February 13, 2008

- Infragard - First in a Series


First in a Series

Recent public disclosures of the InfraGard system no longer obligates silence on abuses. We've been following the developments behind the scenes. These are issues warranting increased public oversight at the State and Federal Level.

As reported, the InfraGard system is designed to protect the nation's infrastructure. What has not been well discussed are the detailed operations of InfraGard, the policies, and the operational procedures used to gather intelligence.

InfraGuard has two broad functions. One is operational protection of infrastructure, the second is the intelligence gathering arm.

InfraGard members claim they are protecting the infrastructure. They're more interested in abusing power, and using resistance to that abuse to broaden their intelligence gathering and intrusions. We need to know who is abusing their authority, end this misconduct, and ensure the public is treated with respect, not as "the enemy".

The abuse of this intelligence gathering for non-official purposes designed to intimidate a civilian population and dissuade lawful activity, but not engage in bonafide law enforcement or infrastructure protection.

InfraGard relies on civilian contractors providing information to the State and federal authorities. What's not been well discussed are the liberties these contractors have been taken under their deputization; and how law enforcement supports questionable InfraGard contractor conduct.

If there are problems with InfraGard management, these need to be openly discussed, not hidden. Oversight is needed to determine whether:
- InfraGard contarctors show they need assistance organizing information, providing timely reports, and conducting investigations.

- Internal communication channels are a problem. - There are inadequate internal communications to ensure bonafide threats are timely communicated.

InfraGard appears ill-equipped to conduct in-house auditing. Congress needs to ensure oversight occurs, and does not abuse the secrecy of the by-passed FISA Court. Judicial oversight is needed, especially as abuses might be mitigated with warrants with credible, written investigation plans reviewed by senior management appearing before the magistrate.

InfraGard intelligence gathering relies on interrogation methods publicly disclosed in the open media. Private citizens without notice are detained, removed from their vehicles, and taken to DHS holding cells for warrantless interrogations. Private contractors also engage in deception when confronting civilians.

InfraGard relies on employee reports to security personnel. Reports include information related to unusual incidients and apparent efforts at intelligence gathering. Of concern are the missing oversight needed to ensure these reports from employees are truthful; and that the public has a reasoable way to challenge false reports by InfraGard officers, employees, and law enforcement. Without oversight improvements, we can expect to see more unreasonable denials of access to public accommodations based on dubious assertions.

The focus should be on protecting the infrastructure. However, in the zeal to gather intelligence, InfraGard intelligence gathering is undermining public support for bonafide law enforcement actions. Of concern are the ineffective InfraGard standards of conduct which permit retaliation against the public. The public a reasonable, timely forum to challenge dubious claims, without a threat of loss of services. Better cooperation by InfraGard will motivate more of the public to voluntarily disclose real evidence of bonafide threats to the infrastructure. The InfraGard abuses are undermining public support, and the InfraGard is using this public resistance as a pretext to increase intelligence gathering, intrusions, and illegal searches of innocent civilians. The solution is not to suppress reports of abuse, but to more effectively manage, discipline, and train the InfraGard contractors and officers.

Table A: InfraGard Abuses

The following are not acceptable, and increase public hesitancy to trust InfraGard motivations:

- Deception to gather non-public information

- False accusations to intimidate the traveler

- Prextextual stops

- Feigned "concerns" with issues, but no serious interest in discussing solutions to those "concern"

- Rudeness

- Threats of arrest by non-arresting officers

- Denial of access to public accommodations for asserting one's rights

- InfraGard contractor unresponsiveness to security concerns raised by the public

- Using public reports to InfraGard about officer misconduct as a pretext to target the informer

- Targeting personnel suspected of being on no-notice audit teams with intrusions, surveillance, and harassment

- Retaliating against unionization efforts within InfraGard under the pretext of "infrastructure protection"

Of concern to Academia are the innocent questions students pose to public officials and private contractors. Student bodies do have contracting relationships with the various transportation companies. Some students applying their academic skills have been threatened with having their names placed on the DHS watch list. American citizens, when applying their academic degrees, are being openly confronted for asking innocent questions about things in the public domain.

Of concern are the unconfirmed accusations which InfraGard contractors have been making. Notably, to deflect attention from InfraGard misconduct, personnel have been reported providing misleading information to deflect attention from procedural violations, disclosures of classified information, or other illegal activity by law enforcement and the InfraGard contractors.

