For fear of the guilty

The following is a posting from The Jacksonian Party.

Some decades ago I remember reading a story or set of stories in Analog magazine that had as its basis a very interesting question: if becoming a criminal had a genetic basis what would we do as a society?

The set-up was that every individual convicted of a pre-meditated, violent or crime of passion had a few genes in common, without exception. No one that did not have those genes was convicted for those crimes, although crimes of oversight and accident did include them. The overall population that had this set of genes in society was of a given percent, approximately 25 to 30%, but that only indicated a genetic predisposition to committing crimes, not a certainty of it.

Legally this has ramifications for criminal suspects: if a violent crime has happened you can cross off those without the predisposition and you are left with those who have it. But that does not help if an accident or other mishap that has no intention behind it and is purely by chance or lack of skill yields a violent seeming crime. Thus examining crimes means exhausting all the ways that non-intentional circumstances could yield the crime as well as looking at all the intentional ways, and while the intentional would have a limited number of people to check off, the non-intentional still has the entire population of those with and without the predisposition that need checking out.

Taken a step further what would this mean for employment? Would you want individuals with such a predisposition in National Security positions? As police officers? Would you vote for someone with that predisposition? Would there be changes to, say, life insurance or health insurance coverage rates due to this? What would finding out that you had this predisposition or not do to your outlook on life?

Always we would need to remember that, like a disease, a predisposition towards something does not mean that the individual will manifest that disease. Indeed the percentage of society with the predisposition indicates that the majority of those with it do not ever manifest criminal behavior and that there is a component of criminality beyond mere genetics. If any steps were taken to limit the rights and freedoms of this minority, that crosses all races, classes and social strata, then those restrictions would only be upon those who WERE able to control their genetic predisposition and would have no effect upon those in which the entire condition is already in sway.

That would be punishing the innocent in fear of the guilty.

Of course we would never do that... would we?

In the wake of individuals attempting to bring down aircraft, we have come upon a situation in which our TSA has both 'succeeded' in failing to stop individuals with a predisposition and full indications of willingness to kill themselves to kill others from boarding a civilian aircraft. Later it is admitted that the system 'failed' and measures will be taken to 'correct' that failure. From that we can step to Christopher Hitchens at Slate on 28 DEC 2009 (h/t: Instapundit) talking about what will be done to try and stop such 'failures' again (boldface is mine):

So that's now more or less the routine for the guilty. (I am not making any presumption of innocence concerning Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.) But flick your eye across the page, or down it, and you will instantly see a different imperative for the innocent. "New Restrictions Quickly Added for Travelers," reads the inevitable headline just below the report on the notoriety of Abdulmutallab, whose own father had been sufficiently alarmed to report his son to the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, some time ago. (By the way, I make a safe prediction: Nobody in that embassy or anywhere else in our national security system will lose his or her job as a consequence of this most recent disgrace.)

[..]

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent? The answer to the first question is: Because we can't—or won't. The answer to the second question is: Because we can. The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to "feel safe." The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens' toothpaste. My impression as a frequent traveler is that intelligent Americans fail to protest at this inanity in case it is they who attract attention and end up on a no-fly list instead. Perfect.

Those who abide by the law, indeed who are NOT a threat to any flight, are required for the 'safety' of air travel to no longer carry with them the things that would allow a plane to be brought down. And those who DO abide by that are the innocent, not the guilty who will find other and more ingenious ways WITHIN a set of restrictions to do as they will. Which will, of course, bring more restrictions on the innocent because the guilty have no need to follow any law or rule or restriction. Nothing we do will stop those seeking to bring down aircraft, merely require them to be smart enough to outwit a delimited set of rules, procedures, techniques or otherwise use human engineering to get around them. When a commenter at another site tried to make light of a 'firecracker' (the first report of the incident) and that it wasn't dangerous, I knew I was dealing with a fool: with a bit of ingenuity, a few allowed carry-on items, and decent placement using the materials that are perfectly allowable and 'safe', I could readily identify a few places where a 'firecracker' could damage an aircraft enough to disable it in-flight. Anyone with an ounce of sense can figure that out, and yet the concept of the regulations making us 'safer' is an illusion that some will cleave to unto death due to over-regulation. Human ingenuity trumps technology and regulations time and time again.

Instead of doing the smart thing, the right thing, and the proper thing, which is to restrict air travel of those suspected of having an inclination to be lawless and suicidal aboard flights due to a delimited religious outlook we, instead, punish the entire traveling public. Those who scoff at the loss of liberty due to regulation are the first to use this famous quote encouraging their fellow citizens to give up yet more of their liberty for the security of the officious Mother State:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

Of our essential liberties is also the expectation that we will be considered innocent until proven guilty of a crime as CITIZENS of the Nation. Those who are not citizens, who give reason for us to suspect them of harboring hatred unto killing against our Nation and our citizens are not afforded that liberty for our own security so that we CAN be afforded that liberty. All men are created equal, and yet that is an acknowledgement by our background as a society and we can and must recognize that not all societies are willing to see the self-evident truths when presented with them. As a Nation and a people we must have the right to differentiate between those in humanity that recognize and abide by the self-evident truths and those who do not do so. Yet, when those who do not do so have made it abundantly clear that they will not, that they will threaten us, that they will do anything to harm our Nation and citizens, the first people we turn to for restrictions are the law abiding citizens who have done no wrong.

That is because a 'Politically Correct' view of the world is one that fears, deeply so, those who are guilty and will do anything to try and appease those men who manifest none of the civilized understandings of liberty and rights with kind words and punish those that actually call those people as they are. For fear of the guilty, even to the point of not wanting to restrict the guilty or keep the convicted in JAILS, the PC view attempts to appease them and restrict any thoughts that might be had about wanting to protect ourselves by actually naming and identifying those who are guilty. That does not bring greater harmony between cultures, but disdain upon those who will not uphold their own culture because they are afraid to do so for offending those who can and will resort to repression and violence to get their way in the world. As we have seen no law or regulation will stop those intent on killing us and when seconds count the police are just minutes away. The system only 'works' when individuals not PART of the system save THEMSELVES from the systemic failure of not wanting to name and restrict those who seek to do us harm.

Remember: you can only punish the law abiding innocent as they are both law abiding and innocent, and when you complain about the system you become one of the guilty.

Next up in the annals of punishing the innocent comes this from SayUncle and Knoxnews on 29 DEC 2009 (h/t: Instapundit):

The gun control group headed by Michael Bloomberg presented to President Obama a Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns. Some folks sent a FOIA request and received a copy of the document. And it's pretty telling. The focus doesn't seem to target illegal guns but all guns and gun owners, including banning the importation of ammo and "non-sporting" firearms. The plan consists of items that are administrative and regulatory in nature and, therefore, don't require legislative action.

There are individuals in the US that actually utilize 'non-sporting' firearms, and these are firearms used for self-defense. What is even more interesting is that said firearms range across many decades, through World Wars and have both military and civilian counter-parts that are extremely difficult to check out. If you are a collector of military surplus rifles or handguns, then you become a target of such regulations, and yet it is perfectly legal and lawful to do so both as a registered collector and as a private citizen who just enjoys collecting said firearms. These firearms range across the last century and include a multitude of manufacturers, variations, and types of weapons. It is with difficulty that an individual can find out if a handgun purchased with, say, Waffen marks was utilized in the German military or civilian market after 1939. Even more interesting is that such a handgun used a round fully available to modern self-defense pistols. Indeed, collecting old cartridges, like stamp collecting, is a fascinating hobby and past-time that harms no one and actually USING those cartridges destroys the value of them. Going one step further to highly available military surplus rounds that WERE made for military weapons, how do you distinguish between them and 'civilian' rounds? Yes you need an 'expert'.

Joy, oh, rapture!

Military surplus guns, especially those that have come out of storage packed in cosmoline from the old USSR and its satellite countries are often cheap. Cleaning out the cosmoline is a non-trivial task. The largest supplies are of the old bolt-action Mosin-Nagants with wooden stocks and a bayonet, typified by a long barrel and are quite heavy. Of even more interest is the ammunition leaves behind a corrosive salt when you get the old military surplus ammo, thus requiring constant care and attention from the owner so that the weapon is not degraded by using it. These are not weapons that any criminal will want: heavy, bulky, hard to hide, slow rate of fire. If you want something lethal, easy to hide and with rapid fire or high lethality you get a handgun or you illegally saw off a shotgun.

