Chris Christie Says Asset Forfeiture Transparency Is Bad For Law Enforcement, Vetoes Unanimously-Supported Bill

from the christ,-what-an-asshole dept

Part of the reason asset forfeiture is such a problem is the lack of transparency. The funds obtained through this process are frequently hidden from the public and used to purchase everything from margarita makers to Stingray devices. The procedure through which the government takes control of citizens' assets is also shrouded in secrecy. Cases are filed against property, not the persons formerly in possession of them. The process for retrieval is purposely impenetrable, designed to make it almost impossible for petitioners to reclaim their assets.

Law enforcement officials claim that all parts of this opaque process are there to prevent drug dealing and/or terrorism, hence their reluctance to divulge the inner details of this particular mean/method. Legislators in New Jersey were hoping to end this unofficial tradition with a bill that would have demanded far more transparency from agencies involved in asset forfeiture.

S2267 passed with unanimous support in both houses of the State legislature and would have instituted the following information be submitted to the state Attorney General's office every year.

[I]nformation on the seizure of the property, including a description of the seized property; the date of seizure ; the market value of the seized property; the alleged criminal offense associated with the seizure; a description of the location at which the property was seized, including whether the property was seized from a private residence or business or during a traffic stop; if the property was seized during a traffic stop, the name of the highway, street, or road on which the property was seized and whether the vehicle was traveling northbound, southbound, eastbound or westbound;

   (2)   the disposition of any criminal action related to the seizure;

   (3)   information on forfeiture of the seized property, including:

   (a)   whether the forfeiture involved prima facie contraband or was enforced by civil action pursuant to N.J.S.2C:64-1 et seq., the forfeiture was a result of racketeering activity pursuant to N.J.S.2C:41-1 et seq., or the forfeited funds or property were obtained from an action involving financial facilitation of a crime pursuant to P.L.1994, c.121 (C.2C:21-23 et seq.); and

   (b)   whether a person with a property interest in the seized property was represented by counsel at the forfeiture proceeding, if applicable;

   (4)   information on the final disposition of the seized property, including whether the property was returned to the owner, destroyed, sold after forfeiture, or retained after forfeiture; and the date of disposition;

   (5)   information on the value of 1the1 forfeited property, including the gross amount received from 1the1 forfeiture, the total expenses deducted as part of the forfeiture action, and the net amount received from the forfeiture;

   (6)   whether the forfeiture resulted from an adoptive seizure; and

   (7)   any other information the Attorney General requires.

This information would have provided the public with valuable insight into state law enforcement's use of asset forfeiture. And there are several reasons law enforcement wouldn't want to have to turn over these details. The dirty secret of asset forfeiture is that it's not being used to take down the biggest and baddest criminals. It's far more frequently used to nickle-and-dime average citizens, with a majority of an agency's take being made up of seizures valued at well below $10,000. Vehicles are seized from grandmothers because their grandchildren drove drunk. Any cash on anyone who smells like marijuana to a police officer usually ends up being forfeited even if the person is free to go.

These details would have made the state's asset forfeiture programs looks exactly as bad as they are. New Jersey holds a D rating from the Institute for Justice, which performs annual reviews of states' forfeiture programs, rating them for damage done to citizens' rights and property. One of the aspects of forfeiture that aided in the state's D rating is the lack of transparency and almost-nonexistent reporting requirements.

County prosecutors across the state collected $72 million in forfeiture proceeds from 2009 to 2013, including more than $57 million in cash and vehicles worth $9 million, according to the report.

In addition, the report found county agencies received an average of $7 million a year from federal "equitable sharing" programs that give state and local agencies a cut when they serve on federal task forces.

But the millions tallied by the institute "are a vast undercount for what's going on in New Jersey," according to Dick Carpenter, the group's director of strategic research and one of the authors of the report.

Carpenter said it's difficult to get the whole picture in New Jersey because while the state does collect some data, it was not able to provide the group with comprehensive figures for local and state law enforcement agencies.

