FLE

'Shadow Wolves' Prowl the U.S.-Mexico Border In an era of unmanned drones, night-vision goggles and wireless sensors, Sloan Satepauhoodle scours the desert along the Mexican border for drug smugglers in the old ways. She is a tracker, a former Secret Service agent and customs inspector in Washington who traded in her desk and computer to work "intel" in the desert, employing sign-cutting -- or tracking -- skills once used by her Kiowa ancestors to hunt animals. Satepauhoodle (pronounced SAY-paw-who-dle) roams this vast Indian reservation in a four-wheel-drive pickup, armed with an M-4 rifle and a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Her job: to look for the tiniest sign that a smuggler has been around and then go after him. High-tech has arrived at the border, but low-tech is very much in use by a special group of federal agents whose sign-cutting skills are being used in the fight against drugs. They are called Shadow Wolves, a small all-Native American group of drug interdiction officers that includes three women, including Satepauhoodle, 40. Her Kiowa name means "Kill the Bear" or "Fuzzy Bear," depending on the pronunciation and the context in which it is used....

Right All Along, Unfortunately Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller spent much of March doing something neither man was used to doing: apologizing. On March 10, Mueller admitted that the agency hadn’t told the truth about its uses of PATRIOT Act powers to investigate Americans, admitting that nearly 50,000 privacy-busting “National Security Letters” had been sent in 2005 instead of the 30,000 Congress had been told of. Three days later, Gonzales walked the same plank to confess that the Department of Justice may have lied to Congress about the reasons why eight U.S. Attorneys had been dismissed and replaced with less-experienced drones who’d be more willing to investigate Democrats. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller spent much of March doing something neither man was used to doing: apologizing. On March 10, Mueller admitted that the agency hadn’t told the truth about its uses of PATRIOT Act powers to investigate Americans, admitting that nearly 50,000 privacy-busting “National Security Letters” had been sent in 2005 instead of the 30,000 Congress had been told of. Three days later, Gonzales walked the same plank to confess that the Department of Justice may have lied to Congress about the reasons why eight U.S. Attorneys had been dismissed and replaced with less-experienced drones who’d be more willing to investigate Democrats...One point of contention between senators and the White House was National Security Letters, documents that compel their targets to release any and all information the FBI requests from them; all the FBI need assert is that the request is somehow related to a terrorism investigation. Under the PATRIOT Act, their use expanded enormously. After watching the FBI send its reported 30,000 letters in 2005, Sununu (as part of the PATRIOT reauthorization compromise) passed a law requiring oversight by the Inspector General’s Office and reports to Congress on how the letters are being used. That earned scorching criticisms from other Republicans, who accused Sununu, Feingold, and other critics of making an issue out of thin air. “The threat to Americans’ liberty today,” Viet Dinh, one of the lawyers who crafted the PATRIOT Act, said in a 2006 debate with former Rep. Bob Barr, “comes from Al Qaeda and its associates and the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men and women who work to defend this country!” In March 2007, FBI Inspector General Glenn Fine released a report that undermined that argument. It turned out the bureau had underreported the number of requests for National Security Letters, had issued letters before exhausting other options, and had issued them to Americans who were not the targets of ongoing investigations. In short, the FBI had abused its new powers....

FBI derailed case against al Qaeda man A turf battle between an immigration agency and the FBI nearly derailed a terrorism investigation, allowing a suspected al Qaeda fundraiser to continue his work, a former top immigration official alleged. Joe Webber, a former executive in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told The Examiner that in late 2003, his agents developed information that a man in the Houston area was allegedly raising money for al Qaeda. But the FBI sat on applications for wiretaps of the suspect for months, letting evidence slip through the cracks, Webber said. Webber has accused top FBI officials, including former FBI task force leader Michael Morehart — the current special agent in charge of administration in the FBI’s D.C. office — of burying the investigation. In a partially classified report by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, the FBI admitted the delays but blamed it on the local FBI office and Webber’s agents. The inspector general agreed with the FBI in its report. Webber condemned the inspector general’s report. He said the inspector general didn’t put anyone under oath and did not require Morehart to take a lie detector test. Webber has the support of U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who has accused the FBI of worrying more about “who’s getting the credit” than stopping terrorists....

Face recognition next in terror fight Homeland Security leaders are exploring futuristic and possibly privacy-invading technology aimed at finding terrorists and criminals by using digital surveillance photos that analyze facial characteristics. The government is paying for some of the most advanced research into controversial face-recognition technology, which converts photos into numerical sequences that can be instantly compared with millions of photos in a database. Facial-recognition research was sought to enable federal air marshals to surreptitiously photograph people in airports and bus and train stations to check whether they were on terrorist databases. The air marshals disavowed the technology to focus on identifying suspects through methods that don't use cameras. Even so, the research continues and could help police identify someone photographed by a security camera, said David Boyd, head of command, control and interoperability at Homeland Security's Science and Technology branch. The technology has been tested at Boston's Logan International Airport, in busy city centers and at the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa....

OPPOSITION TO NATIONAL ID CONTINUES TO GROW Five states, Idaho, Washington, Montana, Arkansas and Maine, have enacted legislation informing the federal government that their states will not comply with the Real ID Act, a law passed by Congress in 2005 which will essentially transform driver's licenses into a national ID Card. The Act requires each state to change their driver's license system to meet national standards and ensure that their databases are linked with other states and is set to take effect by May, 2008. Under the Act, states and federal government would share access to a vast national database that could include images of birth certificates, marriage licenses, divorce papers, court ordered separations, medical records, and detailed information on the name, date of birth, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, address, telephone, e-mail address, and Social Security Number for more than 240 million with no requirements or controls on how this database might be used. Many Americans may not have the documents required to obtain a REAL ID, or they may face added requirements based on arbitrary and capricious decisions made by DMV employees. States are in revolt primarily because they simply cannot afford to comply. Estimated costs for full implementation are as high as $14.6 billion (or $292 million per state. Moreover, individuals will have to cover an additional $7.8 billion in additional fees, raising the price tag for the Real ID Act to $23 billion. In many cases the technology necessary for compliance actually does not exist. Moreover, in March, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released 162 pages of proposed regulations which States are supposed to implement as part of the Real ID Act....

