Tag: police state

Trial of Accused Tupac Shakur Murderer Brings to Light Police Coverup

On August 31, Duane “Keffe D” Davis was convicted of first-degree murder for his role in the death of famed rapper Tupac Shakur 30 years earlier.

Prosecutors argued that Davis and his nephew, Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson, “went hunting” for Shakur after Anderson was in a fight with him and his entourage at the MGM Grand following a Mike Tyson boxing match, Chief Deputy District Attorney Binu Palal said.

According to Palal, Davis led the charge through his role as a “shot caller” for the Southside Compton Crips and, ultimately, was driven by self-interest in his statements.

The defense countered by saying that the evidence tying Davis to Tupac’s killing was inconclusive and that the prosecution had not presented documentation to show that Davis was even in Las Vegas at that time.

Evidently the jury did not believe this. But regardless of whether Davis was involved in the murder in some capacity, he is a small fish compared to some of the big players who were involved in Tupac’s murder, which appears to have been orchestrated at higher levels.

Like other Black artists, Tupac was a target of offshoots of the FBI’s COINTELPRO operation.

He came from a radical family linked to the Black Power Movement and was considered a threat to revitalize the spirit of that movement, especially because his rap songs adopted subversive anti-establishment messaging.

The FBI, at the behest of ruling U.S. elites, deliberately provoked internecine conflict among Black rappers and groups that, if united, could have potentially mobilized Black youth in a political direction and away from the gang violence that has helped to devastate the Black community along with neo-liberal economic policies that have affected them disproportionately, racialized policing and the War on Drugs, which has spawned a new Jim Crow.

Tupac himself had expressed admiration for the Black Panther Party—the central target of COINTELPRO in the 1960s and early 1970s, and believed that he was a target of COINTELPRO.

Short for Counter-Intelligence Program, COINTELPRO was an FBI program instituted in the 1950s to covertly disrupt radical political organizations in the United States. The program is also known to have targeted artists and musicians, as well as non-violent political dissidents.

In former Black Panther Lee Lew Lee’s 1996 film All Power to the People: The Black Panther Party and Beyond, FBI agent whistleblower Wes Swearingen, CIA whistleblower Phil Agee, and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark detailed how U.S. intelligence operations such as the FBI’s CounterIntelligence Program, murderously targeted The Black Panther Party (excerpted in Drugs as Weapons Against Us 1:00:30- 1:57).

Agent Swearingen stated fellow agents told him that their FBI CounterIntelligence (COINTELPRO) was “officially” closed in 1971 but these activities continued at least until 1995, under different names. These activities in turn are thought to be connected to Shakur’s 1996 death.[1]

According to U.S. intelligence researcher John Judge, “there’s quite a bit of evidence that has come out over the years about the surveillance of [Shakur]. Apparently there were people that were surveilling him at the time of his murder that were never questioned by police.”

U.S. Intelligence and the Black Panther Shakur Family

Tupac’s mother, Afeni Shakur, was a section leader of the Harlem Black Panthers, and his stepfather, Dr. Mutulu Shakur (Jeral Wayne Williams), was a founding member of the Republic of New Afrika.

U.S. intelligence unsuccessfully tried to frame Afeni as part of the New York Panther 21, a group of Panthers who were accused of targeting New York police officers and planning terrorist acts. Dr. Shakur was imprisoned for decades, on charges of conspiring to rob a bank (1981 Brinks robbery) and for breaking Assata Shakur from prison.

Tupac’s “Auntie Assata” was imprisoned for purportedly shooting a police officer, while his godfather, Geronimo (Ji-Jaga) Pratt, led the Los Angeles Black Panthers and was falsely imprisoned for decades.

Police shot at Assata while she had her hands raised and shot at Geronimo’s bed as, fortunately, he was sleeping on the floor due to a bad back caused by a Vietnam War injury.

After activists stole documents from an FBI office in 1971, they found that the FBI orchestrated most of these attacks on Black Panthers like Assata and many others under COINTELPRO.

Police Attempted to Murder Tupac Before: Oakland in 1991 and Atlanta in 1993

The New Afrikan Panthers, active in nearly a dozen cities, elected Tupac Shakur as their National Chairman in 1989. Tupac’s music celebrated blackness and gave voice to the frustrations and disillusionment so many black youth faced with the prevailing political-economic system while provoking empathy for the system’s victims.