"The transparency in New Jersey is pretty poor," he said. "The ability for average folks -- or even elected officials -- to know what's going on in their state or municipality just isn't there."

None of this matters now, at least not for the foreseeable future. Governor Chris Christie has decided the public isn't on the "need to know" list as far as asset forfeiture is concerned.

Gov. Chris Christie on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required county and state prosecutors to publish information about how they use civil courts to seize property from criminal investigations.

In order to fend off any attempts at a veto override, Christie has proposed his own law enforcement-friendly "fixes" to the rejected legislation.

Christie instead recommended a quarterly report in which prosecutors identify seized assets and detail the legal proceedings by which they were seized.

Under Christie's proposal, prosecutors also would not have to disclose why they seized an asset or for what purpose it would be used.

Christie's "compromise" does nothing. Quarterly reports are already filed with the attorney general, but they're withheld from the public. The details included are minimal and provide no useful insight into law enforcement's forfeiture activities. And it's not as though the AG's office goes after agencies for incomplete or nonexistent reporting. There appears to be no consequences for agencies that fail to comply with these minimal reporting requirements.

Of course, Christie's "compromise" is predicated on a ridiculous pretense.

The governor said his proposed changes would "strike a balance between government transparency and protecting law enforcement operations and personnel."

Protect law enforcement from what exactly? Transparency? Accountability? Criticism? There's nothing in the information the bill demanded that would make it anything more dangerous for law enforcement. It might inform the public where law enforcement likes to go diving for dollars, but the only negative thing likely to happen to law enforcement is an increase in informed criticism.

In Christie's mouth, the words "government transparency" are meaningless -- as meaningless in his buzzword jumbling, bootlicking excuse for kicking the legislature's unanimously-supported bill to the curb.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, chris christie, new jersey, transparency

Chris Christie So Obsessed With Increasing Surveillance He Pretends He Was A Fed On 9/11 Even Though He Wasn't

from the the-lies-your-politicians-tell dept

Other than when News Corp. used copyright to takedown its own feed from last night's GOP Presidential debates, there really wasn't much that was Techdirt-related. The only other significant moment was a bit of a debate between Chris Christie and Rand Paul concerning the NSA and government surveillance. As we've discussed before, Christie is a big time surveillance state supporter. He's argued that anyone opposed to NSA surveillance is guilty of "dangerous" thinking, has said that civil liberties worries about the NSA are "baloney" and has argued that Rand Paul is responsible for any future terrorist attacks, after Paul suggested that we shelve parts of the PATRIOT Act and obey the 4th Amendment.

The debate question focused specifically on Christie's comments that Rand Paul should be forced to appear in hearings before Congress if there's a future terrorist attack, to explain why he opposed greater surveillance. Reason summarized the back-and-forth:

“I will make no apologies ever for protecting the lives and the safety of the American people,” said Christie. “We need to give more tools to our folks to be able to do that, not fewer, and then trust those people and oversee them to do it the right way. As president, that’s exactly what I will do.”

Paul shot back immediately.

“I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans,” said Paul. “The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over. John Adams said it was the spark that led to our War for Independence. I’m proud of standing for the Bill of Rights and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights.”

Christie insisted that Paul had given a “ridiculous” answer, since there is no way to tell the terrorists apart from the innocent American citizens. Paul responded that the way to discern the difference is to ask a judge for a warrant.

“I’m talking about searches, without warrants, indiscriminately of all American’s records, and that’s what I fought to end,” said Paul.

But there was one very odd moment at the very beginning, before the exchange above. Christie noted that he was appointed to his former job as a US Attorney on September 10th of 2001:

MEGYN KELLY: Do you really believe you can assign blame to Senator Paul just for opposing he bulk collection of people’s phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?

CHRISTIE: Yes, I do. And I’ll tell you why: because I’m the only person on this stage who’s actually filed applications under the Patriot Act, who has gone before the federal — the Foreign Intelligence Service court, who has prosecuted and investigated and jailed terrorists in this country after September 11th.

I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state.

This is not theoretical to me. I went to the funerals. We lost friends of ours in the Trade Center that day. My own wife was two blocks from the Trade Center that day, at her office, having gone through it that morning.