State licensing boards are encouraged to increase oversight, random sampling, and better protect their no-notice audit procedures when reviewing firms within the InfraGard system.

Congress is encouraged to provide the public with better oversight in the form of public discussion of the abuses; and better disclosures of the specific companies involved with the InfraGard misconduct. The voters and consumers will be able to make more informed voting and business decisions.

InfraGard contractors to engage in deception are viewed as unreliable counter parties. This increases transaction costs. Boards of directors are urged to evaluate the alleged misconduct in terms of cost premiums, lost sales, higher turnover, and union member dissatisfaction.

Student Surveys

Because of reports of abuse, academic leaders are expanding their student surveys. These surveys have been designed to alert the public of the types of abuses students may encounter. Academic leaders are consolidating these findings when reviewing contracts with transportation companies.

When contractors in the InfraGard system are unble to get information using threats or deception, they do rely on local and regional law enforcement. Law enforcement does support the InfraGard intelligence gathering by engaging in pre-textual stops. Pretextual stops are fabricated reasons an officer will invent to "justify" a stop if challenged.

InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been observed falsely accusing people engaged in innocent behavior as being criminals, under suspicion, or matching the description of reported crimes. The officers have been stating that innocent conduct is a crime; or that activity that is not illegal has been placed under investigation.

InfraGard contractors are known for their deceptive conduct. Public complaints of their unresponsiveness have been met with increased observations and pretextual encounters.

InfraGard contractors are typically given advance notice of audits. This is in alleged violation of the "no notice" rules where official auditors are supposed to arrive without warning, and conduct independent data gathering. Federal officials are advised to better secure the audit notification lists, and conduct bogus notifications to test which InfraGard contractors are receiving these fabricated "no notice" audit warning.

When InfraGard contractors and law enforcement encounter citizens, the public is advised to remember they may or may not have the power to arrest. Please discuss these issues with legal counsel.

Some Infragard contractors may attempt to leave the false impression that they have the power to arrest, detain, and prosecute. This may not be correct. Although the security contractors may have handcuffs, this does not mean that they have necessarily been adequately trained on lawful arrests. Citizens are encouraged to discuss with counsel the insurance liability premiums of the InfraGard contractors.

When law enforcement is directed to provide support to the InfraGard intelligence gathering, law enforcement may or may not have a credible story or explanation for their stopping you. Citizens are encouraged to discuss with counsel the difference between an interview, detention, and arrest.

Some law enforcement when supporting the InfraGard intelligence gathering may make insulting comments, attempt to demean you, or imply they have superior experience or information. Whether this is or isn't true is unrelated to their stated reasons for stopping you.

One sign that the InfraGard intelligence gathering is occuring is when the Infragard contractors or law enforcement provide convoluted stories. This is intended to confuse you. You may also notice that they may change their reason for stopping you several times. This is intended to get you to react to new information. They will compare your responses and challenge you on any apparent, real, or fabricated inconsistency.

InfraGard contractors have been linked with procedural violations. InfraGard contractors have been the subject of no-notice audits, and been caught violating guidelines. Some have even establisehed false front companies to gather information. For example, one InfraGard contractor established a fictitious legal entity, falsely portraying itself as an advocate for certain legal issues. This was intended to attract the types of people opposing a specific intrusive security policy. Once the InfraGard contractor was able to fool the public, they were able to identify the leadership who opposed their company's practices. This is an example of the InfraGard intelligence collection being abused.

Table B: Signs InfraGard/Law Enforcement Are Engged in Intelligence Gathering, Not Bonafide Crime Prevention:

- Inconsistent statements

- False accusations

- Insults

- Threats of arrest unless you disclose private medical information

- Feigning concern about a "serious issue," then changing the subject

- Demanding the public "show concern" for a fabricated story

- Stating their "procedures" require them to do something, but they are not following procedures

- Claims they have incriminating evidence (If they have it, why aren't you being charged with a crime in court?)