Tupac continued his activism with his imprisoned stepfather Mutulu Shakur and his Black Panther extended family by helping to spread a truce between the Bloods and Crips gangs from a few areas around Los Angeles to across the country.

There were at least four attempts on Tupac Shakur’s life with police foul play involved before he was murdered at the age of 25 in September 1996.

Several days after MTV released the political song “Trapped” from his solo debut CD in 1991, Oakland police stopped him purportedly for jay-walking, pounded his head against the curb and choked him into unconsciousness.

In Atlanta, Georgia, in 1993, two allegedly off-duty police officers shot at Tupac with a gun they had stolen from an evidence locker.

LA Police Detective: Police Killed Rapper Biggie to Cover up Their Murder of Tupac

An assailant fatally shot Tupac Shakur from another car in Las Vegas after a Mike Tyson heavyweight championship boxing match on September 7, 1996.

Six months later, a gunman fatally shot Tupac’s former friend and fellow top rapper Christopher “Biggie/Notorious B.I.G.” Wallace in Los Angeles.

After Biggie’s murder, Los Angeles Police Detective Russell Poole said that he found out that his fellow police officers murdered Biggie to distract from their murder of Tupac, trying to make it look like a rap rivalry.[2]

Detective Poole found dozens of his fellow police officers at all levels of Tupac’s last record company, Death Row Records.

When Detective Poole asked his superiors what all those LA officers were doing there, they told him you can call them “trouble shooters or covert agents.”[3]

Keep reading

ICE Denounced for Enacting ‘Official Government Policy of Disappearing People’

Critics reacted with horror to a Monday report from The Associated Press detailing how US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has abruptly ended its practice of disclosing the locations of thousands of detainees.

According to the AP, ICE “has stopped publicly revealing where it is holding… detainees who are subject to final deportation orders, an unannounced move that has made it far more difficult for lawyers and relatives to find them.”

Immigration attorneys who spoke with the AP said that their clients had “vanished” from the system after ICE removed them from its online detainee locator system last week.

Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told the AP that families of detainees “are freaking out because they think the person has been deported and they don’t know where the person might be.”

Chen added that the new policy has “serious implications” for attorneys’ ability to make contact with their clients.

Michelle Mendez, legal director at the National Immigration Project, told the AP that the new policy is “just another iteration of disappearing people.”

“Why would we do that in the United States of America?” Mendez asked. “It’s something we’d hear about in another country and be concerned about individual rights and due process.”

Tom Jawetz, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, echoed Mendez’s analysis, writing in a social media post that the AP report reveals “an official government policy of disappearing people,” as “systems for attorneys and loved ones to know where—even whether—a person with a final removal order is in ICE custody have been wiped clean.”

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, described the new ICE policy as “unprecedented” for US immigration enforcement.

“People who have been detained for months are suddenly disappearing from the locator system—even if they haven’t been moved anywhere,” Reichlin-Melnick explained. “And people newly arrested are not showing up at all, their location now hidden from view.”

Georgetown University political scientist Jonathan Ladd argued that the ICE policy was a fundamental violation of long-established rights in the US that date to before the country’s official founding.

“The government moving or hiding jailed people to avoid review by courts isn’t some loophole in our habeas corpus rights,” Ladd explained. “This government behavior has been considered a violation of the people’s habeas corpus rights since at least the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679.”

Ladd further pointed out that “habeas corpus rights are guaranteed by Article I of our Constitution,” which means “hiding prisoners from the courts is unconstitutional.”

Journalist Gillian Brockell observed that the new ICE policy “will make it nearly impossible to file habeas petitions, because attorneys won’t even know what federal district their client has been moved to to stage for their removal.”

Among those sharing the AP report on social media was Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, an attorney for Wilbur Rafael Garces Perez, a 28-year-old Venezuelan shot by ICE in Austin, Texas on Sunday.

Initially, she and the immigrant’s wife could not make contact with him, because ICE moved him from the hospital “to an undisclosed location,” but Lincoln-Goldfinch said Monday afternoon that her client “is being held at Pearsall for interrogation.”

