The New American – by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
What happens in Vegas will be recorded by cameras provided by the Department of Homeland Security.
All along the storied Las Vegas Strip, 37 surveillance cameras watch and record every movement.
Such an expensive purchase might surprise citizens of Sin City given that the Metropolitan Police Department is in the middle of a hiring freeze and has laid off dozens of officers all over the city.
The effects of the deep budget cuts are likely to continue to be felt. The Las Vegas Sun reports, “The outlook only threatens to worsen, with Metro facing a $30 million budget deficit that could require it to shed as many as 250 additional officer positions over the next several years.”
Homeland Security has deep pockets, though, and the federal government loves using largesse to co-opt control of local law enforcement.
The Las Vegas Police Department received $300,000 from the federal Department of Homeland Security. This generous grant paid for the cameras and the sophisticated surveillance software that powers them.
Before the DHS carrot and stick appeared, there were only eight cameras covering the area now under expanded surveillance.
DHS is proud of the success of its program to use federal funds to save struggling police departments and sheriff’s offices, converting them into “partners” with the massive and unconstitutional federal agency.
“We have brought resources and expertise to our law enforcement partners and built new mechanisms to share information. This includes investments in training for local law enforcement and first responders of all types in order to increase expertise and capacity at the local level,” DHS states on its website.
New mechanisms such as powerful surveillance cameras.
How is all this new technology being used? Who is being watched? Why are they being targeted for surveillance? Neither law enforcement nor federal agents are talking.
The web of surveillance being woven by the Department of Homeland Security among local law-enforcement agencies is usually part of the secretive effort known as the Buffer Zone Protection Program. According to DHS:
The Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) is a Department-administered infrastructure protection grant program to help local law enforcement and first responders identify and mitigate vulnerabilities at the highest-risk critical infrastructure sites. A buffer zone is the area outside a facility that an adversary can use to conduct surveillance or launch an attack. The term is associated with identified critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR).
BZPP provides funding to local law enforcement for equipment acquisition and planning activities to address gaps and enhance security capabilities. The program brings together private sector security personnel and first responders in a collaborative security planning process that enhances the buffer zone.
Local police who participate in the program will have access to a shockingly broad array of personal information of citizens. Facial recognition technology, license plate readers, and stop light camera video feeds will all be funneled to a Regional Operations Intelligence Center where FBI, police, and DHS agents can watch the live feeds. These hubs are part of a larger operations complex known as a fusion center.
The following information is taken from a fact sheet on fusion centers posted on the DHS website: “A fusion center is a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.”
A description of the functioning of these incubators for the forthcoming federal police force is also provided on the DHS site:
State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as primary focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners…. Fusion centers conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing, assisting law enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism.
The literature promoting the acceptance of fusion centers lists several ways the new federal agency will impose its will on the formerly autonomous and accountable police chief or county sheriff.
First, the feds will decide where and when to deploy local police department personnel. The chief, if he still exists, will be no more than a functionary required to make sure that the orders of the federal government are carried out. More likely than not, these new missions, in addition to preventing crime in the city or county, will engage in the collection of information about and apprehension of those local citizens identified by a committee in Washington as posing a threat to national security. Consider the revelation in 2009 that Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a document entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalism and Recruitment,” which listed war veterans, anti-abortion activists, small-government advocates, and those concerned about immigration as terrorist risks.
Second, DHS (or whichever one of the federal agencies eventually takes over law-enforcement duties) will train new recruits. Policies, procedures, and purposes will not reflect traditional (and constitutional) goals of law enforcement, but will be tailored to training officers to perform those duties associated with the new, national emphasis of the force, with a slant toward federalism.
Finally, funds for this conversion from local police department to outpost of the federal law-enforcement agency will be provided by the bureaucrats on Capitol Hill. This is nothing less than the use of taxpayer money to fund the deprivation of taxpayers’ freedom.
So far, the DHS has marked 1,849 locations scattered throughout the 50 states that will serve as regional surveillance collection centers. As part of the department’s 2010 budget, $48 million was spent establishing the centers.
There is a major constitutional obstacle to such constant monitoring of citizens: the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Such sweeping surveillance technology does not conform to the constitutional requirement that all searches be reasonable and be conducted with warrants based on probable cause.
Given the power of the tools being brought by DHS into cities and towns as they take effective control of local law enforcement, it is difficult to determine who is being watched, why they are being watched, and who is doing the watching.
A story reporting the installation of the new cameras on the Las Vegas Strip includes a quote from a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Nevada, accurately assessing the substantial threat to liberty posed by this expanded surveillance capacity.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said while those on a public sidewalk do not really have a reasonable expectation of privacy, he worries about the police’s use and storage of the footage, and added that the extra surveillance may not be worth giving up privacy.
“Over the last decade or two, we’ve given up a great deal of our privacy. A lot of which is not really necessary,” Lichtenstein said. “The lack of accountability and transparency is something that we should all be concerned with.”