- Threats to "get law enforcement" (But unable to sustain their accusations when law enforcement arrives)

- After being denied consent to search, they search despite stating no specific reason, and having no warrant

- Physically moving you to move you in front of cameras, but not stating what their concerns are

- Plain clothes officers following you into deadend streets, then left no where to go after you depart

- Acting as if lawful activity is "suspicious" and has "been reported"

- Use of subtle intimidation

- Asking about morally offensive conduct, personal issues, or brutal details of hideous criminal activity

- Saying things designed to shock you

- Refusing to take your suggestions seriously, suggesting their "problem" isn't real; or that they're not serious about doing what they say is a problem

- Interruptions

- Lectures about unrelated issues

- Shifting the burden from them to you

- Pretending that "your requirement" is to answer questions, when their mandate is to provide evidence to the court to charge you with a crime
InfraGard contractors have also been linked with requests to conduct illegal break ins of private homes, offices, and protected facilities. It's curious they've supposedly been hired to protect infrastructure, yet they're willing to breach the infrastructure of others.

Law enforcement is not unknown to falsely accuse the public of being engaged in "questionable" behavior, even though that activity is lawful. You may notice during a conversation with an InfraGard intelligence officer in law enforcement that they skip around, and are unable to focus on a single topic. They may insult you and imply that you are not willing to "care" about their "concern". In truth, they are not concerned about that issue, merely hoping to get you to react and respond to something.

InfraGard contractors may attempt to imply that they have a special relationship with law enforcement. InfraGard contractors have been observed discussing "security videos" that they have "proving" there is a problem; and that if the public refuses to fully discuss the "incriminating" evidence, that the private citizen will be arrested.

"If we have to, we'll get law enforcement." InfraGard contractors when challenged have shown they are not well coordinating with law enforcement.

Table C: Progress Indicators When Challenging InfraGard Abuses

- Officer frustration that you are not responding to their insults, intimidation

- Calling InfraGard officers on their bluffs about "evidence"

- Challenging their inconsistencies

- Asking to see a lawyer

- Invoking your 5th Amendment right to silence

- Not discussing any personal information until your lawyer is there

- Asking for specific reasons why you are being stopped, detained, challenged, or questioned

- Asking the InfraGard contactor why they claim they are concerned about procedures, but they are not following those procedures

- Asking the InfraGard contractors to explain why they claim they are attempting to "protect" a resource, but the public record shows they are not fully meeting that standard

- Asking the InfraGard contractor why they use deception, lies, and false companies to gather information about people supporting unions, political candidates, or policies that contradict the company's board of directors

- Asking InfraGard personnel why they are afraid of unionization efforts

Some of the InfraGard contractors have claimed that they have been conducting an "extensive" investigation into a particular "concern". However, independent review of their records shows there had been no investigation.

Independent encounters with the InfraGard contractors show substantial deception, abuse, and misconduct. Officers are misleading the public. Some of the InfraGard contractors have claimed that they have a "special duty" to protect resources. However, this assertion fails to pan out. When the public has attempted to provide suggestions to address the "concern" the InfraGard officers raised, the InfraGard officers were not interested in solutions. This shows their stated "concerns" or "problems' they were attempting to "resolve" were not genuine.

InfraGard officers have a challenging job: Protecting the nation's resources. However, they make their job more difficult when they abuse the public, especially those who might be inclined to risk providing valuable information and support.

The InfraGard contractors have denied public access to public accommodations. They use pretextual reasons. CItizens engaged in lawful conduct have a right to privacy. InfraGard officers have been falsely asserting that unless this right to privacy were given up, the public could not use the public accommodations.

InfraGard officers have been caught lying. Public services rely on public access. However, the InfraGard officers have falsely stated that the public accommodations were "private".

InfraGard officers do not have clear disciplinary procedures. When there are reports of abuse or misconduct, these are typically explained away as "Officer discretion". The public needs know that InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been abusing their authority. Oversight is needed.

Appendix 1: Oversight Issues of InfraGard

Congress and State Officials need to review and independently audit with real no-notice audits the following:

- To what extent InfraGard contractors have relied on law enforcement to engage in pretextual stops to collect information they are otherwise not entitled

- Extent to which threats of arrest for using public accommodations have been used to gather intelligence

- Extent to which access to public accommodations have been denied unless the public provides the InfraGard contractors and law enforcement information they are otherwise not entitled to access

- Reasons for InfraGard officers asserting that they are following specific procedures which have not been coordinated with DHS

- Reasons why InfraGard contractors have been providing lists of names to DHS and FBI, despite assurances to the public that the collected information would "not" be disclosed

- Extent to which officers use pretextual stops to gather information InfraGard contractors are unable to collect using deception, threats, and denial of services

- Reasons why InfraGard officers are fabricating phony accusations related to weapons, surveillance equipment, and criminal activity