I found that interesting, because I didn't know that. And perhaps the reason I didn't know that is that it's complete bullshit. As Marcy Wheeler points out on Emptywheel, Christie was actually nominated months later, with the announcement that he was going to be nominated released on December 7th, 2001

The President intends to nominate Christopher J. Christie to be United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Christie has been a partner with Dughi, Hewitt and Palatucci of Cranford, New Jersey since 1987. He is a graduate of the University of Delaware and Seton Hall University School of Law.

Christie took office in January 2002.

Also, it's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, not the Foreign Intelligence Service Court, as he says -- but that's the kind of thing that is probably a forgivable mistake in such a setting. But arguing that you were appointed months before you actually were seems like a pretty blatant lie and one you wouldn't make without deliberately seeking to mislead people. As Wheeler also points out, Christie's own official bio notes that he "was named U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey in 2002."

Also, for all his talk about he went before the court whose name he couldn't get right, that's actually not how it works. US Attorneys don't do that (others in the DOJ do it instead). Wheeler further points out that if what Christie implies is true, then he may have been making use of illegal wiretaps during his time on the job -- so perhaps that's why he doesn't want more scrutiny of the program:

Christie implies he was involved in the dragnet in question. He was US Attorney from January 2002 to December 2008 — so he in fact would have been in office during the two years when the phone dragnet worked through the Servic–um, Surveillance court, and four years of the Internet dragnet. But if, as he implies, he was involved in the dragnet for the entire span of his tenure — and remember, there were huge cases run out of Trenton right out of 9/11 — then he was also using the fruits of illegal wiretapping to do his job. Not Servic — um, Surveillance court authorized dragnets and wiretaps, but also illegal wiretaps.

Which may explain why he’s so invested in rebutting any questions about the legitimacy of the program.

Remember, when people have actually looked more closely at Christie's high profile cases, such as the Fort Dix Five, it was revealed as a totally bogus manufactured plot, in which it appears Christie pushed trumped up charges against a set of brothers who didn't seem to have anything to do with a terrorist plot at all.

Filed Under: 9/11, chris christie, debate, fisa court, fisc, lies

Chris Christie: Rand Paul Should Answer To Congress For All Future Terror Attacks

from the uh-what? dept

Chris Christie, New Jersey Govorner, presidential candidate, and anti-terror crusader, has built quite a reputation for himself for his admiration for the now partially-expired PATRIOT Act. Add to that his worry about anyone opposing NSA surveillance and his assertions that any fears over government surveillance are so much malarkey, and the man who built his anti-terror reputation in part upon the pillar of an entirely trumped up case he prosecuted as a US Attorney has solidified his never-ending love for all things Orwellian.

So now let us add to the list of Christie's transgressions his suggestion that all future terror attacks should be blamed on Rand Paul, because Paul allowed parts of the Patriot Act to expire.

Here is the relevant quote from Christie's appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe program.

“And that’s why what Rand Paul has done to make this country weaker and more vulnerable is a terrible thing, and for him to raise money off of it is disgraceful. It’s disgraceful,” Christie said, touting his experience as the only candidate to use the PATRIOT Act as New Jersey’s top prosecutor. “We’re going to look back on this, and he should be in front of hearings in front of Congress if there’s another attack,” the governor said at the end of the interview. “Not the director of the FBI or the CIA.”

You hear that, you folks over at the FBI and CIA? Take the next couple of years off. All of your responsibility has been lifted in the future should Gov. Christie become President Christie. Any attacks that happen will result in Rand Paul, a Senator representing his constituents, mind you, being hauled before Congress to answer for why he dared participate in the legislative process in a manner designed to retrieve some small part of American liberty. The future-crimes of ISIS rest solely on the shoulders of Senator Paul.

Should you be unaware, this is ridiculous. The PATRIOT Act was an overreach, the kind of legislation that gets passed out of fear by reactionaries too busy crapping their own pants to bother wondering whether they might be trampling on the rights of American citizens. Christie calls out Paul for raising money touting his part in defeating the PATRIOT Act, but Christie has no problem raising money by fear-mongering his way across the country. Christie also says Paul should answer to Congress if there's another attack.