Now bump that up to modern weapons that are semi-automatic, like the M-1 Garand... wait, that's still WWII, but an accredited rifle for the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Thus it is both collectible and teaches skills of accuracy, even though it was a military weapon of WWII. If you move to the modern semi-auto equivalent of the M-16, which is the AR-15, you have yet another weapon that can get good accuracy, have decent stopping power and have widely available civilian cartridges for it. Just as you can purchase civilian made cartridges for the Mosin-Nagant you can also do that for the M-1 Garand and the AR-15 as they are popular cartridge types for both civilian and military uses. Indeed you cannot define the difference between a 'military' bolt action or semi-automatic rifle and a 'sporting' version of the exact, same rifle. Why? An individual can change stocks to re-purpose the firearm for different uses, so that a Mosin-Nagant may be in its original wooden stock for display and then put into a fiberglass modern stock for use at the range. The same goes for the M-1 Garand and AR-15: you cannot distinguish between a 'sporterized' version of one and its non-sporting version.

Yes 'sporterized' is a recognized term for firearms because people have been doing that with military weapons throughout the 20th century, dating back before WWI, and a 'sporterized' version of a military weapon is part of its own, unique class of that weapon. Amazing, no? A few modifications and you go from 'military' or non-sporting firearm to 'sporting' firearm. And there is no functional difference in the nature of the firearm, itself, just in the outer housing. Prohibited one moment, allowed the next.

That brings us to handgun hunting, a sport that is gaining in wide popularity these days. One of the heaviest calibers that can be used for this in a semi-automatic pistol is the 50 Action Express, which is a 50 caliber pistol round. That is a sporting weapon, for all of it being a handgun. Any law or regulation that tries to stop the use of the 50 AE round, which is civilian and sporting in nature, then makes one of the most powerful handguns on the planet available while stopping older, lighter and less lethal firearms from history. In one go everyone is made 'safer' by permitting 'sporting' firearms for handgun hunting while stopping the use of lighter caliber self-defense pistols that can date back to 1897 that have a military origin. And the moment you try to change the regulations to 'make things safer' you end up creating more loopholes, more problems and all to the end of not doing a damned thing about those who are obtaining illegal weapons for their own use.

And just how many criminals actually USE older military surplus weapons and ammo? How about civilian self-defense handguns? There is no functional way to tell between a self-defense handgun in the hands of a law abiding citizen and one in the hands of a criminal. And heaven forbid you attempt to distinguish based ON THE USER! Can't do that! It might require 'profiling'.

Yes I am taking such thinking to extremes, but it has a point: how will this in any way, shape or form stop those willing to break the law from getting their hands on such weapons and utilizing them? This has not worked in Great Britain and in Mumbai one of the most pertinent statements from an eyewitness is wishing that they could have been armed so as to stop the attackers. By restricting or attempting to outlaw handguns the innocent are made less safe and the criminals have nothing to fear, and can safely intimidate the unarmed. Since the banning of handguns in the UK the police there have had to up-arm and armor themselves against criminals willing and able to deploy fully automatic weapons as they know no civilian will STOP THEM. That is how you get an officious, lethal and over-armed police for a Police State: you make civilians easy targets for criminals.

Yet your essential liberty of self-defense, the positive liberty of war that we do not give to the State, is threatened by the State that does not trust its own people to behave in a civil manner towards each other, fears criminals and then sees fit to disarm the people. When you are threatened in such a State your life is determined in seconds, and the police will spend some hours writing up the report of your death due to criminals who have no problem violating civil society and civil law to work their ends.

The State could, of course, seek the illegal venues that provide such weapons to criminals... but, really, it is much easier to repress the law abiding than go after the criminals.

It is easier to punish and make weak the law abiding and strengthen those who will not abide by the law by punishing the innocent.

That is what you get when you feel the regulations make you 'safe' and you trade away your liberty for that temporary feeling of safety. Mind you the safety isn't even temporary, just an illusion of safety given by self-deception.

What, me worry?

The long time premier magazine of the satirical was MAD Magazine, assured to festoon the lives of children for the very irreverent attitude taken towards all things. But it was not without its competitors, one of the best of which was Cracked magazine, which always tended to be a bit more cutting and even handed on its satire and irreverence. If MAD was aimed at pre-teens and 'tweens' then Cracked went for teens to young adults, and both had their place in the ecosystem of the age of analog printed material. I lost track of both coming into my teen years and really hadn't thought much about them, until I started to notice some of the Cracked lists showing up... brand new lists. Cracked.com's list of Funny Stuff is a compendium of its new productions in the irreverent, coarse, rude, crude and somewhat socially indifferent. It is, perhaps, one of the greatest time wasters invented if you like the sort of thing they produce. From 5 Certifiably Insane Politicians People Still Voted For to Your Body Hates You: 6 Gruesome Disorders Anyone Can Get to The World's 16 Least Inspiring Flags to The 6 Cutest Animals That Can Still Destroy You the entire panoply of sex, scat, art, politics, religion, pest control and history all are fair play at Cracked.

Still, they do slip in a semi-serious to actually useful article now and again, of the sort that were BS sessions in High School, College and seemingly everywhere online. Those have their own areas of fascination like looking at the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and how something that starts as fiction turns into a near cult following to things that Atheists and Christians really do have to agree on. That sort of thing is why Cracked looked at an older demographic than that of Alfred E. Neuman. After that latter one there is a column on trying to do a reduction of scientific secularism, which is fascinating not only for the authors view, but what the author misses. When conversing with a follower of the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we get this view:

What is baffling about the Pastafarians, however, is that they don't demand that. They stop short in their understanding. While rightfully mocking this magical force called "will" in the form of religious belief, many of them seem to cling to the idea of "will" in the human brain. They'll accidentally use words like "mind" as if the "mind" is some separate thing that exists apart from electrochemical signals transmitted between neurons. They may talk about "love" as if it were also some kind of mystical energy and not just a certain kind of neural chain reaction. They laugh at the idea of a "soul" and then proceed to talk and live every day as if they had something exactly like it inside themselves.

Even worse, one Pastafarian chatted with me online and went from mocking the silly creationists, to talking about attending a rally on environmentalism. He said I "should" support cleaner alternative fuels and cutting greenhouse gases:

"Othwerwise global warming is going to get really bad in 30 or 40 years, mass starvation, the whole bit."

"So? I won't be alive for that. I'm already 72 years old."

"Well, yeah, but your children..."

"No kids. I drive an Escalade and I leave it running 24 hours a day, because it might hurt my wrist to twist the key every morning. Don't worry, I can afford it."

"But... what about future generations? Don't you want them to survive, too?"

"Why? How does that affect me? I'll be dead."

"But... but... you should care about your fellow man even if it doesn't benefit you!"

"That's a false emotional impression, left over from our ancient herd instinct. Surely you're not saying that it's 'better' to care about your fellow man than not to."

"Of course I am! People will die if you don't!"

"So you say it's better that people live than die? Why?"

"It just is!"

I was shocked and disappointed. He believed in this invisible, unmeasurable force called "better" as much as he believed in man's equally-unmeasurable ability to discern and act on the "better" thing and that "it just is" right do that "better" thing when given the chance. He believed in things science can't quantify. He believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Learned lesson one - if you believe in GW you already have a religion, but it is a nice one and allows others to co-exist with it right up to the point you disagree with GW.

Second, however, is that arguing from the Larry Niven view of a biological end-state, that is where you can't reproduce easily and most of your vested energy has already been spent, has a negative problem all its own: your reason *to* exist (that of reproduction and continuing the species) is no longer viable. More easily put, once you get old, mother nature is out to kill you to make way for the next generation. That was a great bit of insight from the SF invention of boosterspice in Niven's Known Space works, and that as you went beyond your natural life span, you learned to be very, very careful about what you did as mother nature was no longer looking out for you.

That second point has a non-trivial outcome: you come to understand the utility of laws and society as they are now the ONLY things keeping you alive. If society goes, the boosterspice goes and in a short period of time your biological age will start to re-assert itself and catch up with your chronological age. If you have lived, say, 250 years, being dead in 20 or 30 is no longer having a lot of time left to live compared with how long you have been around. You also get a very different perspective on children, however, as now the short period of time to support raising children is balanced directly against your ability to survive. It may be a short period of time, less than 20 years, but you could be out doing other things and not taking up your time raising children. The positive benefit to you once having passed through the normal age-span is no longer as strong as it is when you were younger.

From that the third point is that brought up by the author of the 'false emotional impression'. The author is clearly indicating that emotional instincts are false, yet they are just the opposite: they have positive value to you and beyond you even and especially if you are from the scientific determinist view of the world. If those emotions are false, then, exactly, which ones are *true*? What is the balancing point of that? Are instinctive emotions any less valid than instinctive muscle contractions or biochemistry that acts without thought to defend your body? If you answer that the entire class of inherited characteristics are useless, you are then arguing for something that is unreasonable: that is not the argument of reasoning out emotional behavior but one of denying that the unreasonable or irrational can have justification and reason for being. To do *that* requires a belief in will outside of such behaviors, and yet all of humanity, including the author, demonstrate just the opposite.