- Extent to which InfraGard contractors are not adequately screening assigned surveillance personnel

- Reasons why InfraGard contractors are not conducting independent/impartial investigations, but are relying on misrepresentations by InfraGard assigned personnel

- Extent to which misrepresentations about private citizen conduct have resulted in denial of services to the public

- Reasons why misrepresentations by InfraGard contractors has not resulted in award fees provided to contractors within InfraGard

- Extent to which formerly assigned US government officials have been assigned to law enforcement to apply lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan in re prisoner interrogation, abuse, and mistreatment to US civilians

- Extent to which law enforcement and InfraGard contractors have bypassed the judicial branch, not secured required warrants, and illegally searched and detained US citizens, their property, and private papers without a specific, real reason

Appendix 2: Sample Survey Questions

Academic institutions are encouraged to survey their student bodies to review the extent to which InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been targeting members of the Academic community:

- Have students observed officer misconduct around transportation, infrastructure, or public accommodations

- Were students' reports of misconduct timely handled

- Were students who provided reports of misconduct targeted for questioning and/or denied access to public accommodations

- Did students observe plain clothes officers following them

- Was there an unusual interest by InfraGard contractors in the students' educational background, interest

- Did any students observe officers or employees misrepresenting conversations to deflect attention from InfraGard contractor misconduct, lies, or illegal disclosures of classified information

- Have students observed misconduct, attempted to report that misconduct, and the InfraGard officers believe the students were part of a "no notice" audit team?

- Have students observed inconsistent statements by InfraGard contractors

- Have Students heard InfraGard contractors assert that the contractors, as a reason for the stop or intrusion, were "following procedures"; but later evidence reveals the officers were not following procedures related to documentation, notification, reporting, or discretion

- Have students been threatened with arrest unless they disclose information that is unrelated to criminal activity, private, or not of any reasonable relationship to the alleged misconduct

- Have students been accused of engaging in 'criminal-like" behavior for activities that may be unpopular, but are not illegal

- Have students been told by law enforcement or InfraGard contractors their educational choices were not appropriate, a waste of time, or not up to the level of experience of law enforcement/InfraGard?

- Have students been insulted by InfraGard/law enforcement?

- Have the InfraGard officers asked students about private issues, asked the students why there were "focused" on that issue; then asserted that the InfraGard/law enforcement officer is "above" that?

- Have any students been physically touched by any law enforcement officer/InfraGard contractor without their consent, without being told why they were being arrested, or detained for more than 15 hours?

- Have students been issued "stay away orders" for activities that were not violating any policy, were not illegal, and are not contrary to public or school policy?

- Have students been denied access to public accommodations, services, or public facilities on the false assertion that the property was "private"?

- Have students been followed after reporting law enforcement/InfraGard contractor misconduct?

- Have students attempted to seek assistance from the InfraGard contractor management, but not provided a forum or opportunity to resolve an issue unless additional private information was disclosed to the InfraGard contractor/law enforcement?

- What types of discussions were students engaged when they were confronted, told that conversation was "not appropriate"?

- Have students been accused of engaging in "inappropriate conduct" using false accusations, misrepresentations, or fabrications by the InfraGard contractors?

- How long were you detained, stopped, arrested, or held before you were given access to legal counsel?

- Was your personal property searched despite your assertions that the InfraGard contractor/law enforcement did not have consent to search?

- What was the reason the InfraGard contractor/law enforcement did not provide a copy of a search warrant before searching your personal belongings, school supplies, or academic computing materials?





related web sites:
http://www.infragard.net/
http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschild0308
photo from the Progressive web site

6 comments:

DandelionSalad said...

Hi Virginia, you may want to read and/or reply to some of the comments on your post on my blog.

Infragard - First in a Series by Virginia Simson

Specifically to one by Jim who is in Infragard and called your piece fraudulent!

Jim Lippard said...

I note that you supply no supporting evidence, and the above allegations make absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as an "InfraGard officer" or "InfraGard contractor" in the sense you suggest, and InfraGard doesn't interview students about their career choices, much less break into businesses, as you allege.

Why are you disseminating such fabrications? How about some evidence, sources, and argument to support your claims?

Lady Broadoak said...

Court Rules Inmates Can't Sue for Property Loss

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 23, 2008; A02

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali's lawsuit against prison guards was based on allegations of harassment and mistreatment. But the Supreme Court's decision yesterday that he is barred from suing rests on an ambiguous federal statute that has confounded the courts and sharply divided the justices.