“We got Wilber on the phone live from detention at the press conference,” the attorney added. “He says he still has the bullet lodged in his shoulder. He says he is not doing well and has not received the medical care he needs.”

Keep reading

When Everything Becomes a National Security Threat

“The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” ~ Justice Hugo Black, New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

“National security” has become the government’s all-purpose permission slip to behave badly.

They have become the magic words that can make constitutional restraints disappear – especially when the courts defer to claims of national security. Courts have historically been reluctant to second-guess the executive branch when government officials invoke military necessity, classified information, foreign affairs or national security.

Given the judiciary’s longstanding reluctance to second-guess presidential power grabs involving national security, the national-security state has repeatedly used that deference to expand both its own reach and the power of the presidency.

Call something a matter of national security and the normal rules start disappearing: Courts defer. Congress retreats. Secrecy expands. Executive power grows.

“National security” has been used as the justification for surveillance, secret courts, classification, warrantless spying, military intervention, watchlists, detention, border searches, censorship claims and the concealment of government misconduct.

That game is hardly new.

Nixon played it. Bush played it. Obama played it. Biden played it.

Trump may not have invented the national-security dodge, but he has taken it to increasingly absurd extremes.

Under Trump 2.0, almost everything gets branded a matter of national security in order for the president to sidestep as many parts of the Constitution as he finds inconvenient.

At one point, the government even invoked national security to justify proposed tariffs on trumpets, trombones and tubas because the instruments depend on foreign copper alloys.

This would almost be laughable if the consequences were not so serious.

Trump wants greater control over the U.S economy? Declare a national emergency and seize the power to levy tariffs in the name of national security.

Trump is disgruntled over relations with Canada? Declare a national security threat and claim executive authority to levy tariffs without going through Congress.

Trump wants to build a lavish ballroom? Stick a bunker below it and a droneport on top, and call it national security.

Trump wants to erect a massive ceremonial arch? Turn it into a military installation, complete with drones, snipers and ammunition, and chalk it up to national security.

Trump doesn’t like unfavorable press coverage? Ban reporters from the White House and characterize the press as a national-security threat.

This is not merely another Trump deflection.

It is the logical culmination of decades spent allowing presidents of both parties to invoke national security whenever they want more power, more secrecy and less accountability.

Trump is demonstrating just how much damage can be done once a president decides that virtually anything he wants can be recast as necessary for national security.

Consider how far down the road we have already traveled under the Trump administration.

Tariffs on allies have been justified as national security. Annexing Greenland has been characterized as vital to national security. Offshore wind projects have been halted on national-security grounds.

Coal plants have been kept operating longer in the name of national security.

Artificial-intelligence infrastructure and massive data centers have been elevated to matters of national security.

Even federal workers’ collective-bargaining protections have been stripped away after agencies were classified as performing national-security work.

Keep reading

Dem Senator Wants To Regulate The Internet To Prevent Another Trump From Happening

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called for government regulation of the internet as part of a broader effort to reduce loneliness and powerlessness among Americans, two conditions he argues push voters toward leaders like President Donald Trump. Murphy made the remarks on September 21 during an appearance on the I’ve Had It podcast, where he discussed his book, Crisis of the Common Good.

Murphy told the podcast hosts that isolation and helplessness define the country right now. “Those are the two things I think Americans are going through right now… They don’t feel powerful at all, and they feel lonely,” he said.

His remedy for loneliness coincidentally becomes an excuse to grow the government even further.

“And so, government should build a set of rules in which people feel more powerful – that’s why the minimum wage is so important – and people feel so more connected,” Murphy said.

He added, “That’s why, you know, rebuilding healthy institutions in your town should be a project that government is involved in.”

Then he got to the internet and revealed his true objective. “Regulating the internet so that you’re spending less time alone on Instagram should be an important government project,” Murphy said. And if Americans feel more powerful and less alone, Murphy argued, “they are going to be less likely to fall for a bullshit demagogue like Donald Trump.”

Keep reading

Proper Flock’d: What This Cop Did Raises Major Red Flags…

A Naperville police officer turned a statewide camera grid into a personal tracking app, ran a man’s plate about 150 times, and then retired like the file never existed.