“We’re well beyond the point of ‘1984,’” he added, referencing George Orwell’s novel about the world being under complete surveillance by a totalitarian government.
What was the Metropolitan Police’s response to these legitimate concerns of potential invasions of privacy and violations of constitutionally protected freedom from unwarranted searches?
“We’re not out to invade anyone’s privacy,” said police Captain Robert DuVall, as reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Citizens of Las Vegas, as well as the millions of tourists that keep the billions of lights glowing on the Strip and the billions of dollars in casino owners’ pockets, should be aware that every action — embarrassing or otherwise — will now be watched and recorded, thanks to the Metropolitan Police Department’s partnership with the Department of Homeland Security.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com
Safety at any price: Assessing the impact of DHS spending in U.S. cities
This report examines the UASI grant program, including a detailed review of 15 cities that have received funding through the program. It is intended to assess whether spending on DHS antiterrorism grants like UASI have made us safer, and whether the taxpayer dollars that have been spent on these programs have yielded an adequate return on investment in terms of improved security.
The results of the investigation find that taxpayer money spent on homeland security grant programs has not always been spent in ways obviously linked to terrorism or preparedness. Importantly, this does not mean money was spent outside the bounds of what was allowed. The decision by officials in Michigan to purchase 13 sno-cone machines and the $45 million that was spent by officials in Cook County, Illinois on a failed video surveillance network have already garnered national attention as examples of dubious spending. Both were defended or promoted by DHS.
Other examples have not received as much attention. Columbus, Ohio recently used a $98,000 UASI grant to purchase an “underwater robot.” Local officials explained that it would be used to assist in underwater rescues.
Keene, New Hampshire, with a population just over 23,000 and a police force of 40, set aside UASI funds to buy a BearCat armored vehicle. Despite reporting only a single homicide in the prior two years, the City of Keene told DHS the vehicle was needed to patrol events like its annual pumpkin festival. Tulsa, Oklahoma used UASI funding to harden a county jail and purchase a color printer.
In 2009, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania purchased for $88,000 several “long-range acoustic device,” or LRAD, which is mounted on a truck and emits an ear-splitting sound. Local officials used it to disperse G-20 protestors, giving one bystander permanent hearing loss, but which they called “a kinder and gentler way to get people to leave.”
Peoria, Arizona spent $90,000 to install bollards and surveillance cameras at the Peoria Sports Complex, which is used for spring training by the San Diego Padres and Seattle Mariners. The Oxnard-Thousand Oaks UASI used $75,000 to also purchase surveillance equipment, alarms and closed-circuit television, which it installed in its Civic Arts Plaza, a local theater and cultural center.
UASI funds were also used for mundane expenses, such as paying the overtime costs of police and firefighters or purchasing new computers for the local emergency planning office. Some urban areas used their awards for local outreach, holding conferences, creating websites and posting videos on how citizens can spot signs of terror in their own neighborhoods. A video sponsored by the Jacksonville UASI alerted its residents to red flags such as people with “average or above average intelligence” or who displayed “increased frequency of prayer or religious behavior.”
http://info.publicintelligence.net/SenatorCoburn-UASI.pdf
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Homeland Security Project report claims terrorism in the U.S. has shifted from radicalized groups to radicalized individuals
A new report released by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Homeland Security Project today found that the most imminent threat to the United States is from individuals who are radicalized over the Internet.
“This assessment finds that the United States faces a different terrorist threat than it did on 9/11/2001. The borders between domestic and international terrorism have blurred, and the U.S. adversaries are not only organizations, but also individuals. To best protect the homeland, we need to develop defenses against a more diffused threat posed by radicalized individuals, in addition to organized groups,” said Gov. Kean. “The Bipartisan Policy Center’s report is intended to evaluate the current domestic and international threats and provide recommendations to help lawmakers and the administration counter those threats.”
The report was authored by: Peter Bergen, Director of the National Security Program at the New America Foundation; Bruce Hoffman, Director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University; Erroll Southers, Associate Director of Research Transition at the Department of Homeland Security’s National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) at the University of Southern California and former FBI special agent; and former CIA Operative Michael Hurley. (The report was written by the very people who are keeping the war on terror running and profiting from it!)
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2013/09/new-assessment-finds-threat-home-has-shifted-radicalized-groups?_cldee=YmZyYW5rZWxAbmV3c3dpcmVwdWJzLmNvbQ%3d%3d&utm_source=ClickDimensions&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HSP%20Emerging%20Threat%20Report%20Release%209.9.13
“All along the storied Las Vegas Strip, 37 surveillance cameras watch and record every movement.”
Vegas has 37 cameras watching every craps table, so the addition of 37 DHS cameras obviously has nothing to do with our “safety.”
DHS must need its own cameras there to hunt for Patriots, because Muslims don’t gamble.