But, if we accept that, should we also demand that Christie and government surveillance supporters answer to Congress every time there is abuse in the surveillance state for which they've cheered? If so, Christie should probably clear his schedule, because those abuses are the rule, not the exception.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, attacks, chris christie, congress, patriot act, rand paul

How Chris Christie Used A Manufactured Terrorist Plot To Boost His Political Career

from the own-plots dept

For a few years now, we've been covering the proliferation of the FBI's own plots, in which they basically set up a fake terrorist plot, and use their own undercover agents or (preferably) informants (generally former criminals who get paid and/or favors such as reduced sentences) to go out seeking young and gullible individuals to convince to "join" the plot (a plot that has no connection to reality). Then they stage a big arrest and an even bigger press conference about how they "stopped" a terrorist threat. We've written about examples of this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Apparently, a huge chunk of the FBI's resources goes toward manufacturing these kinds of fake plots, which help generate scary headlines, but rarely seem to do much other than putting young, gullible folks in jail.

The Intercept has now published a story of one of these cases that is so extreme and so ridiculous that it should make you angry. It is the story of the "Fort Dix Five" -- a case that Chris Christie led the prosecution of while he was a US Attorney before becoming governor. This case was part of his fame and his "tough on terror" bona fides. Now, as Christie prepares his presidential campaign announcement, the case against the Fort Dix Five is a big part of his biography:

In a 2012 speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Christie recalled his success in the “uncovering of a plot to kill American servicemen and women,” telling a packed audience at the New York Hilton Hotel that he helped send to prison a group of “Muslim men practicing with semi-automatic weapons and screaming about jihad against the infidels.” Today, both the Republican Governors Association and the New Jersey Republican Party list the Fort Dix case as “one of Christie’s finest moments” under his biography.

Except, as the Intercept writeup details, despite putting three brothers away for life, there was no evidence against them. There was one friend of theirs, who liked to make up stories and brag a lot, who talked about an idea to shoot people at Fort Dix, but no indication at all that the other participants (mainly the three Duka brothers) knew about this plot at all. And then the fifth member of the "Fort Dix Five", upon hearing about the "plot", immediately went to the police to tell them about it. The Intercept has also published a short film about the Duka brothers (narrated by their younger brother) that is worth watching: The video shows clips of the footage the FBI got on the brothers, none of which ever has them discussing a plot against Fort Dix -- and actually tends to just show them messing around or even pushing back while the two FBI informants pushed them to get more involved in plots, which the brothers mostly ignored. Even the story of how the brothers came to the attention of the FBI is somewhat ridiculous. After a ski vacation in the Poconos, in which the brothers also did some horseback riding and went to a shooting range, they tried to make a DVD of some of the video they shot to give to everyone who went on the trip as a memento. In the video, while at the shooting range, some of the brothers say "allahu akbar" leading the guy making the DVDs at Circuit City to alert the feds.

Despite the two FBI informants pushing to try to get the brothers engaged in a plot for a year -- mainly by pressuring the one show off guy who kept saying he had talked to them about it -- there is no evidence of any actual plot whatsoever. One of the informants and the one show off guy both admit that the brothers had no role in the plot. Eventually, the FBI set up a fake gun buy -- as the brothers were fans of guns, but as non-US citizens couldn't buy guns legally. It's pretty clear in going through with the plan to buy some guns, they broke the law, but it had nothing to do with a terrorist plot at all, and so the charges left them baffled. But in the end it didn't matter:

Delivering Shain’s sentence, the culmination of a terrorism case that had lasted over two years, Judge Kugler said, “It’s not my place or desire at this time to review all the evidence … Suffice to say this defendant was in the middle of this plot. I’m realistic, I remember that they weren’t being taped 24 hours a day seven days a week.”