So, the question is: having these emotional responses to reproduction, what are their source?

The reason you do good things is actually astonishingly simple: it makes you feel good. In other words it has a positive reinforcement value in your mental view that helps to lower stress and other biochemical influences within your own body that have a negative impact on your survival. But there is an even more subtle reason that comes from the 'herd mentality', which, for humans, would date far back before the Cretaceous along mammalian lineage. It is one that is seen throughout the animal kingdom and even in the plant kingdom, and it is so obvious it is taken for granted.

That is the division of labor. The benefit to you of helping others out is that it not only feels good to *you* but it helps the recipient feel good *also*. As a part of that herd, or now our society, that has indirect benefit in reducing larger scale tension amongst individuals. That is why the ability to apologize for doing something hurtful leads to the opportunity of acceptance that something done was not meant, or if it was ill-meant, that the activity is owned up to by the individual and this is an attempt to stem hatred before it gets out of hand. Accepting an apology means that you must understand your personal feelings and that this larger herd, this greater society, has requirements upon you for the well being of all involved. That is because the survival of everyone depends upon the specialized skills and knowledge brought by individuals to this larger group and put to work so that the overall group has a higher chance of survival.

Not only does doing good feel good, it gives you and everyone around you a higher chance of surviving.

To not do so lowers overall survival rate for personal satisfaction and pleasure absent societal benefit. In that direction is Perfect Liberty and it has only one state of being: under the Law of Nature. Even if you are of the scientific deterministic view absent of religion, the Law of Nature is *still* present, in this case as the base operational system of the planet given its history, biosphere, solar output, volcanic activity, spatial position and if you are being chased by a carnivore or not. In that state of being you have Perfect Liberty and No Security: you are left up to your own devices and NO ONE will help you. That said very few creatures live in that Perfect State for as soon as there is longer term survival for the species when vesting energy in raising young, you will feel good doing so.

Why do you feel that way? Because those who didn't died off as they didn't have any positive stimuli to invest that time and energy, and so they adapted less well and soon their genetic traits were lost. Of all the higher animals, Sharks are the closest to that state, and even some of those spend time caring for their young, usually via internal gestation of said young. What the author posits is the position of being a male black widow spider now beyond time to mate, and it has only one reasonable value left to it: food. Mother nature likes to clear out the old and unfit, to make way for the next generation, so that 72 year old male without children unwilling to contribute back to society has a negative survival factor for his own beliefs and outlook. Others will come to assist you if fallen, as there is worth in you as a potential: it is possible to change one's way and contribute towards the greater good of all involved. You will be remembered that way, and even folks like Carnegie and Ford made sure that their rapacious reputations would be mollified by starting foundations and libraries that would exist far beyond their mortal time.

None of that requires an extra-body 'will' or greater good from outside source. Our biology gives us many impulses which we have then built upon so as to create larger groupings more able to survive the rigors of life on Rock 3 from the Star Sol. And there is a human example of what happens to a society that does *not* sustain such things, and is a clear representation of what happens when civilization makes non-support of society acceptable and concentrates interest in the here and now: The Roman Empire.

The decay of support for the greater Empire meant that there were fewer citizens, more slaves and a higher transit of wealth out to procurement of entertainment and 'pleasures' than there was going into the upkeep of roads, bridges, aqueducts, and the military. The result is what was called 'decadence': the Empire started to decay as being a Roman Citizen meant less to society and even some slaves gained riches that allowed them power without having to be an accepted part of society. Decadence also turned to debauchery, where base feelings and impulses were allowed to run free amongst the citizenry and the value of life and society decreased further. The Roman Empire was decaying as personal liberty took a primary importance over the security of society. In the Western Empire they soon found they were unable to have security, which then led to a further eroding of society until there was no society left to uphold or defend or even adhere to.

Thus, seeing someone try to put a 'rational' view to work for irrational personal safety so as to secure personal pleasure, I can only call it, as my ancestors did of Rome: decadent.

A society in decay because its individuals no longer gain personal value from upholding it is well described:

"Our present condition, is, Legislation without law;
wisdom without a plan;
a constitution without a name;
and, what is strangely astonishing,
perfect Independance contending for dependance.
The instance is without a precedent;
the case never existed before;
and who can tell what may be the event?
The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things.
The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.
Nothing is criminal;
there is no such thing as treason;
wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases."
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

That is where it being all about *you* and personal self-satisfaction ends, with perfect liberty... and soon Revolution. Because you no longer want to survive and are aiming to take society down with you.

And the GW enthusiast is no better having forgotten the basics:

Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them;
whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;
the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections,
the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one
encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first a patron, the last a punisher.

That is what happens when the multitude no longer have a fixed object before them... some seek perfect liberty, some seek perfect tyranny and the struggle between them can get millions killed.

This sort of thing is always why I preferred MAD Magazine.

What, me worry?

After the fall of Trans World Commodities and its fallout

This article starts off where others have left a few loose ends, like my Red Mafia article, where the great circle of Red Mafia groups starts with a little known individual where we can ask the question: who is it that would contribute to *both* Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Hillary Rodham Clinton? That was even more interesting than: what is the connection between the incomplete Soviet CV Varyag and Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Yes, organized crime does take you in strange directions and one of the loose ends from the Red Mafia article dealt with an individual brought up in this NY Post article on the Shady 'Inn' Crowd, from 15 APR 2007:

YOU never know who owns what these days. Case in point: the Hotel Gansevoort. Arik Kislin, one of seven principals in the trendy, 187-room Meatpacking District inn, once ran a firm with ties to a suspected Moscow hit man, The Post's Dan Mangan reports. In the early 1990s, a Manhattan company called Blonde Management, of which Kislin was chairman, co-sponsored a U.S. visa sought by a Russian named Anton Malevskiy. The FBI believed Malevskiy to be a professional assassin and head of one of Moscow's leading criminal gangs, according to a 1999 article by the Center for Public Integrity, which cited an FBI report. Gansevoort flack Nancy Friedman at first denied Kislin had an ownership role in the hotel or that his name was on its liquor license, despite being told of a state agency document that shows otherwise. When we pressed for an explanation about Kislin's relationship to the hotel, Friedman said she would check with the Gansevoort's owners. But in a subsequent conversation, she suddenly clammed up, telling us, "I don't think there's going to be any response."

Last time it was Arik Kislin, and all the twists and turns of his contacts and his father's contacts and where they went to finally end up with the huge Bank of New York scandal. This time it will be the other Red Mafia suspect Anton Malevskiy and get an idea of what sort of individual Arik Kislin was trying to bring into the US. To do that I will give you a summary of a translated article at the Center for Defense Information, which came from Le Monde on 28 NOV 2002 (it is labeled for personal use only', so it will be more overview than exact quotes). It relates an interview with Dzhalol Khaydarov by Vladimir Ivanidze talking about what decided Khaydarov to break his ties with the Red Mafia in 2000.

As he was getting the OUGKM copper factories up and stable, financially, Anton Malevskiy who worked with Mikhail Chernoy and the Izmailovo group paid a visit. The Chernoy Brothers had built up the third largest aluminum production capacity in the world during the mid-1990's, only to see the structure collapse as the Brothers faced problems with the Reuben Brothers, who were running the most sophisticated set of front companies ever seen on planet Earth with all of them contained in Simon Reuben's head. That all started to come apart from the New York side as the number of transactions being processed by Peter Berlin and his wife Lucy Edwards, along with a corrupt bank manager at BoNY, started to reveal the far flung network of front companies run by Simon Reuben. This would also reveal that front companies in the US, Becs and Benex, were serving as fronts for the Semion Mogilevich YBM Magnex investment and stock market fraud system that he was running. As this started to fall apart for the Chernoys, they faced stiff competition that was buying out sections of their industrial empire. Arik Kislin, at Blond Management, was in the same office space as the Berlin couple, who would be associated with Mogilevich, but also Vyacheslav Ivankov-Yaponchik who was associated with the Solntsevskaya group and its boss Sergey Mikhaylov.

So with Malevskiy coming around, he tried to offer Khaydarov a new position with him, so he wouldn't have to associate directly with the Chernoys. Khaydarov was trying to get in contact with the FSB and MVD, but was warned about that as there had been an agreement between the Yeltsin 'family' and the Izmailovo group of the Chernoys and Roman Abramovitch. At that point in time Abramovitch and Oleg Deripaska held the majority of Izmailovo industries between them, and they were 'fronting' for the political power elite (Abramovitch) and the criminal elite (Deripaska) of Izmailovo, both working together with Yeltsin's 'group'. It is by this combination that entire files and background on criminals would 'disappear' out of the FSB and MVD archives, so as to clean out their past. By working themselves deep into the system, the criminal element becomes nearly impossible to dislodge.