It involves the word "any."

Ali's lawsuit alleging a missing Koran and prayer rug is barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court said in a 5 to 4 ruling, because the law includes prison guards among those immune from suit.

The confusion in the courts comes because the immunity is mentioned in a section of the law that blocks lawsuits against the government over the "loss of goods, merchandise or other property" detained by customs or excise officers. The law then adds "or any other law enforcement officer."

"Congress could not have chosen a more all-encompassing phrase than 'any other law enforcement officer' " to show that it intended broad immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Therefore, the law "forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by 'any' not just 'some,' law enforcement officers."

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the dissent for the rest of the court. He said the court was wrong not to look at the context of the statute -- that it related to customs rather than prisons -- and said the implications of the decision were great.

"The seizure of property by an officer raises serious concerns for the liberty of our people and the Act should not be read to permit appropriation of property without a remedy in tort by language so obscure and indirect," Kennedy wrote.

Ali said in lower-court proceedings that the Koran, prayer rug and other religious materials -- worth about $177 -- went missing during his transfer from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to Big Sandy prison in Kentucky. He alleged it was one of a number of incidents of mistreatment and harassment of Muslim prisoners.

But a district court said the lawsuit was barred by federal law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. It is one of six circuits that have read the law to cover all law enforcement officers, in the same manner as Thomas and the court majority. Five circuits have read the law to limit the protection to officers performing customs or excise functions.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed with Kennedy's dissent and added his own to reinforce his view of the importance of context.

"When I call out to my wife, 'There isn't any butter,' I do not mean, 'There isn't any butter in town,' " Breyer wrote. "The context makes clear to her that I am talking about the contents of our refrigerator.

"That is to say, it is context, not a dictionary, that sets the boundaries of time, place and circumstances within which words such as 'any' will apply," Breyer wrote.

The court's decision extends the law to "tens of thousands of officers performing unrelated tasks" to those covered by the statute, Breyer said.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.


See for yourself. There is obviously one MSM source with details of problems of forfeiture. This is the exalted Washington Post folks.

More comments to follow ..

Anonymous said...

Ms. Virginia Simson:

I am stunned by the voluminous numbers of errors and misrepresentations within your blog on this topic. So ill informed and inaccurate in its basic premise, that if any specific names actually appeared in this “article” or were associated with the hyperbole therein, there would be no other outcome but directed legal action. However, based on the tone of your narrative, this appears to be your intent.

I agree that one should never be so naïve as to believe that abuses can, could, or have never occurred with ANY organization. However, where is your evidence? How is that you could so completely… utterly…fail to apply the same level of skill and due diligence in the organization of this composition and not include a modicum of supporting independent facts? Please document with specificity any of the transgressions you so vaguely allege.

However, it is this kind of scurrilous conduct that explains why some individuals in some organizations and companies engage in, and get away with, such abuses. It has often been my observations that individuals that engage in this kind of behavior are the “abuser.” They believe it is acceptable to say anything about anyone, to inject conjecture without supporting fact, but when challenged on even the most basic elements of their flawed logic or hyperbole they are the first to scream that it is "THEIR" rights that have been violated and threaten legal action.

I want to encourage you to take the next step. At least, under those conditions in our country, as a defendant in a slander or libel lawsuit you and “your attorney” would be engaged in, and have the opportunity to, conduct extensive pre-trial interrogatories and depositions. Make this action public so that all can scrutinize the veracity of your statements. And when you and your advocate have learned, first hand, how utterly flawed and false your comments are...come back and report the results on your blog and the docket number of the case. This way we may read the sworn testimony and come to our own conclusions.

One final request, please investigate InfraGard on your own and attend a meeting.

Anonymous said...

Appeal to Calm Based on Ignorance

It is amazing what some appear to be doing to stifle a public discussion about still-not-adequately-discussed practices. Even when illegal activity is disclosed, there is inadequate Congressional concern or attention. This says nothing of the still-secret abuses conducted under the NSLs, InfraGard, NSA domestic surveillance, or the CIFA domestic operations.

InfraGard Connection

We note the following, wideley published: "The blogger namely Jim Lippard mentioned it in clear terms through his blog that even he held a position as a member of the Phoenix InfraGard"

The apologists, with misdirection, would have us believe the above article does not exist; or that "contractors" isn't in the title of the article. Rather than be specific, the FBI "denial" in no way denies that there are contrators involved; that they are engaged in information collection; or that they do use deception to gather information.