Brushing off the lack of direct evidence, Kugler added: “That there isn’t more explicit evidence does not concern me and obviously didn’t concern the jury either … I cannot deter this defendant, because of his belief system, from further crimes.”

Equally as disturbing is the way they included the fifth member of the "Fort Dix Five," Serdar Tatar, a friend of the Dukas who the braggart guy, Mohamad Shnewer, dragged into the "plot" to prove to the FBI informant that he could pull together people to pull off an attack. Except Tatar -- who wanted to become a police officer -- went to the police instead. And still got included in the charges.

Omar apparently felt more comfortable approaching Tatar than the Duka brothers and began courting the 23-year-old. He told him of the plot to attack Fort Dix and openly asked for his help: he needed the pizza delivery map.

Tatar, who had since left his father’s pizza shop and moved to Philadelphia, was working at a 7-Eleven when Sgt. Dean Dandridge of the Philadelphia Police Department came by for his daily coffee. On November 15, 2006, Tatar told Dandridge that he believed Omar might be planning a terrorist attack. Neither Tatar, nor Dandridge, had any way of knowing that Omar was an informant.

Dandridge left Tatar’s information with the FBI, expecting the bureau’s agents would be in touch soon. For three weeks, Tatar waited for the FBI to contact him. In the meantime, he recorded at least one conversation with Omar, so that when the authorities did reach out, he would have information to give them.

The full story and the video are infuriating. Yes, the FBI should be looking out for people looking to perform acts of terrorism and such, but in case after case after case we don't see them doing that. We see them setting up elaborate theater productions. In many of those cases, after lots of pressure, at the very least, the gullible and troubled individuals make some sort of statement to agree to participate in the "plot." This case -- as high profile as it is -- is even more exceptional in that 4 of the 5 participants never agreed to take part in any plot at all, with three of them not even knowing there was a plot.

The story is a complete travesty and raises serious questions about what the FBI and Chris Christie were doing, other than padding their resumes.

Filed Under: chris christie, doj, duka brothers, entrapment, fbi, fort dix, fort dix five, own plot, terrorism

Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists

from the unelectable dept

The nice thing about hating both of America's stupid political parties is you get to make fun of everyone. That said, occasionally one political candidate or another says something so stupidly wrong to support a stupidly wrong political position that your brain screeches to a halt aghast. Today's cerebellum stopper is Chris Christie, who most commentators seem to think is going to be running in the next presidential election. If he continues this line of, "Civil liberties are for extremists and NSA spying concerns are baloney because 9/11" rhetoric, however, it's probably going to be a short foray into the primaries.

Civil liberties advocates’ fears about the government’s intelligence efforts are “baloney,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will say Monday during a speech in the early primary state of New Hampshire, calling for expanded American military and intelligence programs.

The government is not the enemy when it comes to fighting terrorist threats, he will say, according to a copy of his prepared remarks provided by his political action committee.

Christie went on to say in that speech that the American people should not listen to Edward Snowden, because Snowden is a criminal, and also Vladimir Putin, and especially because 9/11, obviously. It's an interesting political move, I think, considering that a majority of Americans believe the government has overreached on domestic spying, but I'm not here to tell Christie how to run his campaign. I am here to tell him that he isn't allowed to make plainly false claims about this country's ideals and the people that developed them, however.

“There are going to be some who are going to come before you and are going to say, ‘Oh, no, no, no. This is not what the Founders intended.’ The Founders made sure that the first obligation of the American government was to protect the lives of the American people, and we can do this in a way that’s smart and cost-effective and protects civil liberties. But you know, you can’t enjoy your civil liberties if you’re in a coffin.”

This, in case you're confused, is absolute nonsense. That's not to say that protecting American lives wasn't high on the founding fathers' list of things to do. It certainly was. It appears just below protecting their freedom, however. Christie suggesting that it was the founding fathers' intention to negotiate some compromise between freedom and safety is fiction. Man, if only there was some catchy phrase from a historical figure that could some this all up for me in an easily reproducable, easy-to-tweet to Christie fashion.