Vladimir Putin, for all of his toughness, was unable to dislodge Mafia "Lieutenants" from some areas, and only if the corruption became too apparent, as with Nicholai Axionenko and the Transportation Ministry, could such a minister be dismissed. It is these 'holdovers' from the Yeltsin 'group' that were run by Abramovitch, who would also run most of the financial holdings for the group. For day-to-day work Vladimir Voloshin ran things, like oversight on Boris Berezovkiy's AVVA financial pyramid scheme, and ensured that the holdings were secured. When he couldn't Abramovitch would step in or Oleg Deripaska or Valentin Yumashev. These can be considered to be the central power of the 'Yeltsin group' as a whole, with associations to the Izmailovo group added on. Notice that Boris Yeltsin, after bringing this group together, had little to do with it and it was the group, itself, that tended to run the criminal and industrial affairs of the group.

I will extract the translation directly on the description of how money was filtered into the system:

[Ivanidze] Concretely, how is the money taken out and collected?

[Khaydarov] There are many possible systems: foreign bank accounts, stock, real estate, offshore! Everyone has their own. I set up between 50 and 100 structures for just one of us! No investigating judge can make head or tail of it. For years, my job was to get all the money to the West and into offshore companies.

[Ivanidze] Who decides to conduct a transaction in a sector or against a company?

[Khaydarov] Mikhail Chernoi, with the head of the sector in question -- Oleg Deripaska for aluminum or Iskander Makhmudov for metals -- with the involvement of local governors, like Eduard Rossel in Ekaterinburg or Aman Tuleev in Kemerovo. Then, each person carries out the plan at his particular level, as each has his own security service. For example, at Russal, you fill find a former KGB counterespionage boss, former first vice presidents of the FSB, and people who have information about state security.

This is the hand of Simon Reuben at work: the man who created 3 companies to pay his rent and had 200 people managing 300 companies across the globe in multiple countries: Dubai, Cypress, Bahamas, Grand Caymans, UK, US, Russia, Hungary, Romania, etc. This is why the BoNY investigation ground to a complete and utter halt: it was too complex to actually diagram out in a coherent manner as it was an incoherent system utilizing a coherent methodology. With multiple individuals creating their *own* groups of accounts, front companies, transfer groups, stock and real estate investment groups, etc. there is no sane or reasonable way to track how money filters through the system, but filter through it does.

By 2000 this was starting to spin apart with some of the financial infrastructure pulled up by the US, and individuals getting caught out of place, 'disappearing', allegedly dying (like Malevskiy having a sky-diving accident in S. Africa) or shifting their financial structures to more reliable systems, like Mogilevich and Firtash. After Michael Chernoy going to Israel to escape criminal prosecution, others would follow him there: Lev Levaev, Yakov Goldovskiy, Arkadi Gaydamak. But even with that, those that remain, Abramovitch, Deripaska, Firtash, Mogilevich, and others, the system itself has grown out in different and more diverse directions. Even with stiff law enforcement capabilities, the entrenched elites are very hard to dislodge and there is no guarantee that doing so will actually get them out of the way.

Now, as Oleg Deripaska is in the news, going through what he has done should prove interesting, as he is one of the richest men in Russia right now. Back over at CDI, there is a cached article from Washington Profile by Dmitry Sidorov, DEC 15 2005, looking at the trip of Aleksandr Voloshin and Oleg Deripaska to Washington. And while foreign relations were a bit on the rough side, near the end of the article comes this bit:

I received several tips from unnamed sources on how Deripaska managed to get into the country, despite the U.S.’s longtime suspicion that the owner of Russian Aluminum (RusAl) has been involved in money laundering operations, among other illegal activities.

One source, who wished to remain anonymous, said that Deripaska’s visa problems were resolved during President Putin’s 16 October meeting with President Bush. In a 55-minute-long conversation at the White House, the two leaders spent about 10 minutes discussing the oligarch.

[..]

If it were Putin and Bush who decided his fate, as my source (a member of the U.S.-Russian business community) stated, then the reason for the U.S.’s change of heart becomes a bit clearer. Namely, the source thinks that the oligarch’s sale of two Russian factories to America’s aluminum giant Alcoa for $257 million could have served as a good bet placed against his visa issue discussion.

This last observation is in complete harmony with an assessment made by a Washington expert who said that after building good relations with Moscow and Washington, Deripaska was able to get the visa and fly to Washington to promote a new image of Russian businessmen not involved in politics.

That's right, President Bush saw into Putin's soul and missed the organized crime ties. At the time Oleg Deripaska was only worth in the neighborhood of $20 billion, so a 1% loss, to him, is what we would call 'pocket change'. He would also marry a daughter of Boris Yeltsin's and start a new company, Basic Element, in an attempt to help cement his place in the Russian pecking order (Source: The Star, 11 MAY 2007). But perhaps it wasn't just President Bush and Vladimir Putin getting along well together. A Human Events article on 18 SEP 2007 by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen look at the other way that one can get into the good graces of the powers-that-be in DC:

The U.S. government has denied Deripaska's entry to the country for more than 10 years. In 2005, after paying $560,000 to former Senator Robert Dole and his law firm, Alston & Bird, Deripaska secured a multiple-entry visa and visited the U.S. several times. His visits ended abruptly in July2006, when the U.S. government revoked his visa.

Part of that, the reason Deripaska would have his visa pulled from the US after a court case in the UK brought by Chernoy against Deripaska revealed some of the inner workings of their holdings (Source: Mineweb). And the Human Events article expands on that reason:

The multi-billionaire Deripaska is currently embroiled in hot debate with his London investment bankers, including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse. At issue is Rusal's proposed initial public offering (IPO), which Deripaska hopes can raise at least $30 billion on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and other European markets.

However, Rusal must first resolve the 20% ownership claim of Michael Cherney, an Israeli industrialist who has sued Deripaska in London's High Court for payment of some $6 billion -- and presented substantial evidence, including two 2001 trust agreements, signed by Deripaska, promising to pay.

Meanwhile, Deripaska has secretly circulated in London, Frankfurt and Edinburgh, unregistered and unpublished offering statements for the IPO. All traces of a private meeting on Friday, June 30 at Trinity House in the City of London, for example, were "carefully wiped, except for two umbrellas left behind with the Trinity House porter," wrote John Helmer in Mineweb. on July 3, 2007.

Although the U.K. lacks laws comparable to the U.S. racketeers Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Britain's Financial Services Authority has reportedly assigned a special unit to investigate Cherney's High Court evidence against UCRusal. The FSA has yet to provide a detailed response to our inquiry.

Rusal's investment bankers have refused to comment, either declining to answer or ignoring our questions all together. But they are reportedly sniping at one another over the terms of the increasingly problematic Rusal offering.

To succeed, Rusal apparently needs a statement from outgoing Russian president Vladimir Putin, assuring investors that Russia will not repatriate the aluminum giant after the offering. That is highly unlikely considering the Putin's nationalization campaign, which has already lassoed major operations of several international companies, most recently, BP's Kovytka natural gas production field, worth an estimated $20 billion.

Ah, yes, needing to first work out that 20% ownership *and* get a guarantee from an outgoing President that the *next* President won't nationalize your investment. Little things in life, no? Still he had the consolation prize of being the richest man from Russia and a nice visit in London with Abramovich to help cement their #1 and #2 positions (Source: The Guardian (UK), 24 FEB 2007), plus having rebuilt the old Trans World Commodities aluminum business back to being the third largest after Alcoa and Alcan, under its RusAl name. And Abramovich had a 25% share in that, so it must all be going well in the money-making business (Source: Russia Blog, 26 DEC 2006). At the end of April 2007, the final merger of the Tajikistan aluminum company TadAz would be complete, making RusAl the largest aluminum producer in the world (Source: Mineweb, 28 APR 2007). By the end of 2007, the Basic Element group was looking to stand up if it could get a go-ahead from the Russian anti-monopoly bureau, which decided to put off a decision until sometime early this year (Source: Kremlin, Inc, from Dartmouth, 20 DEC 2007).

It is worth taking a look at the Mineweb article of 28 APR 2007, as it gives a bit more of a look at what the Reubens were trying to do so as to get *back* the corporate empire that they had lost to Deripaska:

The terms are all sealed, and the beneficiaries don't talk. Lawyers, public records, and sources close to Deripaska and inside Rusal confirm, however, that the Zhivilo brothers were paid about $65 million; they had controlled the Novokuznetsk smelter before Deripaska, but then failed to win jurisdiction in a US court for their claim. Anatoly Bykov, controlling shareholder of the Krasnoyarsk smelter before his ouster, was paid about $105 million, a sum ordered by an arbitration tribunal and appeals court in Zurich, which Swiss court records corroborate.