The story serves as yet another example of how the burgeoning mass surveillance grid is being abused on a regular basis.

Patrick Dowhen was not a suspect. He was the ex. After Officer Oscar Maldonado started a relationship with Dowhen’s fiancée, Flock became the shortcut. No warrant. No case number that mattered. Just a badge, a login, and a national lattice of plate readers that can reconstruct where you went, when you went, and how often you go there.

“Anywhere I went in the country, I was being tracked,” Dowhen told ABC7 Chicago’s I-Team. “It was scary, it was really scary.”

Internal records obtained by the I-Team show the pattern started after Maldonado’s relationship with Dowhen’s then-fiancée began. Investigators found evidence he searched Flock for Dowhen’s vehicle approximately 150 times over a three-month stretch last year.

Chicago Tribune reporting, from a separate FOIA haul, put the plate runs between June 18 and Sept. 15, 2025, and said Maldonado tracked plates for non-police reasons hundreds of times.

Dowhen said the surveillance was not abstract. “My ex-fiancée would tell me where I was at, or what I was doing, and he [Maldonado] was feeding her information,” he said. “He’s an officer, feeding a civilian, you know, inside information.” He tore his truck apart looking for a tracker. Then he went to Naperville Police Chief Jason Arres. That complaint opened the internal case last September.

Maldonado’s story to interrogators was protection: the woman, himself, his family. Naperville investigators did not buy it. They wrote that the “evidence contradicts Maldonado’s explanation that he only used Flock for the safety of himself, his family,” and Dowhen’s ex-fiancée.

The report also concluded there was “a preponderance of the evidence that shows Maldonado did commit the crime of Official Misconduct,” adding that he “admitted to using FLOCK for personal reasons.”

Then on May 1, 2026, Maldonado retired. Department spokesman Rick Krakow said the internal case was complete but not closed because discipline had not been imposed. “However, the officer resigned before his disciplinary meeting with the chief, which essentially closed the case.”

No arrest. No plate charges. A referral to the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board. Will County prosecutors would not confirm or deny a criminal review. Dowhen later obtained a stalking no-contact order that noted Maldonado “was tracking my plate since 06/2025.” That order was dropped after both men agreed to a two-year mutual no-contact deal.

“He could very well get a job as a police officer again and have, you know, all these same electronic things available to him at any time and stalk anybody you want,” Dowhen said, “because at this point he has no criminal record.”

ABC7 chief legal analyst Gil Soffer laid out the gap that let a 150-search campaign end in a retirement party. “It’s not enough to say that a police officer violated internal laws, you’d have to show that a police officer knowingly violated a law, a statute, a constitutional provision,” he said.

He added, “An official misconduct statute in Illinois won’t necessarily cover the simple situation where a police officer accesses license plate information for an improper purpose.”

Maldonado’s own lawyer, Jeff Tomczak, made the same point from the other side of the table. “I’m a defense attorney. It should be a crime. It should absolutely be a crime. The legislature should act, create the crime of misuse of Flock. Don’t require the state’s attorneys to be creative.”

A private company sold cities a warrantless movement database. Departments wrote policy memos. The statute book never caught up. When an officer treated the grid like a jealous-ex app, the fallback was an employee manual and a quiet exit.

The I-Team says this is not one suburban rogue. It identified 14 Chicago-area cases of officers accused of misusing Flock, with at least five sent to prosecutors. Berwyn’s mayor, Robert Lovero, issued an executive order this week suspending the city’s cameras.

Keep reading

This Group Made Tech to Protect Users’ Privacy. Trump Labeled Them Terrorists.

When the government puts a target on your back, every corner of online organizing becomes a puzzle. How do you ensure that your emails are private, when Google will hand over the contents of your emails to prosecutors, sometimes without ever notifying you? How do you keep your comrades informed, when maintaining an email list poses a security risk? How do you share information online without compromising the security of your web visitors?

Until September 6, the Autistici/Inventati (A/I) Collective provided privacy-focused digital infrastructure that allowed aligned groups around the world to evade government surveillance. Under siege, groups from Hamas to the Seattle Anarchist Book Fair sought refuge from the prying eyes of three-letter agencies through the use of A/I Collective email addresses, websites, mailing lists, and blogs. The users of A/I Collective technology were no strangers to the United States counterterrorism apparatus, but on August 26, 2026, the Trump administration took the unusual escalatory step of listing the technology provider itself as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization.