Damned extremists, always trying to, you know, start the country that Christie is now going to run for chief executive of. There are other examples, of course, although the chief example of the founding fathers' willingness to put freedom before safety is probably, oh I don't know, the Revolutionary War. I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure that war wasn't all that safe.

Look, the point of all this is that 9/11, while certainly not forgotten, is in the rearview mirror and can't be invoked as the boogeyman to push bad, freedom-thieving policy on Americans any longer. We've had over a decade of that and it just isn't going to work any more. But, hey, if Chris Christie wants to make himself un-electable, I'm all for it. Give me a better candidate or give me death.

Filed Under: chris christie, civil liberties, nsa, surveillance

Chris Christie, Port Authority Official Abused E-ZPass Data For Their Own Ends

from the just-some-harmless-toll-data,-right? dept

What data is harmless in the hands of the government? Apparently, not much. Case in point: the data collected by E-ZPass transponders. While the system helps alleviate traffic congestion, it also tracks drivers' movements. If you thought it just triggered toll payments, you're drastically underestimating the government's desire for data.

Back in 2013, Mike covered one NYC driver's experience with his E-ZPass device, finding it was triggered all over the city -- not just on toll roads. The company claimed the signal was scrambled and travel data collected in aggregate. Whether or not that remains true is open for debate, but even the data collected where drivers are expecting data collection can be revealing. E-ZPass data has been used in divorce cases to prove a spouse's whereabouts as well as against a city official, who falsified time sheets.

It's also been used in political fights to disparage opponents. The IBTimes reports that two New Jersey government officials obtained Senator Frank Lautenberg's EZPass records and used them as political fodder in a battle over toll increases.

"Respectfully, Senator, you only started paying tolls recently," [Port Authority Deputy Chief Bill] Baroni said, according to a transcript of the exchange. "In fact, I have a copy of your free E-ZPass," he continued, holding up a physical copy of the toll pass Lautenberg had received as a benefit from his tenure as a Port Authority commissioner. "You took 284 trips for free in the last 2 years you had a pass."

Governor Chris Christie himself disclosed further information about Lautenberg's driving habits.

At a press conference, he alleged that the senator didn't "pay for parking at Port Authority facilities" and said Lautenberg went "through the tunnel to New York three or four times a week in 2005 and 2006."

I find it interesting, too, by the way, in 2005 and 2006, that he went over the Hudson River 284 times. Where was he going?... I think he needs to answer that. 'Cause he's supposed to be the senator from New Jersey. So what's he doing going over the bridge or through the tunnel to New York three or four times a week for 2005 and 2006?... Did he ever spend any time in New Jersey?

Obviously, this is an abuse of government-collected data. Bill Baroni admitted during the 2013 Bridgegate scandal investigation that he possessed driving data on those interrogating him. To add insult to injury, the governor's office claimed it had no records on Lautenberg's driving habits in response to IBTimes' 2012 open records request -- the same records he used to criticize Lautenberg in an earlier press conference.

The ACLU points out that not only is this a misuse of private records, but this sort of situation is completely avoidable.

EZ Pass and other electronic toll booth systems should have the option for anonymous use, where money on the devices is treated like cash, for users who prefer privacy to the convenience of having named accounts. A driver, in other words, should be able to buy a transponder for cash, and use cash to store and re-load value on it. The Washington DC Metro system, for example, offers this option for users of its contactless transit passes.

Obviously, whatever protections the state of New Jersey affords these data are inadequate. Sure, driving in public isn't necessarily private, but the use of travel data to attack political opponents is still an abuse of state-collected data. Supposedly, the data is exempt from public record laws, which locks citizens out of acquiring the data without a subpoena. But nothing's stopping the Port Authority from using it for its own political ends and passing it on to the governor to do the same.

Driving on public roads may not be private, but there's a lot that can be ascertained about a person simply by looking at this data -- information that could only otherwise be acquired by nonstop physical "tailing." When collected and stored, it runs the risk of being abused. The Port Authority already grants police open access to the records (limited only to "purposes of discharging their duties," whatever that actually means in practice) and has shown its willingness to puts its self-interest ahead of state law when it comes to disseminating this information. Better policies and practices are in order, and Governor Chris Christie should be waist deep in investigators (a belated call for a DOJ investigation of Christie and Baroni has been issued by NJ Congressman Frank Palone) rather than considering a 2016 presidential run.