The Reuben brothers of London, who ran several trading schemes for the Russian smelters Deripaska operated, claimed $300 million; they received a sum reported to be over $100 million, after an application to a British Virgin Islands court. Details of their June 27, 2005, settlement spilled out when one of Deripaska's companies - called Bluzwed Metals -- went into the High Court in London, arguing that Trans World Metals, the Reubens' vehicle, had violated Clause 11.4 of the secret deal with Deripaska. Deripaska then sought High Court enforcement of the Reubens deal. He got his summary judgement on January 26, 2006, in a ruling by Justice Sir Andrew Morritt. One secret also spilled in the Bluzwed case was the identity of a Lebanese arranger called Joseph Karam - "K" in the court text - whose payoff and indemnity from further claims Bluzwed accused the Reubens of threatening..

Counting the latest Nazarov settlement, Deripaska has been obliged to fork out about half a billion dollars to those claimants with cases strong enough to take to foreign courts and tribunals.

If he manages to list Rusal in a London IPO at a market capitalization of $30 billion, Deripaska's 66% stake would be worth $19.8 billion. Cashing out claims that constitute a serious legal barrier to the IPO saves money, and makes business sense.

Just one UK High Court case remains -- that of Mikhail Chernoy (Michael Cherney). This was filed in the Commercial Court of Queens Bench on November 24, 2006. The sole defendant is Oleg Deripaska, who is accused of breach of trust. Mineweb has reported the details before. There has been no court hearing yet.

Well, Chernoy was on the lam from a number of police agencies, so one could excuse him for not making a good deal before he got to Israel. And Deripaska isn't out of the woods, yet, either:

Pleading that he isn't cash-rich at all, will Deripaska offer Chernoy $2 billion to tear up the March 10, 2001, agreement, and go away? Will Chernoy accept it? Chernoy isn't saying.

Deripaska must play for time, but the clock is ticking against him, so long as the Chernoy agreement of 2001 is an albatross hanging unluckily around his neck. But if the two could agree on staging payments over time, with the bulk to come from Deripaska's dividends from future Rusal earnings, this may constitute a prima facie violation of Deripaska's undertakings to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), when he swore he had fully bought out Chernoy years ago. An ERBD loan to Rusal, and a matching credit from the World Bank's International Finance Corporation, depend legally on the truthfulness of Deripaska's covenants.

And there is another potential liability for the owner of the world's most important bauxite, alumina and aluminium combine. Would an ongoing financial obligation between Deripaska and Chernoy complicate Deripaska's relations with the US authorities?

If it can be authenticated, the Chernoy document is serious evidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's dossier on Deripaska. Now that the Nazarov case is gone, the pressure is on Deripaska to settle with Chernoy on terms that also resolve his problems with the FBI.

So if he can actually buy off Chernoy, he could make his problems 'go away'. If he can't, even though Chernoy has to legitimize his claim, Deripaska is legitimizing it by not offering the IPO (which he could do with everything *else* cleared out of the way). And if he has to go to court, then that would indicate that he knew of a pre-existing claim against RusAl when he said there weren't any, thus bollixing up his position with the EBRD and FBI. And if Chernoy has some hard feelings, which I do believe is the case, then getting paid money won't be a solution, nor will trying to *get* Chernoy as his brother, Lev, will then rally what he can against Deripaska. That would get blood ugly very, very quickly.

The only other information of note from the article is this, and do remember it was published back in April 2007:

In the latest US newspaper reports, it is disclosed that Deripaska paid $560,000 to the law firm of former Republican Senator Bob Dole to resolve the FBI's ban, and get Deripaska his 2005 visa. Washington sources report that other prominent US law firms, and at least one other prominent Republican Party official, have been retained by Deripaska over the years to surmount the visa ban, and retrieve the black ball. At one point, the source claims, he was offering a sizeable bounty for success. The sources also say there has been a long-running and spirited argument between the White House, the State Department, and the investigation agencies over this issue.

That does put a bit of a different light on the WaPo report of 25 JAN 2008 on Rick Davis, an aide to Sen. McCain, having set up a meeting with Deripaska with Sen. McCain: it was not unknown in Washington, DC circles or in the Republican Party that someone had such high level contacts. But it isn't unusual for organized crime figures from Russia to have high level lawyers connected to politics in the US, as seen from this Moscow Times article of 18 APR 2007 (Source: Ocnus cache) quoting the WSJ:

Billionaire Oleg Deripaska has retained former Senate majority leader Bob Dole since 2003 to lobby the U.S. State Department to grant him a visa, the newspaper said.

Deripaska paid Dole's law firm, Alston & Bird, $300,000 in 2003 for activities involving "U.S. Department of State visa policies and procedures," according to lobby filings with the U.S. Senate.

Deripaska had been denied a U.S. visa for several years, the paper said.

The U.S. Department of State granted Deripaska a visa in 2005, after Dole worked for two years to convince U.S. officials that Deripaska was a legitimate and transparent businessman, the newspaper said. Deripaska paid Dole's firm an additional $260,000 upon receipt of the visa, it said.

[..]

The newspaper also said former FBI chief William Sessions was acting as a lawyer to Semyon Mogilevich, the Ukrainian-born Russian who is on the FBI's most wanted list over his purported organized-crime links.

Sessions is lobbying the U.S. Department of Justice as it investigates charges of racketeering against Mogilevich for involvement in shady energy deals between Russia and Ukraine, the newspaper said.

Yes a $260,000 'bounty' to get the visa! So lovely when fine, upstanding, elderly, retired Senators start shilling for those in organized crime, isn't it? That is only topped by an ex-head of the FBI doing the same. So much for 'law and order'.

One really can't complain too much, however, as 22 FEB 2008 Sun-Sentinal ran a WaPo article to take a look at Davis' view on things:

The work of Davis' firm put him on the opposite side of Eastern European politics from McCain, who has spoken out vigorously against what he sees as Putin's attempts to subvert elections in former Soviet republics such as Ukraine.

Davis' firm provided political advice to a pro-Russian party in Ukraine during the parliamentary elections of 2006. McCain, on the other hand, backed President Viktor Yushchenko, a Western-oriented reformer who led 2004's Orange Revolution, which overturned what he and his allies considered an election stolen by the party helped by Davis's firm.

Makes it all proper and such, right? Having been at opposite ends of the Ukraine deal? In case it has been forgotten, there is something about Yuschenko that would turn out not to be all bright and cheerful, seen in a Moscow News item of 16 APR 2006, The Orange Boomerang:

An experienced politician, Yulia Tymoshenko managed not only to make the "presidential steps" but also ensured that the Ukrainian people remember to whom they owe the real improvement in their living standards. Experts believe that this is the main factor in Yushchenko's declining ratings amid the growing popularity of the "iron lady."

It is true that the Ukrainians' attitude toward their president has also been affected by the latest round of rumors and speculation that the opposition timed for the upcoming parliamentary election: e.g., when he became president, Yushchenko worked hard to hush up the investigation of his purported poisoning; that Boris Berezovsky funded his election campaign in 2004, also writing a version of his inauguration address; and that Yushchenko's mother-in-law traveled from Philadelphia to Kiev for the inauguration ceremony on a charter flight paid for by businessman Dmitry Firtash, the right-hand man of Semen Mogilevich who is on the FBI's wanted list, but recently took part in discussing the Russian-Ukrainian gas agreement in Moscow.

In short, the Orange boomerang that Yushchenko threw at corrupt officials in the form of his "All Felons Will Be Jailed!" calls never hit anyone. As it turns out, only Yushchenko was hit.

Yes, the same Dmitri Firtash that I go over in this entry detailing his dealings only about two levels down from the top. The man who was director of Highrock Holdings, owned by Mogilevich, to buy a major stake in Eural TransGas, the natural gas purchaser/reseller from Turkmenistan to Ukraine via Gazprom's pipelines. The same Firtash who would not disclose that he and another member of Mogilevich's inner cricle, Ivan Fursin, were backing a 50% stake in the company to replace ETG, RusUkrEnergo, because ETG was seen as corrupt. Mind you, ETG was replacing Itera that *also* had these exact, same links. Same Semion Mogilevich that had swindled hundreds of millions from the US and Canada by manipulating the permanent magnets market and then offering deals he had no intention of backing. Viktor Yushchenko would let the ETG to RUE deal go through with 'unknown' Ukrainian backers, all the while his older brother Peter Yuschenko was getting help by Mogilevich and Firtash in buying part ownership in a gas company in Dubai. All of this funded with money from the narcotics trade in the Golden Triangle, prostitution, money laundering, human trafficking, white slavery, bank fraud, securities fraud, and, perhaps, a spot or two of murder and assassination along the way, as well as supplying small amounts of enriched, processed nuclear material to Osama bin Laden.