REAL ID Revolt Spreads to 33 States States are revving up their opposition to the "REAL ID" national driver's license program. At least 33 states are pushing for laws or resolutions blocking the program, the Senate recently held hearings on its implications for civil liberties, and the Department of Homeland Security's own privacy department gave the initiative the thumbs-down. At Senate Judiciary Committee hearings yesterday, Jim Harper, policy analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, testified that the program was a "dead letter." Harper criticized DHS for not providing strong federal guidelines for privacy and security for the program, leaving it to the states to handle. "Were they to comply with the REAL ID Act, states would have to cross a mine-field of complicated and expensive technology decisions," Harper testified. "They would face enormous, possibly insurmountable, privacy and data security challenges. "But the Department of Homeland Security avoided these issues by carefully observing the constraints of federalism even though the REAL ID law was crafted specifically to destroy the distinctions between state and federal responsibilities." Senate Judiciary chair Patrick Leahy, whose home state of Vermont has expressed opposition to the program, shared his own criticisms. "While the Federal government dictates responsibilities for what has traditionally been a State function – and adding layers of bureaucracy and regulation to effectively create a national identification card – there is no help in footing these hefty bills," Leahy said....

'Bloomberg Gun Giveaway' Draws Hundreds Openly armed firearms enthusiasts packed a normally sedate government building Thursday night, hoping to win a pistol or rifle and at the same time send a defiant message to gun-control advocates, especially New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group, organized the "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway" in large part to thumb its nose at Bloomberg, who accuses some shops of allowing illegal purchases of firearms that later were used in crimes in his city. The city has filed federal lawsuits against more than two dozen shops, including six in Virginia. Two guns were awarded Thursday, a Para-Ordnance pistol and a Varmint Stalker rifle, each worth about $900. The winners did not immediately receive the weapons _ they will still be required to undergo federal and state background checks. The first winner, Jay Minsky, responded with an obscene hand gesture when asked what message he hoped to send to Bloomberg....

ATF’s Sullivan sets record straight, refuting Bloomberg Refuting weeks of erroneous assertions and outright fabrications regarding the accessibility of firearms trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Acting Director Michael J. Sullivan this week has issued a no-nonsense, detailed explanation affirming that trace data is available for legitimate on-going criminal investigations by law enforcement. “It’s exactly what we’ve been saying all along,” noted Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “Director Sullivan’s refreshing approach to this issue ought to clarify all the misinformation about ATF trace data that has been deliberately and wrongly portrayed as beyond the reach of local police agencies for criminal investigations. “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been largely responsible for the spread of erroneous information regarding ATF trace data,” Gottlieb said, “and he needed to be corrected. The federal statute that Bloomberg and his cronies in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns want to overturn is essential to protecting what Sullivan correctly called ’sensitive data.’ Bloomberg wants access to that information solely for the purpose of mounting harassment lawsuits against law-abiding businesses. It’s got nothing to do with fighting crime, and a lot to do with feeding his own desire for self-aggrandizement.” In an Op-Ed piece provided to the Scripps Howard news service, Sullivan wrote, “Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement.”....

SAF applauds new Kates-Mauser report on firearms and crime The Second Amendment Foundation today said a new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada that shows the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate should be required reading, especially for reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives. Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns.” “The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “What these two seasoned researchers have revealed is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun laws....

Consider what’s next for the Second Amendment Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has the Second Amendment in his crosshairs. He faces a crucial choice over the next 90 days with major implications for residents in D.C. and across the country: Should the city ask the Supreme Court to review Parker v. District of Columbia, a March 9 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals that said D.C.’s handgun ban is unconstitutional? On May 8, the city lost round two when the appellate court declined to re-hear the case. That leaves the Supremes as the court of last resort. Sounds like a no-brainer. After all, the city has nothing to lose. If the Supreme Court overrules the appellate court, the mayor will be off the hook. He can continue peddling his fantasy world in which the city’s handgun ban protects Washingtonians from gun violence. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court decision, D.C. will be no worse off than it would have been if it hadn’t asked for review. The handgun ban, as it now stands, will be history. Why, then, is there any question about seeking review? Well, because politics and legal stratagems often play a role. On the political front, the argument will go like this: The last thing the mayor’s Democratic friends want is a gun control case percolating at the Supreme Court, with a decision likely in the heat of the ’08 campaign. Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats and red meat for Republicans. Accordingly, the mayor will be advised, take your medicine, change D.C.’s gun laws and keep Parker out of the Supreme Court. One would hope — if one were a D.C. resident who supported the handgun ban — that such blandishments would fall on deaf ears. The mayor is supposed to represent the city, not the pols running the ’08 campaign. We’ll soon see. Then there’s the legal strategy argument: No doubt some anti-gun groups will urge the mayor not to seek Supreme Court review because D.C. might lose. And if D.C. lost, the repercussions for gun control regulations nationwide could be historic. Because of the tightly balanced cast of justices, and their unknown views on the Second Amendment, there’s a real risk for both sides. Still, the obligation of D.C.’s mayor is to defend the constitutionality of the District’s laws, not to engage in strategic lawyering because of concerns outside of Washington....