Legal uncertainty and disruption ensued immediately after the designation. The sanctions framework maps far more cleanly onto groups directly engaged in violence than it does onto a group providing anti-surveillance technology. Under the post-9/11 executive order establishing the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list, fundraising for ISIS or holding joint press conferences with al-Qaeda is verboten. But could posting on blogs hosted by the A/I Collective trigger a $1 million fine and 20 years of imprisonment? Official communications provide little assistance; the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control FAQ unhelpfully states that the exchange of information may be either blocked or exempt.

In a press release, the State Department pointed to the A/I Collective’s vetting of users for “ideological affinity,” folding the targeting of the organization into the enforcement of Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which has initiated a crackdown on the global left. Civil society groups immediately noted the escalation into targeting not only those accused of violence, but their purported backers. “The designation of A/I Collective is significant because Treasury is applying counterterrorism sanctions not only to organizations it alleges engage directly in violence, but also to entities it characterizes as providing enabling infrastructure to designated or terrorist-linked groups…[G]roups and individuals that rely on the A/I Collective’s infrastructure may now need to assess whether continued use creates sanctions exposure,” wrote the Charity & Security Network, a coalition that has helped nonprofits navigate sanctions risk since 2009.

While users of A/I Collective services struggled to interpret the sanctions, the hammer came down immediately on the volunteer collective. Within 48 hours of the designation, the United States-based holder of the autistici.org domain shuttered the website, leaving A/I Collective to flee to an alternate domain. The Italian Banca Etica suspended the bank account the volunteer collective used to collect donations, citing sanctions risk. Backed into a corner, with no way to protect users and collect the donations needed to fund its €13,000 annual budget, the A/I Collective announced the shutdown of all of its services on September 6, 2026. In a statement, the A/I Collective wrote: “The possibility that our work may cause legal and financial consequences to those who are close to us — or even only have something to do with us — leaves us no choice.” On September 20, an estimated 10,000 NoBlogs sites went dark, stranding the radical activists who used the A/I Collective-hosted blogging platform to share everything from zines to direct-action tactical communiques.

Keep reading

Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier?

Many of us are gearing up with columns previewing the Court’s October term and have highlighted the upcoming arguments over bans on AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons in out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins).

A recent column from Professor Rory Little suggests that these cases will strike at what he considers a glaring flaw in the Heller decision that recognized the individual right under the Second Amendment. Professor Little repeats a common claim about Heller that some of us have challenged. I wanted to briefly address that controversy again. The column appeared in Scotusblog, a respected site that offers tracking and commentary on pending Supreme Court cases. Here is the portion that I wanted to address:

The 2008 Heller decision, which changed precedent to find a Second Amendment right to own handguns for self-defense, was decided 5-4. To me (and others) it is clear that Justice Antonin Scalia had to include various qualifiers in his opinion, or he would have lost one or two of his five votes and Heller would have come out differently. Part III of the opinion was clearly added to capture, or keep, the narrow but earth-shattering majority, and ought to be viewed as the binding judgement of the court. Specifically, in addition to listing various “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms” left undisturbed, part III said “we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. … the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” (quoting United States v.Miller, a 1939 precedent upholding bans on machine guns). I add emphasis on “at the time,” because the Viramontes briefing all but ignores what the court said was this “important limitation.”

As the solicitor general’s brief notes, “the AR-15 rifle was developed in 1956,” and the first semiautomatic rifle of any kind was sold in 1903. Thus, while they may be the “most commonly owned rifle[] in America” today (albeit by less than 10% of all Americans), semi-automatic rifles were undisputedly not in common use “at the time” the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Indeed, as the SG’s brief also explains, it is the modern technological developments in the AR-15 that makes it popular today. (This is also why they are commonly used in mass-shootings.) Rather, the solicitor general’s Viramontes brief subtly changes the language, saying (on page 21) that the proper Second Amendment test is whether AR-15s “are in common use” today (again, my emphasis). This radically departs from the doctrinal limits that were essential to cementing the Heller result. In his 2025 dissent from denial of certiorari, Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) adopted this same semantic transfiguration of Heller (changing “were” to “are”) – an error (or strategy) presaged in Kavanaugh’s 2011 Circuit judge dissent when Heller was remanded in 2011. Many folks will be listening on Dec. 2 to see whether a majority of justices will agree that Heller did not actually mean what it appeared to say.

