Homeland Security

Today an appeals court in California handed a bunch of NASA scientists a victory that is a victory for the civil liberties of all Federal employees and contractors. At stake was the privacy of all NASA scientists and contractors and potentially all Federal employees and contractors. It all stems from a reasonable attempt by Homeland Security to standardize the procedure for obtaining ID cards that allow access to Federal facilities (Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12). The method of implementation required even low-risk employees and contractors (including my wife, a grad student studying climate) to sign a blanket waiver giving the Federal government permission to investigate all aspects of a person's private life, including finiancial and medical records, or risk losing the right to enter their place of employment with the government.

One of the first places where this was aggressively implemented was NASA. Just as my wife, working in a NASA facility where no sensitive research is done, was informed she will have to sign away her rights to get an ID, NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Lab filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the directive. Today that lawsuit bore fruit. Please read on.

Some of you may have been following the long story of a threat to my wife's civil liberties thanks to Homeland Security. The original diaries (which got LOTS of attention, being picked up by the Huffington Post and boosting the morale of some NASA scientists involved) can be found here:

George Bush has always been far more willing to give money to Halliburton and Exxon/Mobil than he has to give it to fund our fire departments, police departments and healthcare system.

Well, here he goes again. In the good old Republican tradition of hurting Americans which we saw so blatantly in New Orleans after Katrina, Bush is proposing to cut federal funding to fire departments, police, etc. by half. From Salon.com:

The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press...

The department [of Homeland Security] wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House said it would ask Congress for less than half — $1.4 billion, according to a Nov. 26 document. The plan calls outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year. This is President Bush's last budget, and the new administration would have to live with the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.

What? Elimination of funding for port security? Well, I guess he doesn't like port security since Democrats prevented him from turning our port security to his buddies in Dubai. More from Salon:

Just yesterday I delivered the bad news that a judge (a Bush appointee) denied the request of NASA scientists for protection against invasion of their personal privacy by the Federal Government. I mentioned that the case was under appeal. Those who have been following this story will know that this case directly affects my wife, who will also be required to waive her rights if she wants to work at a NASA facility even though none of the work she does is sensitive.

Well, in this case, the courts moved fast. The appeal has been successful and the Ninth Circuit Court has issued an injunction against the oppressive implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12. I received this news mere minutes ago:

PRESS RELEASE
Date: October 5, 2007

Re:
Nelson, et. al. v. National
Aeronautical and Space Agency, et. al.

NINTH CIRCUIT ISSUES INJUNCTION AGAINST NASA AND JET PROPULSION LABORATORY’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF INVASIVE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an emergency injunction against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Court ruled that NASA could not require Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists and engineers holding non-sensitive positions to sign waivers of their privacy rights. If the Court had not issued this injunction, thousands of scientists would have had to choose between waiving their privacy rights and keeping their jobs. The plaintiffs filed suit in United States District Court for the Central District of California against NASA, the Department of Commerce and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) on behalf of a class of JPL employees who are being required to waive their privacy rights and submit to an unconstitutional intrusive background investigation in order to retain their jobs with JPL. The plaintiffs include highly placed engineers and research scientists at JPL who have been involved in critical roles in NASA’s most successful recent programs, including leading engineers and scientists on the Mars Exploration Rovers program.

In the ongoing case of my wife (and all other NASA employees and theoretically all Federal employees) vs. Homeland Security (see earlier entries for details: Part I (overview); Part II (the Suitability Matrix); Part III (the resignation letter)), the civil liberties of Federal employees just got dealt a setback. A judge just denied the case of 28 employees of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to get court protection from excessively intrusive personal background investigations:

Media Advisory

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 3, 2007

JPL Employees to Appeal Negative Ruling by Judge

Employees at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory will file an emergency motion on Thursday to appeal a federal district court's decision that denies them the court's protection from excessively intrusive personal background investigations ordered by NASA for all JPL employees.

During the hearing in his Los Angeles courtroom on Monday, Judge Otis Wright said he was inclined to issue a limited temporary injunction before October 5 in the case of the 28 JPL employees who filed suit against Caltech and NASA over the detailed personal investigations associated with issuing new identification badges for access to the JPL facility. None of the 28 employees do any classified work.

Many of your followed my series on my wife's battle with the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Part I here).

Part of the story is a court case filed by employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to block parts of this implementation. Today there has been a media advisory in this case:

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 1, 2007

Federal Judge Indicates He May Issue Temporary Limited Injunction

Judge Otis Wright suggested he may issue some form of a limited temporary injunction in the next few days in the case of 28 employees of Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who filed suit against Caltech and NASA for over-intrusive background checks that are being conducted in association with issuing new identification badges for access to JPL.

Judge Wright set a hearing on the question of a permanent injunction for October 19, at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 11 of the United States Courthouse in Los Angeles.

The judge said he had particular concerns about a question regarding drug use that employees had to answer on United States Office of Personnel Management Form
Sf85.

In addition to the 28 plaintiffs, hundreds of JPL employees have taken issue with the background checks. Caltech attorney Mark Holscher conceded in court that only 4100 of JPL’s 7500 employees and contractors have begun to fill out the forms.

In Part I of this series, I described the way that government employees are being asked, in the name of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12, to sign away their rights in order to keep their jobs (in essence). I should note that not all the blame for the problems are due to Homeland Security. Some are due to the way individual agencies are implementing the procedure. I should also note that the precise wording of the directive is not necessarily objectionable. Nevertheless, the requirement to sign a blanket waiver allowing an intrusive government investigation applies across the board and is the way in which the directive is being implemented.