While we all love the Orange Revolution as a concept and a happening, the actual individuals involved that got into power have a bit of reckoning to do. The good people of the Ukraine are being ill-served by their political class that seems to be out for *themselves* and selling off their land, resources and historical sites for cash on the barrel. Believe it or not this has been going on under 'both sides' of the Orange Revolution. What is this powerful 'difference' I am supposed to see here? That Sen. McCain supports one group of compromised politicians that more or less support the West and his aide supported those that more or less aligns with Russia?

Excuse me for a moment while I review the names of dictators and tyrants that were more aligned with the US during the Cold War that we did damned little to *clean up* and help to hold higher ideals of liberty and democracy: Ferdinand Marcos, Carlos Menem, Zia ul-Haq, Saddam Hussein, Shah of Iran. Remember these were the 'good guys' that were 'for us' and if they were awful they at least were 'on our side'. The Philippines did, finally, deal with Marcos after decades of oppression, Argentina has wavered all over the place, but do note that Menem gave one of the largest international criminals, Monzer al-Kassar, pretty much free reign on the criminal side. President Zia only continued supporting global Islamic extremists, plus the extremely nasty local sort and continued nuclear work begun during the 'democratic' period of Benazir Bhutto's father who also supplied radical Islamic terrorists with cash and training. Pakistan got lovely nuclear devices and started selling the know-how elsewhere. Saddam? Notice how he got all nice about human liberty and democracy? And just how *did* that Shah business turn out, anyways?

Just how many corrupt political movements has the US backed that never did their nation much of any good because they had problems backing the words of liberty with actions? And how many did we back that didn't mouth any such words, but at least they were 'our scoundrel'? And just why is it that the Administration and the FBI have to go at loggerheads over if it is a good idea to let a major organized crime figure into the US?

I don't particularly like Sen. Obama's Chitown mob connections through the Syrian-American Rezko. Truthfully, that stinks to high heaven.

That is only outdone by Sen. Clinton's connections to various Triads, Red Mafia, gun and narcotics groups and your basic 'where the hell did they get the money' sorts like Norman Hsu. The previous President Clinton letting Red China get missile guidance technology and advanced optics is not my idea of a fun time, nor is having an agent that gets his hands on classified CIA data and then helps on trying to get automatic weapons to gangs in Los Angeles. That pretty much makes the stink to high heaven and then piles the source all the way to heaven to make it impossible to get out.

Then having the folks in the Republican Party get a tizzy because this just might be a 'social meeting' between Sen. Squeaky Clean who supported crooked politicians with organized crime backing in Ukraine and then meeting up with a criminal for another organization while overseas in Switzerland... get a grip. It stinks. Not as bad as Obama or Clinton? Yes.

It is a matter of degree, however, not of *kind*.

I, too, wish that the Orange Revolution could actually have found the corrupt politicians and gotten them out of the system. That did not happen, however. I did not close my eyes to the problems with those individuals and who was backing them.

Just as I cannot close my eyes to the problems of each of these candidates running for President of my Nation.

Because Obama backing Odinga, Clinton supporting Kosovo with the al Qaeda backed KLA now taking power, and McCain supporting a politician tied to the Red Don and then meeting up with another Red Mafia oligarch from the same organization which has Mogilevich in it, all are of equal problem in their view of foreign affairs, liberty, and freedom. If you don't like what is being supported by the candidates you *don't* like, then take a look to make sure you aren't getting the same thing from one you *do*. Because they all look equal to me.

Theoretical security and the more, unpleasant, reality

Well, with the inanity of the Illegal Alien Amnesty Bill comes those who do put forth that it would actually *help* find and stop terrorists! A h/t to Curt at Flopping Aces for pointing out this post at Big Lizards by Dafydd ab Hugh responding to Hugh Hewitt's worries about terrorists getting a parole Z-Visa and being here legally in: Where's Walid? In this exercise we will posit that the bill actually passes! From there we will pass into the theoretical projection and see where it leads us. So lets take it from the mid-way point:

Suppose the bill passes, and a bunch of illegal immigrants apply for Parole Cards (the provisional Z visas -- at least, that's what Sen. Jon Kyl, R-AZ, 92%, calls them). Hugh's worry is that among all the Gonzaleses and Ramirezes and Garcias will be hidden a few Mohammeds and Zarqawis... or even a Padilla or two.

Hugh is terrified that these terrorists could also apply for Parole Cards, and then be able to move around the country, get work, and even exit and reenter the United States at will. Of course, they can do that today... but Hugh seems to believe that they're more likely to be caught and deported today, with no bill, than they would be next year with a bill and Z visas and Parole Cards. (I have no idea what current mechanism for capturing and deporting them Hugh sees; it certainly eludes my sight.)

Let's carefully break down what it means to exit and reenter the country and to work: The border-crosser must show a passport and a SmartVisa. Specifically, he must swipe the card through a reader; this necessarily creates a record of leaving and reentering. Too, moving from place to place within the U.S. and working also creates a phosphor trail. But so what? How does that help capture terrorists?

Enter the CIA's old computer connection-tracking program, Total Information Awareness. Congress got hysterical in 2003, defunding it -- or so they thought; but it's widely believed still to be in existence, just shifted under the umbrella of black-ops programs and funded by secret accounts.

Ah, such a lovely trust of the Federal procurement system and the ability of the CIA and other organizations to create an interconnect database system that will do its very own dot connections and spew out the leads and such as it goes.

Now, here is the deal with this bill: it requires scanty evidence to apply for a Z-Visa and the automatic grant of such. Let us see about this in section 601 of the online markup page at NZ Bear's site. For once I will try and spare the dear reader of large amounts of quoted text and cite important page and refernces! I am sure there will still be lots of quoted text, however.

Starting with Section 601 on p. 260 we get who, being here illegally, can apply. Now far be it from me to point out the conundrum of being here illegally being a violation of not only National Law but any number of Treaties as I already did that with this post and this post. Yes someone applying must now demonstrate that they were here illegally for at *least* 180 days prior to 01 JAN 2007 or for 90 continuous days before that date! And what do they need to get in? Here is 601 (2)(g)(2)(A):

(A) In General.--The application form shall request such information as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate, including but not limited to, information concerning the alien's physical and mental health; complete criminal history, including all arrests and dispositions; gang membership, renunciation of gang affiliation; immigration history; employment history; and claims to United States citizenship.

And in (3) is fingerprints added to that. All of this fully documented and cross-checked! And in 601(2)(h)(1):

(1) IN GENERAL- An alien who files an application for Z nonimmigrant status shall, upon submission of any evidence required under paragraphs (f) and (g) and after the Secretary has conducted appropriate background checks, to include name and fingerprint checks, that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible -

(A) be granted probationary benefits in the form of employment authorization pending final adjudication of the alien's application;

(B) may in the Secretary's discretion receive advance permission to re-enter the United States pursuant to existing regulations governing advance parole;

(C) may not be detained for immigration purposes, determined inadmissible or deportable, or removed pending final adjudication of the alien's application, unless the alien is determined to be ineligible for Z nonimmigrant status; and

(D) may not be considered an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3))) unless employment authorization under subparagraph (A) is denied.

(2) Timing of Probationary Benefits."No probationary benefits shall be issued to an alien until the alien has passed all appropriate background checks or the end of the next business day, whichever is sooner.

Yes, you have read that right in 24 hours! In just one business day you have the full and complete backing of the ACLU and, no doubt, various lawyers working for such notables as the American Muslim Union, on your side!

Mind you, even if your papers don't pan out in the long run, the burden of proof is upon the government to 'show cause' why you should be deported, and as you have all the legal rights under the Constitution, you can then tie up the system for months or years in getting any prosecutions done. Show up at 5 pm one day, and 5 pm the next and every Local, State and Federal criminal database, plus database of known terrorists, plus checking out your actual documents to see if you actually are who you say you are, and the fingerprint database (has that finally been reconciled with the rest of the FBI's databases? I mean those folks spent 10 years trying to get a few databases to all operate together and billions of dollars and failed to do so. Twice.), verified your background fully and completely as can be done for someone coming from, most likely, a Nation with scanty computer resources, personnel and other capabilities....

The idea of background checks is that they are: lengthy, thorough and act as a screen BEFORE you give someone goodies to make sure they are who they say they are and are deserving of same. This system is based upon the supposition that they DO DESERVE THEM and that little effort can be put into actually *checking them out*. One is now in the exact position which Dafydd has posited: we cannot screen out bad actors because of the limitations of time placed upon such verification. And since so much falls upon the documentary evidence here, a bit later on, is the sweetened, condensed listing of what is acceptable: anything that establishes their presence, employment, or study, bank records, business records, employment records, labor union or day labor center, remittance records, sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work, that contain (name, address, phone number, nature of relationship), or anything else the Secretary finds acceptable.

