F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies By ERIC LICHTBLAU, NYTimes

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum. …

”The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we’re going back to the days of Hoover.” …

Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor, says, “As a matter of principle, it has a very serious chilling effect on peaceful demonstration. If you go around telling people, `We’re going to ferret out information on demonstrations,’ that deters people. People don’t want their names and pictures in F.B.I. files.” …

The abuses of the Hoover era, which included efforts by the F.B.I. to harass and discredit Hoover’s political enemies under a program known as Cointelpro, led to tight restrictions on F.B.I. investigations of political activities.

Those restrictions were relaxed significantly last year, when Attorney General John Ashcroft issued guidelines giving agents authority to attend political rallies, mosques and any event “open to the public.”

Dear President Bush,

Your presidential legacy will be that of the worst president in our history. …

You have not done this on your own. The Congress, controlled by your party, has aided and abetted your policies, sometimes willingly, sometimes with reservations. Now, many congressional members of your party are questioning the wisdom of their — and your — actions.

We are registered Republicans. We will work diligently to support the Democratic nominee to replace you in the 2004 elections.

Jane and Doug S.
Albuquerque
(printed in Crosswinds)

G.O.P. to Run an Ad for Bush on Terror Issue By JIM RUTENBERG, NYTimes

[A] new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush’s campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: ”Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power,” he says after the screen flashes the words, ”Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.” …

The 30-second advertisement gives the first sampling of the powerful array of images Mr. Bush’s campaign team will have at its disposal when it begins what is expected to be a formidable advertising campaign.

With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words “Strong and Principled Leadership” before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush’s military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes “Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others,” then urges viewers to tell Congress “to support the president’s policy of pre-emptive self defense.”

Court limits in-car FBI spying
By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus, The Register

An appeals court this week put the brakes on an FBI surveillance technique that turns an automobile driver’s on-board vehicle navigation system into a covert eavesdropping device….

The feature, designed to listen-in on car thieves as they cruise around in a stolen auto, turns on a dashboard microphone and pipes conversations out over a cellphone connection — normally to the company’s response center, but in this case to an FBI listening post. …

Under federal law, the FBI can obtain court orders compelling telecommunications companies, ISPs, landlords and others to assist the Bureau in spying on customers. …

Despite the reversal, David Sobel, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says the ruling is not a victory for privacy. “Although the bottom line is that the surveillance order was rejected, the real effect of it is that this kind of monitoring is permissible as long it does not interfere with the service,” says Sobel. “It underscores the fact that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to escape the reach of surveillance capabilities.”

sacbee.com — Opinion — Editorial: Spend now, pay when?

Once upon a time, if a Democrat told a Republican that the federal government needed to institute a big new spending program to deal with some pressing social problem, the response would be a steely glare and a pointed question: And how exactly do you propose to pay for that, Mr. Liberal?

No more. On the evidence of the expensive energy and Medicare prescription drug bills that Republicans have written and are poised, with President Bush’s enthusiastic support, to push through Congress, the Republican Party has gone through the political equivalent of a sex change operation. Donning the garb of the Democrats they once berated, Republicans have become the party of spend now, pay someday. …

There used to be a political party that would stand against such shortsighted action. It advanced the wisdom that wanting something carried with it the moral obligation to pay for it.

Too bad for America’s future that we don’t have such a party today.

U.S. News: John Leo on a surprising jog to the right(11/24/03)

[T]he conservative media world is now good at gang tackling. From Matt Drudge’s Drudge Report (which framed the issue of the miniseries) to Fox, the bloggers, talk radio hosts, and the columnists, everybody piles on. New York Times columnist David Brooks touched on this point some time ago, writing that the new conservative media have ”cohered to form a dazzlingly efficient ideology delivery system that swamps liberal efforts to get their ideas out.” For liberals, this is an ominous development. …

Conventional liberalism is the old, rigid establishment. The antiliberals are brash, funny, and cool. Who would have thought?

Note this is arch-conservitive John Leo writing. He’s not warning us, he’s crowing. mjh

The following email quote is one of many taken from Diebold, maker of electronic voting machines. It appears in a rather long article on the vital issue. Electronic voting is not secure. mjh

Electronic Voting Debacle
By Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus, The Register

“Right now you can open GEMS’ .mdb file with MS-Access, and alter its contents. That includes the audit log. This isn’t anything new. … Now, where the perception comes in is that its right now very *easy* to change the contents. Double click the .mdb file. … It is possible to put a secret password on the .mdb file to prevent Metamor [a consulting company] from opening it with Access. Being able to end-run the database has admittedly got people out of a bind though. Jane (I think it was Jane) did some fancy footwork on the .mdb file in Gaston recently. I know our dealers do it. King County is famous for it. That’s why we’ve never put a password on the file before.” (Source: “RE: alteration of Audit Log in Access”, support.w3archive/200110/msg00122.html, dated 18 October 2001)
===
See also mjh’s weBlog: Can we trust electronic voting machines? November 03, 2003