AP June 18, 2007
Steve Lawrence

SACRAMENTO — Forgot your company identification badge at home? That wouldn't be a problem if employees had a small identification device about the size of a grain of rice inserted under their skin instead of a badge.

If that seems Orwellian to you, state Sen. Joe Simitian may have a solution. He's introduced a bill that would bar an employer or anyone else from requiring a person to have one of the devices implanted.

The measure is one of a series of bills the Palo Alto Democrat has proposed to control the use of so-called radio frequency identification devices, which can be placed in badges, passports, driver's licenses and on bodies to transmit radio signals with identifying information.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider four of the bills Tuesday.

They also include measures that would bar use of RFIDs in driver's licenses and student identification badges before 2011 and set privacy-protection standards for RFIDs.

A fifth bill by Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, is also on the committee's agenda. It would require companies that issue identification cards or other items containing RFIDs to disclose the personal information that would be revealed by the RFID and what steps they've taken to protect that information.

Simitian says he is concerned the information provided by RFIDs could be used to track people's movements or to steal their personal information with the use of an inexpensive monitor.

"When people understand the vulnerability of the technologyand the absolute lack of any privacy protections or limits on information that can be broadcast, they understand why it's a legitimate source of concern," he said.
The use of implanted RFIDs makes "you think we really are in a world we never could have imagined," he said.

But Roxanne Gould, vice president for California government relations for the American Electronics Association, a high-tech industry group, said Simitian is taking the wrong approach, although her organization hasn't taken a position on the implant bill.

"Our bottom line is we're opposed to anything that demonizes RFIDs," she said. "The technology has been in existence for more than 50 years. It's in more than 1.2 billion ID credentials worldwide. ... We've not seen a single showing of ID theft or harm."

Lawmakers should focus on preventing inappropriate use of RFIDs, not in restricting the technology, she said.

Scott Silverman, chief executive officer of VeriChip Corp., a Florida company that makes implantable RFIDs, said his firm has a "very strong privacy policy" and doesn't oppose bills like the Simitian measure banning forced use of the devices.

"In principle, a device of this type should never be forced on anybody," he said.

Two other states, Wisconsin and North Dakota, have enacted similar bans.

Most of VeriChip's devices are implanted to identify medical patients, but the company has also made implantable RFIDs for security uses. Mexico's attorney general bought about 100 of them through a distributor a few years ago, Silverman said.

It would take a larger device, about the size of a pacemaker, to track a person's movements by satellite, he said.

Some of the other bills on lawmakers' agendas this week include:

-Recycling: A bill by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Sherman Oaks, would require apartment complexes with at least five units to provide access to waste recycling programs. According to a Senate analysis of the bill, only 40 percent of Californians in multifamily housing have access to curbside recycling. The bill is on the Senate Environmental Quality Committee's agenda today.

-Marriage equality: Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, has a bill that would make it easier for men to take their wives' last names when they get married. It's on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda on Tuesday.

-Hemp farming: Assemblyman Mark Leno,

D-San Francisco, is making another attempt to allow California farmers to grow hemp, a distant, low-potency cousin of marijuana that is used in myriad products. The bill is before the Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the proposal last year.

-Electoral College: California would award its Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote under a bill by Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, that's on the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee's Tuesday calendar. This proposal also was vetoed last year. The measure would only take effect if states with a majority of electoral votes adopted the same proposal.

Press TV June 18, 2007

Muslim Scholars Association has said in an online statement that US forces bombed a Sunni mosque in Baquba, killing five Iraqis.

The association which is headed by Harith al-Dhari indicated that a US tank destroyed the Abdullah Ibn Mubarak mosque in Baquba, 60 kilometers northeast of Baghdad, on Sunday.

The attack, according to the statement has left five Iraqis dead, DPA reported.

The incident came a day after a suicide bomber blew up a vehicle against the Sunni Al-Anwar mosque in the town of Al-Haswa, 60 kilometers south of Baghdad, killing eight people.

Analysts say the United States is behind such terrorist acts in Iraq and with its prolonged presence in the war-torn country is doing its utmost to pit Sunnis against Shias under the guise of war against terror.

On Sunday informed sources reported that the US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had planned the attack on the holy Shia shrine in Samarra, a measure to sow discord between Shias and Sunnis as the main Islamic schools of thought.

The blast in Samarra which destroyed the minarets of the sacred shrines of the Shia Imams was performed with the assistance of the former Saddam regime's security agents, the sources added.

AFP June 18, 2007

Britain joined the United States' invasion to oust the Taliban in 2001 because it feared America would "nuke the shit" out of Afghanistan, the former British ambassador to Washington reportedly told a television documentary to be screened Saturday.

In comments printed in advance in the Daily Mirror tabloid on Monday, Christopher Meyer said that fear explained why Prime Minister Tony Blair chose to stand with US President George W. Bush in his decision to invade Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks -- to temper his aggressive battle plans.

"Blair's real concern was that there would be quote unquote 'a knee-jerk reaction' by the Americans ... they would go thundering off and nuke the shit out of the place without thinking straight," Meyer reported told the documentary, according to the Mirror.

In other excerpts of the documentary, printed in The Observer newspaper on Sunday, members of Blair's inner circle said the prime minister agreed to commit troops to the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq despite believing that the United States had failed to prepare adequately for post-war reconstruction.

