager to hammer the president on runaway spending, Obama might end up slipping this line into the debate anyway. The facts, however, are these:
-      In fiscal year 2009 Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year. But FactCheck.org reminds us that "this was just the first of four years of trillion-plus deficits."
-      The last three budgets fall squarely under Obama. And, during that time, the federal government ran up deficits of "$1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and about $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30—for a total of nearly $5.2 trillion in deficit spending," also according to FactCheck.org.
Energy

Obama: The president likes to say he's "doubled" a lot of things, most notably the generation of renewable energy and, in the long term, fuel efficiency of cars and trucks—and is likely to do so again on Wednesday night. These boasts will sound great, but unfortunately for him, they're heavily exaggerated.
Since Obama took office, only a certain division of renewable energy, that of wind and solar power, has doubled; overall, the increase in capacity is under 30 percent. And while the EPA is indeed raising fuel standards for increased efficiency by 2025, FactCheck.org has noted that, contrary to the president's rhetoric, our cars will hardly take us "twice as far" by that point.
Romney: The GOP nominee has his own favorite talking points on energy, starting with his misleading claim about what the president has "doubled": gas prices. This statement is technically true, but should be qualified by the fact that prices were extraordinarily low when Obama took office due to the recession.
Also hyped up is the nominee's talk about Keystone XL, the pipeline project to transport oil from Canada to plants in the Gulf Coast. The Romney refrain is that Obama botched a crucial energy project by wholly trashing the plans to import more oil from our neighbor to the north.
What Obama did was delay the assembly of the northern part of the new pipeline that was set through Nebraska's Sandhills, and he did so with bipartisan support from the state's lawmakers. A new, more environmentally sensitive route is set to be approved in a few months, and the whole thing should be up by 2015.
Immigration
Romney: When the hot-button issue of immigration rears its head, be ready for the candidates to resort to political hit-and-runs. Romney is likely to toss out the charge that Obama "did nothing" to tackle immigration in his first three years. But while the Obama administration certainly hasn't reached a comprehensive plan, the president lobbied for the DREAM act—which would qualify undocumented youth for a conditional path to citizenship—while the Democrats controlled the House and was met with opposition once the Republicans took over.
Romney might also complain that Obama's deferred-action plan—granting some children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants a reprieve from deportation—doesn't offer a permanent solution for aspiring immigrants. Yet in his own plan only young illegal immigrants who join the military would have access to that solution.
Obama: Meanwhile, Obama may claim that during the Republican primary season Romney endorsed Arizona's controversial SB1070 law—requiring police to determine detainees' immigration status, some argue through racial profiling—and called the law a "model for the nation."
But Romney was actually talking about Arizona's e-verify law, which more modestly requires employers to check a job candidate's immigration status on an online database.

Posle prve debate, Romni deluje kao da je ostvario prednos:

Romney goes on offense against subdued Obama in first debate 

Quote
President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney squared off in their first face-to-face presidential debate Wednesday, battling for more than an hour over the future of the economy, the federal budget, tax cuts, education, health care and even the future of Big Bird.
Faced with several recent polls showing Romney falling behind, the GOP candidate may have bought himself some added time after Wednesday's debate, where he appeared on the offensive against Obama. Romney's answers to questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS Newshour, who played a subdued role over the course of the evening, were crisp and appeared well-rehearsed. His responses included as many specifics as the limited time would allow, and Romney seemed to hit his marks in a way Obama was not able to.
The "zingers" promised for the debate were scarce, and both instead used their time to carefully outline ideas for how they would govern. Romney and Obama used personal examples to supplement their points.
In perhaps the most anticipated moment of the debate, Romney survived the session on health care reform, which could have been a major liability for the Republican nominee. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney championed a state health care law that later became the partial blueprint for Obama's national health care overhaul that Romney now says he wants to repeal. During the debate, Romney worked to show the difference between the two laws, while Obama aimed to tie them together. Obama scored points in noting that many of the ideas that made it into the final health care law originated with with Republicans, but Romney escaped the exchange with only minor wounds.