Filed Under: bill baroni, chris christie, e-zpass, frank lautenberg, new jersey, politics, privacy, spying

NJ Gov. Chris Christie: Opposing NSA Surveillance Is A 'Strain Of Very Dangerous Thought'

from the because-protecting-civil-liberties-is-like-hugging-terrorists dept

New Jersey governor Chris Christie may be looking forward to a possible presidential run in 2016, which would at least partially explain his broadside attack on Justin Amash (of the "defund the NSA amendment") and Rand Paul and their "strain of libertarianism" that's now threatening established American institutions like domestic spying and fighting Wars on Stuff.

Christie invoked an old standby to criticize recent legislative activity like the narrow defeat of Amash's amendment and Rep. Rush Holt's recently introduced bill to repeal the PATRIOT Act.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.

“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”

Christie went on to characterize these debates as "esoteric" and "amnesiac."

“I think what we as a country have to decide is: Do we have amnesia? Because I don’t,” he said. “And I remember what we felt like on Sept. 12, 2001.”

For starters, debates pertaining to the rights of millions of Americans are hardly "inside baseball," indicating Christie isn't familiar with the definition of the term he chose to deploy. As for being "amnesiac," Christie might be best served with a blow to the head to jog his memory -- many aspects of these programs were in place pre-9/11. The 9/11 attacks ushered in the PATRIOT Act, something hurriedly passed with bipartisan support. Now that the bipartisan movement (a.k.a. "strain of libertarianism") is moving in the opposite direction, Christie suddenly feels this sort of cooperation is "dangerous."

But the most depressing part of Christie's rant is how completely rote the argument is, as Gene Healy at Reason points out:

[H]aven't the arguments for unrestrained spying gotten any better over the last 11 years? Talk to the "widows and orphans," visualize a smoking crater, and write a blank check to the Security-Industrial Complex?

At some point during any discussion of the NSA's programs, defenders invoke an attack that wasn't prevented and/or attacks theoretically prevented by this surveillance. Very occasionally another attack that wasn't prevented is dragged into the mix (the Boston bombing), its rare appearance largely due to the fact that all of these programs failed to prevent the sort of terrorist attack we're always being told the programs are in place to prevent.

Continually going back to the "9/11" well does very little to push the "discussion" forward. Defenders of the surveillance state obviously prefer it this way. If the discussion moves forward, the shortcomings of the programs are revealed and the abuses uncovered are left without a credible defense. Justifying future abuse using a past tragedy is nothing more than baldfaced attempts to guilt the public (and their representatives) into exchanging more liberty for security.

At this point, defenders like Christie are taking on the appearance of Sally Struthers stand-ins, dragging victims of terrorist attacks through smoking ruins, asking members of the public to donate some of their "excess" privacy in order to "ensure" a future free of further attacks. Obama has said he "welcomes" a debate on these issues, but then slams the door by calling legislative efforts like Amash's counterproductive. Other politicians running flack for the national security agencies have made no such overtures, but tellingly, their reactions and justifications are largely the same.

This "strain of libertarianism" doesn't threaten anything more than the growth of government and its intrusion into everyday lives of American. The fact that it has gone unchecked for so long is what's actually "dangerous," to use Christie's words. To derail the discussion by continually invoking 9/11 is nothing more than a cheap form a manipulation.