I call this aspect of it: the forger's full employment act.

If memory serves DHS and State had to weed out over 6 million incomplete, invalid, false or forged documents and try to verify a good number of them when looking at Visa applicants. That was *only* for Visa applicants, as Citizenship takes some time to go through the processing and weeds out its own bad papers. If the 7 million number for illegal aliens is correct, the absolute minimum number of pieces of bad paperwork to be checked out will be astronomical.

When I looked at the person-to-person banking and business systems that operate for money laundering, the number of connections to organized crime and terrorism are readily apparent. It is now possible wherever any of these informal systems operate to get bank, business, presence, employment, or, indeed, any of the records listed via the person-to-person contact system and have them delivered to you for a cash payment in your Nation of origin. Dafydd does believe that the TIA concept can actually *cover this*:

The reason it was so effective is that it was simply an object-oriented database data-matching application. It was not programmed with any pre-existing biases for one type of connection above the others; it noted and kept track of any and all connections between datapoints -- between Walid the terrorist and Guido the Mafioso, for example. Then it allowed for queries at any level of complexity.

The operators looked for connections where they would not expect to find any. Of course you could find a connection between the Secretary of State and various unsavory political leaders; that's the secretary's job. Nobody thinks Condoleezza Rice is in league with Bashar Assad simply because she met with him during a trip to Syria.

But suppose some dentist in Minneapolis calls Zarqawi in Iraq, then is called by a known terrorist in Pakistan, then is spotted by the FBI having lunch with an arms dealer in Minneapolis, then shows up as a co-signer on a loan to buy an airplane, when the other co-signer is a radical imam operating at a mosque out of Idaho.

Those connections are completely unexpected; why would one lousy dentist know all these people? In fact, that pattern is so suspicious that we should initiate surveillance to see what our "dentist" is up to.

But without TIA, the authorities would never have stumbled across the connections because they cross jurisdictional boundaries: The CIA identifies the terrorists abroad; the NSA records the calls; the FBI is tracking the arms dealer; and nobody is paying any attention to the imam. Without a single, unified database to bring all these observations together, nobody would notice the previously unknown dentist at the center of the web.

Now we take the TIA database... and we add to it the Parole Card and Z visa. Suppose we're looking for Walid Achmed Mohammed, a suspected jihadist who is thought to have sneaked into the United States in 2006 under an unknown alias. Today, we would have no idea where Walid could be found; because he is underground, he could be anywhere, under any name, working for anyone.

We make some educated guesses; let's suppose, just as Hugh fears, that Walid gets himself a Parole Card so he can move about and in and out.

CIA informants report that Walid was spotted at a "terrorism convention" in Pakistan in January of 2008; then another source believes Walid was at a training and planning session at a safehouse somewhere in Madrid in July. But that's all we know.

Under today's rules, that doesn't help us at all. But under the rules established by this bill, the very first thing we should do is query the TIA database to see which holders of Z visas traveled to Pakistan in January 2008 and to Madrid in July of 2008... I'd bet there were not that many. (Check not only direct routes but the roundabout routes that terrorists tend to use; the CIA is actually pretty good at that nowadays.)

Then you take that list of Social-Security numbers, winnow out the obvious non-targets, and plug that into the Z-visa employment database. This will tell you where the eight or nine potential "Walids" have worked in the past year. Since the real Walid has no reason to believe he has been outed, he will probably follow the same pattern... criss-crossing the country carrying messages and money and working for the same set of employers along the way.

By staking out each of those employers around the times he usually shows up, we suddenly have a very good plan for grabbing Walid Achmed Mohammed and hustling him off to Gitmo. And the best part is, neither he nor anybody in his cell would have the slightest idea how we did it!

I have some bad news for this lovely, object oriented system: when things are done at a distance with no record of intermediaries, you will, indeed start to stumble upon irregularities and you will have no idea what they mean. There is this lovely conception that data falls neatly together when it is properly tagged, entered and categorized. I have some bad news for anyone believing this on the Federal side: to cross the number of databases and their networks and security classification levels to do this is impossible.

The DoD, to get some better connectivity, spent 3 years to try and get from 7 different networks, each with their own classification and security constraints down to 5. The number of organizations involved included: NSA, CIA, DoD (Pentagon level), NRO, NGA, DISA, Dept. of State. When I last saw that project it was 2 years behind schedule, over budget and not working to segregate data streams like it should. That was some years back, but points to the Turf War problem and the inability of these actors to all play in the same sandbox.

To get this splendiferous TIA working, which was never Total in any way, shape or form nor designed to receive such large amounts of data but utilize clean data sets that had relatively rigorous metadata standards applied to them. To do *that* to this immigration bill will require all of the following to cooperate closely: DHS (including ICE, Border Patrol, and various other offices), FBI, Justice (Hoover building level, and no it isn't ALL FBI), IRS, HHS, CIA, NSA, DoD, DISA, State, Treasury, All of the State Criminal Databases, various international databases that the US has entree to via Treaty (like that Canadian one that put out bad information on an individual and the Canadian system was so CF'd that they could not even figure out if he was a citizen). Each of these groups comes with multiple databases, with multiple different and often non-agreeing metadata standards, each with their own sign-offs on who can and cannot use the system and at least 3 or 4 different and incompatible security classifications. Excuse me while I apply my background to this and state, definitively, that if you want this system up and working in less than 10 years, you are pipe dreaming.

We will have Quantum Computing before this massive database project gets *started*. People love to wave the magic wand of CIA around and make it out to be some splendid Agency that can work absolute miracles. They cannot even stop National Security leaks from their own Agency and the volume of those and number of operations and agents put at risk from those leaks makes a number of folks wonder exactly *who* they are working for. I would set the funding for this massive computer system in at around $3-5 billion, because of the amount of work and standardization that needs to go on up front before it can even be tested. This will require cross-working database standards, metadata standards, coming up with agreed upon internetworking capability, figuring out what the classification standards will be for the inflowing and outflowing data, finding out which networks need to get some inter-connectivity to them and working *those* issues, and that is before you even decide who can be allowed to have access to the actual, resultant data. That is the glory of object oriented databases: they like to know what the objects actually ARE and have good and clean definitions of them before you start. Meanwhile, for the next decade, you are stuck with multiple, incompatible databases, differing security standards, different computer networks and limited access to the resulting work product and all numbers of Agencies throwing hissy-fits that their turf is being invaded.

Mind you, a decade and $3-5 billion is OPTIMISTIC. I have personally seen more reported on other projects with higher amounts for less result in the recent past in the Federal Government because the lovely folks trying to put a neat and spiffy capability together do not understand the very basics of what it takes to actually get all of those lovely different parts of the government to work together. For something this size the Technical Working Group meeting will be at least 5-15 individuals from each of those groups I mentioned, including separate entourages for the sub-groups as they all are 'stakeholders' in the various systems and will have their work impacted by anything that fiddles with them. To get one relatively minor project going in one Agency, I have held working group meetings that consisted of over 30 individuals. And that was for a project that had high level blessing, which only means the back room knife fights are kept to a minimum.

We will get this splendid system that Dafydd posits the exact same day the HAL 9000 is put online.

Remember: each of those lovely documents needs some sort of tie-back, cross-check and such. These person-to-person banking and transaction systems have wide reach and scope, so the ability to find the disparate datapoints is damned difficult when someone from Syria contacts a peso exchange operator via a local hawala to get documents from, say, Denver, to show that someone has *lived there* and all you need are some relatively minor and obscure residency and employment records. These people are not *fools* who have been outwitting the FBI, CIA and other Federal Agencies for decades: they know how to leave a damned near impossible to find trail that leaves everyone looking legitimate and yet transacts and launders funds on a global basis.

This is before we even factor in the problem that Dafydd's 'Walid' can walk over to Mexico, jet out to Pakistan for a month, be spotted, come back, and have documents that PROVE he has been in the US all this time because he did not go through the border controls and picked up a different passport and visa for Pakistan from a contact on the other side of the border. By circumventing those lovely inputs, the CIA would *prove* that he was in Pakistan but have nowhere else to go because he had used the Transnational Terrorist and International Organized Crime internetworks to his advantage for cash advances, spending, visas, passports and such. And because he is utilizing the criminal side of things and getting false employment records for 'day labor' work that is minimal income it would be extremely difficult to demonstrate that he had *not* been here.

In this, even if the system works, the structural deficiencies of the actual, physical border and transport across it makes the entire concept irrelevent. In point of fact without physical barriers that are impassible and some way of checking for things like light aircraft and ultralights, there is *no way* to make individuals go through the actual ports of entry. And, because of Moore's Law, I will believe in a 'virtual wall' the exact same time that we get a 'virtual bathroom'. No real toilet paper allowed.