"There's a reason why Governor Romney set up the plan that he did in Massachusetts," Obama said. "It wasn't a government takeover of health care. It was the largest expansion of private insurance."
Although the debate began awkwardly with both candidates discussing the president's 20th wedding anniversary, the contest quickly moved into what at times became a tense conversation that showed the difference between their competing visions for the future of the country and the role of government. But for much of the first part of the contest, both Obama and Romney spent a lot of time working to fact check the other.

Obama launched an early attack on Romney for proposing a tax plan that cuts federal government programs but does not include tax increases on the wealthy. He knocked the former governor for not providing specifics about his own plan for tax reform and said his initiative would raise taxes on middle-income families by $2,000 and lower them for millionaires.
"Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate," Romney shot back, adding that he doesn't intend to raise taxes under his plan.
Obama pressed that there was no way to achieve sound deficit reduction without what he called a "balanced approach" that includes tax increases and spending cuts, forcing Romney to double down on a policy against raising taxes under any circumstances.
The debate, which lacked the contentious moments of the Republican primary contests, marked nearly five years since Obama and Romney have seen each other in person. Both men, however, have studied the other from afar through campaign ads, briefing books and tapes of old debates during preparations for the big night.
For some voters, Wednesday's debate was Romney's first real opportunity to make an impression. As the challenger, Romney was tasked with showing voters what distinguished him from the president and his policies, and how his own ideas would make the country better off. The debate also offered the Republican nominee an opportunity to display his personality, which at times can appear stiff or halted when portrayed in news coverage.
In a way, Obama faced an even deeper challenge. After four years under his watch, the unemployment rate remains above 8 percent and the national debt now tops over $16 trillion. Indeed, the president inherited a post over a nation facing one of the deepest recessions in recent history, but Obama had to make the case that his policies were the right ones without merely saying "it could have been worse." If the end of his first term is a performance review and the debates are his time to make a defense, it's crucial for him to hit his marks.
In a race in which more than 90 percent of the electorate has already made up their minds, both of the candidates' remarks over the course of the debate were intended for the ears of the few, albeit powerful, undecided voters living in swing states. Each in their own way made pitches to these prospective supporters, while still giving confidence to their respective bases that they would not veer from their principles.
National polls show the race for the popular vote is at a near dead-heat just a month before the election, but an examination of surveys conducted in battleground states suggest Romney could face a deficit of support in areas he must win to best the president.
Wednesday night Romney made a solid first step.
The candidates will face each other twice more before Election Day, for a townhall-style debate in New York on Oct. 16 and a final contest over foreign policy in Florida on Oct. 22.
   

After the debate debacle for Obama, we'll find out if we have a race 

Quote
Yes, it was as bad as it seemed.
No, it wasn't Jim Lehrer's fault for letting Romney expound; Obama got more time (four minutes more) than Romney. Besides, it's not the moderator's job to call a debater out on questionable assertions. It's the opponent's job.
Yes, it wasn't the best atmospherics for Obama to look down, purse his lips, appear distracted, while Romney was attentive, engaged, relaxed. But this was much more than atmospherics. This was about one candidate who came with a frame for the evening, and who was prepared to engage on every question; and another who, perhaps because of his documented faith in his own abilities, felt he could wing it with snatches of familiar verbiage.
Most surprising, the whole evening felt as if Obama thought he was back in 2008, needing only to demonstrate a sense of cool, calm collectedness to persuade the voters that they could do what they desperately wanted to do: change course.
There was barely a moment when Obama offered any sense that he was prepared to challenge Romney on his weakest point: who does the Republican presidential nominee speak for? How much (or little) does he understand where the country is, how it got here?
Even on the most basic political points, Obama seemed clueless. When you argue as a Democrat that you and your Republican opponent share wide areas of agreement on Social Security—especially when recipients make up a chunk of Romney's "47 percent" of indolent spongers—you have thrown in a fistful of high cards.
What remains is one key question that the next 48 to 72 hours will answer: Did this debate change the minds of significant numbers of voters? Assuming that the flash polls are right—that most viewers thought Romney won the debate—did they regard that as a loss for "their" team, or did it persuade some of them to change their minds about whom they are supporting,
One of the enduring myths of campaign analysis is that you can actually count the number of "undecided" voters by asking voters if they are undecided or not. Sometimes, significant numbers of voters actually change their minds. That's how Reagan turned a small lead into a landslide in 1980. It's how Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and how Kerry got back into the race in 2004.
If this debate—as one-sided as any I have ever seen—does not change the landscape, if Obama retains a small but measurable lead, it means that the election is more or less over (barring some overwhelmingly consequential event), that voters have decided they are going to stick with the President. That is thin gruel on which the Obama campaign must dine for the next few days; but after this debacle, it's the only sustenance on the menu.