As others have noted, this is an old saw repeated by many critics of Heller.

Justice Scalia anticipated this argument in the actual Heller decision. He wrote:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way…Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

As I recently discussed in a column, this issue came up nine years ago when Massachusetts attempted to ban stun guns. The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit and rejected the logic that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” It also rejected two other rationales. (Notably, the Court is considering another stun gun case in Calce v. New York after the Second Circuit failed to heed the warning of the Court).

Notably, a new challenge has been filed in Connecticut over a ban of convertible handguns. It is likely to raise many of these same issues. The Firearm Industry Trade Association filed a lawsuit this week that will be before the district court as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the two pending cases.

I obviously disagree with Professor Little and other experts who raise this claim. There are, of course, good-faith arguments against the Heller decision. Some like Professor Little view that decision as “earth-shattering.” I do not.

I still believe the Court was correct in viewing this as an individual right. However, I do not believe that this claim of a glaring and hypocritical contradiction between Heller and later cases is fair or supported. There was no sleight of hand in “changing ‘were’ to ‘are.'”

This really does not come down to a change in verbs. While many hope that packing the Supreme Court will result in an immediate reversal of Heller, it is unlikely to turn on the word “were.”

Keep reading

COVID Response: Do We Really Want To Go Back To That?

COVID changed the way I hear the word “temporary.”

Before 2020, ‘temporary’ was temporary. Something happened, you dealt with it, and eventually you went back to living your life.

Then came COVID.

Most of us remember the rest. The empty streets. The closed businesses. The masks. The six-foot circles on the floor. Schools closed, churches restricted, nursing homes became nearly impossible to visit, and governments suddenly had an extraordinary amount to say about what ordinary Americans could and could not do.

I don’t need to make a list of everything that happened. You lived through it.

So did I.

What interests me now isn’t relitigating every lockdown decision or deciding which governor got which decision right. It is what the whole experience taught us about government power.

We learned that “temporary” can become a remarkably elastic word.

We also learned how quickly people will surrender ordinary freedoms when the circumstances are frightening enough.

I understood the fear. I had elderly people in my family, and I wanted to protect them. That’s why I eventually took the COVID shot.

I don’t regret doing it for them.

But I remember watching government move from telling us to be careful to telling us what we could do. At one point, OSHA tried to impose a vaccine-or-test requirement on businesses with 100 or more employees, covering roughly 84 million workers. The Supreme Court stopped it.

That was the moment the issue became especially clear to me.

This wasn’t simply about where I could go anymore. Government was reaching into the relationship between an employee and an employer.

That’s a lot of power.

And once you’ve seen government exercise that kind of power, you don’t forget it.

The consequences weren’t confined to the moment, either. Children lost months of schooling. Businesses that had taken years to build disappeared. Families missed funerals and time with dying relatives. Some of those losses can’t be measured by a statistic because there isn’t a statistic for a grandmother who couldn’t hug her grandchild.

NWEA’s 2023-24 analysis found that students still needed the equivalent of 4.8 additional months of schooling in reading and 4.3 months in math to reach pre-COVID achievement levels.

Those are the numbers.

Keep reading

Drones Are Bringing The Surveillance State To Your Front Door

At the moment, the United States government has no official public count of how many drones law enforcement agencies own and fly in the U.S. There is no list from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any state agency accessible to the public. Various industry estimates put police drone programs in the thousands — one recently cited as high as about 6,000. Congress should not have to take its numbers from corporate executives on quarterly earnings calls about how many drones are already circling overhead and surveilling the American people. The Department of Transportation, FAA, DOJ, and the Office of Justice Programs should put the fleets on the books and brief the House and Senate.