I place an actual, real, physical wall *with* sensors at around $5 billion and it would go up a damned sight faster than any data warehouse interconnection concept inside the Federal Government and have the great and good benefit of being armed, stopping illegal flights and having deep pilings to stop tunneling. If we had one of THOSE we could then have good, controlled ports of entry and actually consider this lovely data scheme, or just make enforceable and trackable Z-visas via it. But then if we had an actual, real, physical wall with deterrents of the lethal sort on them we would not have this problem in the first place now, would we?

An Intemperate Immigration Policy

The following is draconian in the extreme, but gets the point across. Do excuse any offense given, but I love my Nation first and we must have the right to HAVE a Nation unhindered by others before any other right can be upheld. Such was put forth by Jefferson and Franklin and the signers of the Declaration. Such is put forth by our Constitution as a statement of what We the People are to do so as to have a Nation. I will have no business, municipality or foreign individual set the Immigration Policy of this Nation, for that is what is happening and I do not like it in the extreme.

Thus my apologies for intemperate view. But I take offense at what is being done to this Nation we hold as a People, together.

Introduction
As given in the US Constitution, the People of the United States have granted to Congress the following powers: Article I, Section 8 (in part):

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Section 9 (in part):

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

The States may not utilize such powers, especially those granted in: Article I, Section 10 (in part):

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

To Execute these powers the President is granted power to do so in: Article II, Section 3 (in part):

"; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

The Judicial is granted power of sole oversight and adjudication in: Article III, Section 2 (in part):

";--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

As all companies, corporations, organizations or other groups duly operating in the United States by grant of Law falls into all of these restrictions, including all subsidiaries of foreign companies, corporations or other groups, all such must operate under these Powers granted by the People to the Congress. All US Citizens, Nationals and those who have entered the United States by those Laws set by Congress are also bound by the US Constitution within the United States without exception.

Any corporation, group, organization or individual that passes any bill, law, contract, agreement or in any way sets to not abide by the Laws of the Land are found to be breaking the covenant between the People and their government and the powers they have assigned to it.

From the date of this passage, all corporations, groups, organizations or individuals that have passed bills, laws, contracts, agreements or is in any way not abiding by these Laws put forth by Congress, administered by the Executive and overseen by the Federal Courts, shall be found to be operating outside the confines of the agreement of the United States Constitution.

Part I
All businesses, corporations, organizations, or other duly constituted group within the confines of the United States found guilty within these statutes covering these powers, of knowingly and willfully breaking with them by their actions, and in non-adherence with these Laws in any event, shall have those things closed and sold at auction and all intellectual property made over to the Public Domain. Such sales shall pay off all debts of those organizations with any excess going to the National Treasury. Any parent group is disbarred from said auctions. If parent company is found to be in violation, and subsidiaries are not, then they are considered to be new entities under these provisions, but are disbarred from participating in said auctions.

There are no exceptions for religious institutions of any sort for any reason as this Law addresses adherence to the US Constitution and sets forth no religion before any other in this regard.

All individuals found guilty within these statutes covering these powers, who have knowingly and willfully broken such Laws, shall suffer penalty of a minimum of 10 years imprisonment and shall not exceed 25 years per each count.

Part II
Any and all municipalities, counties, cities, towns, or States found in violation of these statues covering these powers is declared in secession from the Union. All Federal aid, oversight and help will be immediately discontinued. Such governments that sponsor such shall be abolished and temporary military government installed.

Those found to have voted for passage of such things found in violation of the United States Constitution shall be imprisoned for life without possibility of parole if they give themselves up willingly and in a peaceful manner. Those that do not willingly give themselves up shall be tried for Treason.

Citizens within such areas are to swear Oath to the United States Constitution and agree to that in writing. Such Citizens will be subject to loss of their franchise rights for life. Minors are granted their franchise upon reaching Majority.

Part III
All individuals from foreign Nations who have entered the United States illegally or who have overstayed their visas or who have otherwise sought refuge without consent of the government of the United States have two weeks to leave. Those that are in poverty may petition to be given one-way tickets to their Nation of Citizenship up to two weeks from passage of this bill.

Thereafter, those still found to be in the United States, save those suffering dire health needs or incapacity, when found shall be tried and sentenced according to the Laws of the United States as set forth by Congress. All fines and prison sentences for any and all crimes committed within the United States are tripled. After such trial and detainment such individuals will be deported.

Those that are too ill or incapacitated to move shall be cared for until they can be transported, or other means found to take them to their Nation of Citizenship. All costs for such care will be billed to that Nation, if the US has regular relations with it.

For those Nations that the US has branded as "Rogue", "Outlaw" or "working with Terrorists", such individuals may apply for asylum. After thorough background check, not to exceed two years in length, and with no problems to their record, they are to be granted 'landed immigrant' status.

Part IV
To be born a Citizen of the United States a child must have at least one parent who is a Citizen of the United States.

Part V
NORTHCOM is to be given full control over border security and integrate that set of security controls with the Borders Services. The Border Services, ICE and other organizations will only need to track down anyone in the Nation illegally and serve at the ports of entry to the United States which shall be the ONLY designated entry points for the Nation. NORTHCOM will ensure that the borders are fully and finally secured for all land based approaches and for sea/air space via the High Seas regulation power granted to Congress.

Additionally a zone of lethal force is included for securing such border areas, and any Citizen who has property that is impacted by such shall be paid full value for their land. This zone shall be 100 feet in depth starting from the border at minimum and a maximum of 300 feet in rugged terrain or other offset to otherwise cover such terrain in unpopulated areas. This zone fully covers the border from sub-surface to the edge of the atmosphere and is within the control of NORTHCOM.

All Civilian transport needing to pass this zone shall do so through approved methods worked out with the Dept. of Transportation and NORTHCOM.

Any water needs shall be identified at the *start* of the project and pumping and sanitation ability integrated with the border protections.


Thus ends the proposal.

Notice that it singles out NO nationality, race, ethnic group and is blind towards religious affiliation.

Notice that this uses the actual powers granted from We the People to the Federal Government.

As Congress has the power and responsibility to fund such things, and in that World War II saw 50% of GDP devoted to creation of war material, it is expected that is something of an immediate upper limit on funding needs and that, in actuality, something much smaller can be done. I place a permanent border security set-up at around $5 billion, or the cost of the superstructure of a nuclear aircraft carrier *before* it is outfitted and finished. Concrete and steel rebar is *cheap* and so are sensors and they offer a combined effectiveness that allows for remote observation with a lessened need for physical patrols. Throw in some close-in weapon's systems for active interdiction and you get something that really does give folks a second thought about crossing the border. Even at $50 billion it would be a good 10 year project... and cost far less than trying to save the sinking City of New Orleans.

After 21 years of doing nothing, then saying that nothing has been done and using *that* as an excuse for the absolute incompetence of ALL INVOLVED since 1986 and is reprehensible as it puts forth that Congress does not value its job, protecting the Nation or actually honoring its committments to We the People. As a Nation we actually have no idea of what WILL WORK as NOTHING has been proposed nor tried by Congress.

Those proposing that NOTHING WILL WORK must demonstrate exactly all the things that have been tried and then either find a way forward to something that works OR to then put forth that the United States is not only undefendable but not worth defending. Right now, compared to 'entitlements', a miniscule portion of the budget is given to actually securing the Nation. "Open Borders" means we have NO National identity worth having and that we then expose ourselves to every thug, terrorist and bureaucrat to harass us, remove our rights or just plain kill us as individuals if we speak up against things that go wrong in the Nation. If you really *want* a borderless world, then why don't you start at some of the really horrific areas that could benefit from an influx of freedom? North Korea would be a prime place. Iran is in need of that. Venezuela looks to be in need, too. As does Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Vietnam... you might get killed going to those places and supporting such things.

Or just get arrested and thrown in jail.

Like in Mexico.

Perhaps if the rest of the world was freer, then proposing for a Free People to put their freedom and liberty to make a good life at risk might gain some traction. But the rest of this sorry planet's so-called sentient population doesn't seem to be up to that task. A bit of education might help them. Perhaps, instead of protesting *for* open borders those wanting such could head to these other Nations and *teach* them the basics of freedom and liberty, instead? That would help your fellow man quite some bit.

And the Nation, come to think of it.

Until that lovely future time when all of mankind is Free with personal Liberty to prosper and invest the fruits of their labors as they see fit, this Nation will need to safeguard ITS Liberties and Freedoms. And abide by the Laws we hold in Common so as to *have* a Nation. And if you don't like that and propose that this Nation is in some way so incredibly horrid that it is not worth having, may I point you to those other Nations I mentioned and ask you what would happen if you tried to espouse such things in those places?

And then answer: why do you want to give THEM free entry to destroy the Liberty and Freedoms we currently have?

For that is *exactly* what those proposing "open borders" seek.