Channel 4 will air the first part of "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair" on Saturday

Published: June 14, 2007

“If you support Giuliani, you aren't supporting family values”

Republican presidential candidate greeted with pickets at appearance in Orange County

June 13 /Christian Newswire -- Republicans upset with Rudy Giuliani's anti-family policies protested on Sunday, June 10th when the "Republican" presidential candidate appeared in Irvine. A "Rudy Giuliani in drag" was among dozens of sign-holding protestors outside the hotel.

"Imagine what heads of state would think of an American president known for dressing up as a woman," said Bob Cielnicky, a southern California pro-life leader. "What was Rudy Giuliani thinking when he did this publicly three times as mayor of New York? Obviously not the Presidency."

Propelled into national prominence by the 2001 World Trade Center attack, Giuliani is running as a "Republican." But many Republicans are discovering Giuliani's liberal views on foundational issues of abortion, homosexuality, judges, and gun control, and they don't like it. Giuliani is in conflict with the Republican Party platform and principles.

As mayor, Giuliani was a steadfast abortion advocate who even supported partial-birth abortion. Records show Giuliani made six personal donations to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.

Mayor Giuliani pushed for and signed a law that awarded pseudo-marriage rights to homosexual partners. Giuliani marched in several New York City Gay Pride parades, the last one three months before 9/11. After committing adultery and being evicted from the mayor's mansion by his wife, Giuliani moved in with a homosexual couple. He went on to marry his third wife and become her third husband.

A Politico review of the 75 judges Mayor Giuliani appointed found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. Giuliani's judicial appointments included a lesbian activist and an abortion activist.

As mayor, Giuliani aggressively went after two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors with a lawsuit filed by New York City. That lawsuit prompted federal legislation to protect Second Amendment rights, however, the case is still open.

"It's appalling to see some Republicans abandoning their Republican Party core principles for Rudy Giuliani," said Ken Fisher, a conservative Republican activist in Orange County. "If you support Giuliani, you aren't supporting family values."

Republicans Against Rudy Giuliani
Irvine, CA
Contact:
Bob Cielnicky, 714-964-1284
Ken Fisher, 714-776-8855

CNet June 14, 2007
Anne Broache

The latest draft of the Free Flow of Information Act would pose a grave threat to national security and federal criminal investigations by protecting far too large a segment of the population, a U.S. Department of Justice official told Congress.

A correction was made to this story. Read below for details.

"The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing here. She also argued it would protect "a terrorist operative who videotaped a message from a terrorist leader threatening attacks on Americans."

Justice Department opposition has bedeviled Congress throughout its numerous attempts in recent years to enact federal shield laws. Supporters say such legislation is needed in light of high-profile cases involving New York Times reporter Judith Miller and what free-press advocacy groups characterize as a sharp rise in subpoenas to reporters in recent years.

Laws recognizing some form of "reporter's privilege" already exist in 49 states and the District of Columbia--but, crucially, do not shield journalists from federal prosecutors. The Bush Administration claims there's no evidence that source-related subpoenas to reporters are on the rise and argues that it already has robust internal guidelines, including a requirement that the attorney general personally approve such subpoenas and provide an appropriate balance between press freedom and investigative needs.

This year's Free Flow of Information Act, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate, proposes a protection for a broader swath of people than earlier versions. It covers anyone engaged in journalism, which is defined as "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

Even those covered individuals could be forced to give up their sources under certain circumstances, including when it's clear that crimes have been committed, when "imminent or actual harm" to national security could occur, or when trade secrets, nonpublic personal information or health records are compromised in violation of existing laws.

The hearing, which lasted about three hours, highlighted again the tensions that have arisen as the traditional mainstream media continues to overlap and collide with Internet-based upstarts.

On several occasions, politicians from both parties questioned whether the bill should be so expansive as to include bloggers. Some bristled at the notion that the ease of publishing online could provide cover for those who want to leak sensitive information and get away with it.

"I'd say anyone who didn't want to face legal action would immediately try to put up a blog and try to get journalistic protection," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), adding that he hoped to work with his colleagues to refine that definition.

But even one of the bill's opponents, George Washington University Law School professor Randall Eliason, said, "anything narrower is going to run into severe First Amendment problems."

William Safire, a longtime New York Times columnist and former Nixon administration speech writer, praised the bill's current definition because he said it focuses on the actions characteristic of journalists, not their affiliations.

"Whether you're a blogger or whether you're The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you're a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not," he said. (The New York Times, the National Association of Broadcasters and other journalism groups have endorsed the latest bill, according to its sponsors.)

At Thursday's hearing, the bill's chief sponsors, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), never directly addressed the issue of the journalist definition they crafted. Boucher told CNET News.com in an interview earlier this year that they intended to include bloggers "who are regularly involved in newsgathering and reporting." Any refinement of that definition would be left up to the courts.

Instead, the bill's sponsors continued to tout the necessity of passing their measure as soon as possible. The measure, Pence said, "is not about protecting reporters, it's about protecting the public's right to know."

Some Republicans said they opposed the bill more broadly because they believed it would give undue protection to anyone who publishes false or irresponsible information. Former Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) cited a New York Times story last year about a government computer system to track money laundering by terrorists as an example of a situation in which a news outlet harmed American national security interests.

"I don't see very much responsibility there," he said. "It seems to me the burden of proof in showing a press shield will be used responsibly should be on the news media."

Correction: Due to an editing error, this story misstated the day of the week the Bush administration criticized a congressional proposal that could let bloggers protect sources in some cases. The day is Thursday.