In Part II I describe an aspect of the procedure by which government employees are investigated as part of the imlpementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12. This part of the procedure is called the "Suitability Matrix" and is not in iteself a part of the directive. From what I could tell, it was an existing procedure, used to determine if someone should be debarred from government work, that has been appropraited by the US Office of Personnel Management in order to implement the directive. The Suitability Matrix is objectionable because a.) it does not give the procedure by which it is used, b.) it seems to require an intrusive investigation into an employees personal life way beyond anything Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 requires, and c.) it includes as "offenses" things that could easily be misused, such as a reference to "sodomy" that, in context, sounds suspiciously like it could be used to debar gays from government work.

“Yeah, that's it. Just relax.
Have another drink, few more pretzels, little more MSG.
Turn on those Dallas Cowboys on your TV.
Lock your doors. Close your mind.
It's time for the two-minute warning.

Welcome to 1984
Are you ready for the third world war?!?
You too will meet the secret police
They'll draft you and they'll jail your niece”

--Dead Kennedys, "We've Got a Bigger Problem Now”

Have you been PERSONALLY affected by the Bush Administration’s erosion of our Constitutional Rights? Well, now my family is coming face to face with a direct assault on the Bill of Rights, an assault on my wife’s rights. This assault comes directly from Bush with no input from Congress whatsoever.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 12…

This Presidential Directive is all about choice, or so they say. One of those twisted, Orwellian “choices” that isn’t a choice. My wife’s choice is she can either sign over to the Federal Government the right to investigate every aspect of her life (including fingerprinting, credit check, medical records, character references, etc.) or she can “voluntarily” choose to not be allowed entry into the building wherein she works. The choice is hers. The rights that are being lost are those of every single American citizen.

I am sitting here on a runway at La Guardia airport, looking out the window and seeing about 5 other airplanes idling on the tarmac. I am in American Airlines flight 313 allegedly en route to Chicago. I emphasize the word *allegedly* due to the fact that our being sequestered here comes after a one hour delay at the gate. So we were one hour late when we boarded, have been waiting for an hour and now comes word that we will be sitting here for another 2 hours.

With no food.

With no beverages.

With no way out.

To say I am furious it is to put it mildly.

There are people here who woke up at 3AM to make it in time for the pre-boarding harassment that passes as a security check. I woke up at 5AM, got in a bit before 7AM and was forced to check my carry-on after a about half-an-hour of standing in the mess that American Airlines calls "the service counter".

After that mess, I had to wait in line for another 15 minutes to get to the gate. Not to actually go through it but to get to the gate. Once there, a Latino woman found it in her heart to question the validity of not just my passport but also my New York City issued driver's license. Yes. She didn't believe either was real --and boy do I have tons to say in another post about Latinos and African Americans working as security personnel in airports.

Once in the gate I had to wait another 30 minutes or so to go through it. Me and my 2 bags, computer and terrorist loving sneakers.

I used to love flying. I used to love airports. Well, the cost and increasing inconvenience have taken the fun out of flying in America. Only when flying overseas does my former love of flying come out because overseas the security is more sensible, the flights more comfortable, and the personnel more friendly.

What are we getting for our inconvenience and increasing costs? Supposedly increased security, but does it really make sense to force parents to pour out their child's milk or juice or to prevent parents from taking aquafor onto planes? Does this really make us safer?

A friend of mine in California flew back from a trip to Europe recently. She flew from her European destination through Paris, to a stopover in America and then home to Los Angeles. In her carryon was an unopened jar of Nutella. For those who don't know about this, it is a hazelnut spread that some Europeans love on toast. Obviously a threat to our national security.

My friend got on her plane in Europe without anyone caring about her jar of Nutella. She then went through the Paris airport without anyone caring about her jar of Nutella. Then she reached America and she was told that she could not take her unopened jar of Nutella on her next flight. The security agent took this VERY seriously, was stern and even threatening.

Now, my friend managed to convince the person to let her take it using methods I will not reveal...suffice it to say age and gender can be used to advantage. But what struck me was that an item that is completely harmless was not viewed with suspicion in Europe but was considered a major concen by security in the US.

A terrorist attack occurred on 9/11/2006 in Davenport, Iowa, on the 5th year anniversary of the terrorist attack on the city where I live. And I heard nothing about it. And Homeland Security seems to have ignored it. Why?

Simple: the attack was done by a right wing white guy targeting a woman's health clinic.

From the Quad Cities Times:

A Michigan man described as a bookworm by relatives has wandered the Midwest since August, looking for a medical clinic to attack with his 2004 Saturn compact car, authorities said.

It was dawn Monday when David Robert McMenemy approached Edgerton Women’s Health Center in Davenport, which he mistakenly believed provided abortions.

He entered the center’s driveway off East Rusholme Street and then took a few moments to turn and configure the car to face straight into the lobby, Davenport Fire Marshal Mike Hayman said.

The 45-year-old crashed the Saturn into the central lobby, coming to rest at the counter. When the car did not immediately burst into flames as he may have expected, police said he took gasoline that he had poured into a Gatorade bottle and spread it over the interior. “I lit it,” McMenemy told investigators, and he exited the structure to surrender himself to startled Davenport firefighters....

He faces a charge of second-degree arson because first-degree arson requires that the building be occupied. There are no additional charges that are appropriate, including terrorism, Davis said, but he noted the case could be taken up by federal authorities.