Inadequate FBI Press Release

The FBI provived a vague denial, without specifically addressing many points in the article.

See this short FBI Press release: February 15, 2008: FBI Response to The Progressive Article Alleging the FBI Authorizes InfraGard Members to “Shoot to Kill”

For purposes of public discussion, it's reasonable to conclude that any comment -- which the FBI does not expressly deny -- is fair game for adverse inferences: That it is essentially occurring (intelligence gathering, pretextual stopss, and violations of the Constitution).

InfraGard and FBI Powers

InfraGard is expressly and FBI-connected intelligence gathering arm. What is not well understood is how this relationship was or wasn't used in the NSA domestic surveillance; where the inforation was used; and how the government ensured that American citizens were not targeted merely for raising concerns about the illegal US government-contractor violations of the US Constitution under the InfraGard and NSA domestic surveillance.

A congressional decision to do nothing on imeachable offenses (re FISA violations during wartime) in no way "legalizes" the Constitutional violations. If there is nothing wrong, then the government should be willing to public account for these concerns, not relegate them -- as was done with POW violations at Guantanamo -- to secrecy. A nation of laws compels fact finding, especially to find out who was really behind the events justifying these extra-ordinary powers which violate the constitution. One grand falsehood does not justify disarding the Constitution. If only InfraGard were used to investigate those who were really behind the original events.

New FBI Powers and InfraGard

The new authorities DOJ proposed granting itself in Sept 2008 (without adequate Congressional challenge) should raise alarms: The ability to, on suspicion alone, enter people's homes without a warrant; and for the FBI to essentially do what the NSLs were illegally doing. Whether these are ultimately approved, used, or rejecte misses the point: Despite a Constitution banning this practice, the DOJ and Congress are acting as if these legal restraints are discretionary.

The government grants itself exceptions with the itention of using that power; not with the aim of "clarifying" a legal standard.

The Constitution and case law are clear; what is unclear is why, despite this "discretionary view" of the Constitution, this abuse is not aggressively challenged by Congress. It is a shame that the (perhaps uninformed) victims of this abuse would have the inherent responsibility to do what Congress refuses to do: Conduct oversight, gather evidence, and ensure the United States government fully respects its legal obligations under the Constitution.

Of concern is the failure of the Congress and Department of Justice to adequately provide assurances that the data base information is correct; and that constitutional violations are aggressively investigated with rigorous oversight.

Inadequately Denied Article

This article should dispel any concerns about the claims made. The article clearly says there are "contractors" in the context of InfraGard; and that the contractor are granted extraordinary power.

Whether the contractors do or do not engage in "intelligence gathering" misses the point: To conduct the operations, which the FBI has delegated to the InfraGard, there must be intelligence gathering.

The apologists are whining that there's public disussion; and disingenous about threats of legal action. If someone has a concern about public discussion, raise your concerns here.

The government denials are not adequate; and the information should be part of the public discussion, not subject to arbitrary threats of retaliation. If the government would like continued support, it needs to lawfully conduct its operations. Otherwise, the InfraGard and US govenment personnel engaged in illegal activity must be called what they are: Domstic enemies of the United States Constitution, and lawfully challenged.

Anonymous said...

Your comments were challenged in civil discord and the best that you can do is to feign that you or your cause are being stifled.

Again, you are talking about InfraGard…right?

What are your sources? Where is the evidence?

Again, one should never be so naïve as to believe that abuses can, could, or have never occurred with ANY organization. But where is the substantive evidence to support your assertions? It has been 70 days and this is the best that you can do? [To rehash a report appearing on www.alternet.org.]

Yet, you continue to assert the verbal hyperbole of “contractors” status contained on their website. The general membership of InfraGard does not constitute “contractors.” If we apply this flawed logic, then everyone who has acquired a driver’s license is a “contractor” having entered in to a legal “contract” with a government for the issuance of that driver’s license.

Regarding your comments, “The apologists are whining that there's public disussion; and disingenous about threats of legal action.”

So dissenting comments challenging your assertions and requesting substantive evidence is “whining?” Requesting you to take the next step to prove the validity of your assertions is “whining?” Requesting that you demonstrate the courage of your convictions, as a watchdog of our civil liberties, and attend a meeting of InfraGard is “whining?”

Stunning!

ShareThis