Filed Under: 9/11, chris christie, civil liberties, fear, libertarians, nsa surveillance

Internet Poker Company May Attempt A Comeback By Buying An Atlantic City Casino

from the hacking-IRL dept

While it's lost steam, you likely recall what is commonly referred to as the "poker boom" of the 2000s. Due in large part to the sudden interest in the game resulting from ESPN's coverage of the World Series of Poker, it seemed like everyone was playing. This took the form not only of a massive uptake in friendly neighborhood games, but also in the emergence of online poker as a serious force in the internet world. That is, of course, until the United States government, conversely beholden to a largely religious lobbying effort coupled with an inability to collect taxes on the gaming, decided to shut down most of the popular poker sites. The result of the efforts by these anti-freedom groups was the crafting of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which then led to the takedowns of all kinds of poker sites. Predictably, this simply caused those sites to relocate domains and move their money processing facilities offshore, further depriving the government of both oversight and any chance at revenue. Recently, Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, has sought to expand legalizing online gambling in his state, and is currently working through the legislative/vetoing process to do so as he sees fit.

Which brings us to today, where a company called the Rational Group, owners of the previously popular PokerStars and Full Tilt sites, is looking into buying a distressed Atlantic City casino, giving them a legitimate home-base of operations within America, allowing them to reopen their online poker doors, and providing a massive revenue opportunity to the state of New Jersey.

Rational is taking its own gamble (sorry) in trying to develop a US base within the Atlantic Club, which lost $13.6 million during the first three quarters of last year amid declining revenue. The problem for Rational, however, is that its crown jewels are still on shaky footing with US regulators. In July, PokerStars paid $547 million to the DoJ and $184 million to foreign players in a bid to settle charges. The question now is whether or not the slate has been wiped clean.

"Both companies had issues with U.S. law when, in 2011, the Department of Justice closed down [PokerStars's and Full Tilt's] websites after they continued accepting U.S. bets," attorney Jason Gross told Press of Atlantic City. "Here you have these two companies, both owned by Rational Group, that went farther than most companies, and it may create further issues."

Let's avoid mincing words here: the idea that legal complications stemming from a what was essentially a religious lobbying effort (with some help from the pro and college sports leagues) could prevent a now legitimate business from operating and generating state revenue would be a travesty. A tyranny of the minority serves nobody in this instance. The people want online gambling, the state wants online gambling. Holding Rational's feet to a fire sparked by bad legislation is wrong, particularly when that company wants to invest into a distressed NJ business and help turn it around.

With that said, the broader point appears to be that online gaming is going to come back, whether Rational succeeds in this endeavor or not. As the article notes:

By legally forcing online gaming to have a home casino in the States, it could both reopen the online market while also capitalizing on that sweet tax revenue. Rational and its all-powerful brands might not bring online poker back, but it does look increasingly likely that online gaming is coming back.

And, in my opinion, not a moment too soon. I'm all for religious freedom and belief, but those stop where my freedom begins. The sooner the government gets out of the business of enforcing morality on the internet, the better.

Filed Under: casino, chris christie, internet gambling, new jersey
Companies: full tilt, pokerstars, rational group

NJ Gubernatorial Candidate Using Monty Python Video Without Authorization In Campaign Commercial

from the double-standards dept

Politicians almost always push for stronger copyright laws or copyright law enforcement -- and yet, time and time and time again we see that when it comes to their own use, they often violate copyright law themselves. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt: most people who don't pay attention closely simply buy the industry's line about copyright: that it's property and that it's important to keep the industry functioning. Neither is true, of course, but if you don't think about it or pay attention to how copyright really works, you can see how people would believe that.

So here we are again, with yet another politician -- this time US Attorney and current New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie -- caught red handed making use of content he most likely had no permission to use. In this case, he used clips from old Monty Python skits in his television commercials (which were also placed online). The chaps who make up Monty Python insist that Christie had no permission to do so and they don't like it (they're considering suing). Now, I tend to think that using a clip in such a manner should be perfectly legal, but given that it is not, it does look pretty bad for a long-term lawyer, current US Attorney and now candidate for governor to be caught flat-out ignoring copyright law.

One could hope that this would be a "teachable moment" to a politician, letting him know that copyright is an issue that isn't quite as clear cut as many politicians make it out to be. And yet, somehow, I doubt that will happen. It's not yet clear if Christie has much of a record on copyright issues (I can't find much), but somehow I doubt he'll suddenly become a fair use crusader.

Filed Under: chris christie, copyright, monty python, new jersey, politiicans