Od sledećeg meseca ja izveštavam sa lica mesta.

Znači stižeš tek pred izbore ili kako?

Taman na vreme da na vratima dočekujem Indijance u pohodu na slatkiše.

Aha to je 31. Oktobar, a izbori su šestog Novembra, dakle imaćeš nedelju dana da gledaš predizborni program u fulu. Neće ti biti lako 

Jedu li oni tamo bundevare i krkljuš il' im ludaje služe samo kao rasveta?

Ne znam šta ti je krkljuš, ali sam ja počeo da jedem bundeve kad je moj zet napravio čorbu od sedam vrsta bundeva. Oktobar i novembar su vreme bundeva, ali ove koje su za rasvetu skoro da i ne jedu. Ima drugih koje su sjajne za jelo.


Meho, mi smo tamo 29-og, a kampanje će biti i preko nosa. Posle jedne takve nikada ne bi više pričao o srpskom nacionalizmu. Zastave bi nosili i u turu samo kad bi bilo IN, a u svako dvorište pobodu tablicu svog kandidata da se zna.

Krkljuš - pekmez od ludaje.

Bem ti pekmez od ludaje. Slikaću ti razne vrste jestivih bundeva, da vidiš šta sve ima.

Ромни за прецједника!

Slikaj ti meni ono iz tepsije - red bundeva, red krompira, red luka, red barenih kolenica. To samo još na slici smem da gledam 

Nadam se da Čarls ovo ne čita. Napraviće, kakav je.

Ma, pustite sad bundeve, treba ratovati protiv terora. Naime, ispada da Department of Homeland Security ima manje nego impresivne rezultate u svom ratu protiv terorizma:

  Lawmakers divided on counterterror effort  

Quote
  Stinging criticism from Congress about a counterterrorism effort that improperly collected information about innocent Americans is turning up the heat on the Obama administration to justify the program's continued existence and putting lawmakers who championed it on the defensive.
The administration strongly disagrees with the report's findings, and leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee are distancing themselves from the report. The review criticized the multibillion-dollar network of "fusion centers" as ineffective in fighting terrorism and risky to civil liberties.
The political maneuvering by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, is unusual because the bipartisan report was issued by their own subcommittee.
The intelligence reports reviewed by the subcommittee were produced by officials in the Homeland Security Department's Intelligence and Analysis division, which was created after the Sept. 11 attacks with the hope of connecting the dots to prevent the next terrorist strike. This division has never lived up to what Congress initially hoped for.
Lieberman and Collins were the driving forces behind the creation of the department. Fusion centers, the analytical centers intended to spot terrorism trends in every state, are held up by many as the crown jewel of the department's security efforts.
"I strongly disagree with the report's core assertion that fusion centers have been unable to meaningfully contribute to federal counterterrorism efforts," Lieberman said in a statement Wednesday, singling out six "shortcomings" in the report. Collins issued a separate statement that listed four shortcomings.
A Lieberman spokeswoman said the report came from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, rather than the full committee.
"I know that seems odd, but this is strictly a PSI report," Lieberman spokeswoman Leslie Phillips wrote in an email.
The Homeland Security Department and several major law enforcement associations also strongly disagreed with the findings. Pulling back federal money for the program would force state and local governments to cover all of the costs.
The department said the report is outdated and inaccurate. It cited specific examples of how the centers have contributed to counterterrorism efforts in major cases, including the 2010 attempted car bombing in New York City's Times Square. That's an example the subcommittee challenges in its report.
The subcommittee reviewed more than 600 unclassified reports over a one-year period and concluded that most had nothing to do with terrorism. The subcommittee chairman is Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, and the top Republican is Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
One center cited in the investigation wrote a report about a Muslim community group's list of book recommendations. Others discussed American citizens speaking at mosques or talking to Muslim groups about parenting.
No evidence of criminal activity was contained in those reports. The government did not circulate them, but it kept them on government computers. The federal government is prohibited from storing information about First Amendment-protected activities not related to crimes.
States have had criminal analysis centers for years, but the fusion centers were set up after the 2001 attacks as officials realized that a terrorism tip was as likely to come from a local police officer as the CIA.
Though fusion centers receive money from the federal government, they are operated independently. A federal law co-sponsored by Lieberman and Collins authorized that centers cover criminal or terrorist activity.
Five years later, Senate investigators found, terrorism is often a secondary focus.
The report is as much an indictment of Congress as it is the Homeland Security Department.
"Congress and two administrations have urged DHS to continue or even expand its support of fusion centers, without providing sufficient oversight to ensure the intelligence from fusion centers is commensurate with the level of federal investment," the report said.
One of the report's recommendations is that the department needs to do a better job of tracking how its money is spent; that's a recommendation with which both Collins and Lieberman agree.
Despite that, Congress is unlikely to pull the plug because the program means politically important money for state and local governments, and Homeland Security officials are adamant that the money is well spent.
In 2010, after Faisal Shahzad was caught for trying to blow up a vehicle in New York's Times Square, fusion centers examined their own systems to see if there were any relationships with intelligence they had related to Shahzad, said John Cohen, a senior advisor to the Homeland Security secretary.
Cohen said centers in Florida and Virginia discovered individuals who had connections to Shahzad but who were unknown to the FBI. The centers shared the information with FBI investigators, Cohen said, and that produced additional leads that are still under investigation.
But the example is one the congressional investigators condemn. "The information does not appear to have played any key role in the Shahzad case," the report said.
Cohen also cited a 2011 case in Seattle in which two men approached someone in Seattle about purchasing weapons. The person they approached happened to be a police informant and reported the incident to his handler, Cohen said. The police handler was assigned to the local fusion center that was able to identify the two people who approached the informant, he said.
The fusion center did more analysis on the men, including digging into their criminal backgrounds, determined they might want to do more than just purchase firearms and handed the information over to the local FBI-led joint terrorism task force. The men were arrested and charged with plotting a terror attack on a military office in Seattle. While the subcommittee did not review this particular case, court records state that the men approached the police informant and were specific about their plans to attack a military office when they asked about obtaining weapons.
The recent Senate report is not the first time questions have been raised about civil liberties and privacy protections in fusion centers.
The centers have made headlines for circulating information about supporters of GOP presidential primary candidate Ron Paul, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters and advocates of gun rights.
The Obama administration has put policies in place and required that fusion centers have privacy and civil liberty policies in order to receive federal funding. But the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations continue to call for better privacy protections.
___
Associated Press writer Gene Johnson contributed to this report from Seattle. 

Taman sam počeo da uživam na ovom topiku, a ono opet manijački linkovi.

Ali treba uživati i u propasti Amerike, ne samo u bundevama!!!!!!!

Sad je vreme bundeva, ludaja i izbornog ludila. Propašće kad pojedu bundeve.

Quote from: scallop on 04-10-2012, 12:04:46
Nadam se da Čarls ovo ne čita. Napraviće, kakav je.

Nadam se i ja da ne čita - zaboravio sam da izmeđ' luka i kolenica udenem ki'so kupus 

Pa, da. Mora nešto da štiti kolenice od bundeva.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/05/us/florida-pileup/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

52 hurt in multiple-vehicle pileup on I-75 in Florida

Fifty-two people were hurt Friday in a pileup involving dozens of vehicles on an interstate highway on Florida's Gulf Coast, police said.

The accident, which occurred about 3:30 p.m., involved at least 46 vehicles in the southbound lanes of I-75 on the Manatee/Sarasota county line, said Lt. Chris Miller with the Florida Highway Patrol. Twenty-two people, three of them in critical condition, were taken to area hospitals, he said.

None of the injuries was considered life-threatening, he said. "Quite a few had minor injuries that didn't require transport," he said.



Troje u kritičnom stanju a ni jedna povreda nije opasna po život???? WTF