Until recently, most drones sold to police departments were made in China, raising significant concerns about Chinese government access and influence — either directly from China or through American companies that marked them up and profited. Congress has spent years trying to stop the Chinese drone invasion of our police departments. Those efforts were necessary. They are not finished. Even if new sales slow, fleets of Chinese drones remain deployed across the nation. And there are still continued efforts to keep Chinese components, software, and supply chains in the fleet.

Not one piece of hardware or software from the People’s Republic of China belongs on a police or federal drone in the United States, or in any piece of related equipment for that matter.

Not the chip, camera, battery, flight controller, app, firmware, or cloud login.

Grant funding, FAA registration, and operational approval should not be granted to aircraft or ground systems that contain Chinese hardware or software. American first responders deserve American supply chains.

That is already the direction of federal law, and it ought to be enforced without loopholes. Section 848 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 barred the Department of Defense from operating or contracting for covered foreign unmanned aircraft systems and critical components. The American Security Drone Act of 2023 was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. The order on funding Unmanned Aircraft Systems says no Office of Justice Programs funds may go to unmanned aircraft systems manufactured or assembled by a covered foreign entity, with only limited exceptions.

Members of Congress should not have to guess how many drones are flying overhead. Congress must investigate and coordinate with executive agencies to determine the facts: how many unmanned aircraft federal agencies and state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies already fly; fleet size by agency; their missions and payloads; and under what rules, if any, they operate. That is the level of transparency we need for government-used drones. Existing fleets should be registered within 30 days of operational deployment so we can put the brakes on unfettered overhead surveillance.

Federal tax dollars should go to real emergencies — search and rescue, wrecks, officer safety, and a barricaded suspect — not ever-present aerial patrol above American homes.

Those dollars already flow through the Office of Justice Programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services Office, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, among others. Unmanned aerial systems are an explicit priority for Fiscal Year 2026 Community Oriented Policing Services Community Policing Development. “Drone as first responder” is not a substitute for a warrant. Persistent neighborhood surveillance is a general warrant from the sky, and a microphone on a drone is an intercept. Listening should require the same legal process as a Title III wiretap under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2523, or the state equivalent — no fishing expeditions, audit logs, and short retention.

Weaponized drones bought with Department of Justice grant money are already banned. That ban should apply to all related funding streams unless Congress authorizes otherwise.

Keep reading

Burnham Announces ‘Ministry of Truth’ to ‘Defend Democracy’ From ‘Russia-Amplified Far-Right Narratives’

The belief that the United Kingdom is experiencing decline, the view that there are negative elements to modern life, and the feeling of unrest after terror attacks are among “far-right narratives” pushed by Russian intelligence that bear “no resemblance to reality,” Prime Minister Andy Burnham declared as he announced plans for a new National Centre for Information Defence.

The UK has more experience than most Western countries in being attacked with information warfare and will establish a new government body to disrupt “hostile state information attacks”, Andy Burnham said during his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, while tipping that this model could be exported to other countries to protect them from unwelcome information as well.

Though the wide-ranging speech touched on a series of issues, the lion’s share of the new British Prime Minister’s speaking time was spent explaining how narratives contrary to his view of modern Britain not only bear “no resemblance to reality”, but are engineered by foreign powers to undermine national security.

The country’s deeper experience in this sort of warfare goes back ten years, Burnham said — not naming the defeat of progressive sentiment in the Brexit referendum ten years ago in 2016, but tacitly implying this was the first battle in this shadow war against information — stating British elections had also been targeted by Russia.

Because there is “no national security” without a cohesive society to build it on, Burnham said the level of threat he intended to fight justified extraordinary reach for this new information control body, stating:

The Kremlin spends about £1.3 billion each year on manipulating information. We’re talking about an insidious campaign that reaches into people’s homes and twists what they feel about their own country and community, creating a narrative of decline, stoking division, and sowing despair… we are going to help our people to strengthen their resilience, because faced with their information warfare, security starts in every home.

The variety of opinions being forced on unsuspecting Britons by Russia was, the Prime Minister said, considerable, and conveniently aligns reasonably neatly with practically everything his Labour Party stands against.

This “industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment in the UK” by “Russian agencies” includes spreading disinformation to prey on ordinary people’s fears, he said, and amplifying “far-right narratives” by stoking “tensions and unrest in the wake of horrific events”, terror attacks.

Keep reading