The Atheist Movement Needs More Scientific Skepticism – Patheos (blog)

Posted on by

This weekend, I spoke at Gateway to Reason, an atheist convention in St. Louis. It was a large gathering of non-believers, including big names like Seth Andrews and David Smalley, but there was still something missing: scientific skepticism.

Many atheists are also skeptics, but thats not always the case. This is something I already knew, but it became even more apparent after my talk on Saturday. The topic was You Dont Have to be a Scientist to Think Like One, and I talked about all that is pseudoscience from acupuncture to UFOs, and everything in between.

I expected most people to be on board, but as my talk progressed it became clear that I had offended a number of audience members by categorizing their particular beliefs as false. After I left the stage, the first person to approach (confront) me was a 9/11 Truther asking me about the missing engine from the plane that hit the Pentagon that tragic day (anyone who asks this question seriously is more of a denialist than a scientific skeptic).

The second person to come up to me, believe it or not, was also a Truther who wanted to know why I believed the official government story about what happened. But they werent the only ones. People who believed in ghosts, psychics, and other assorted woos all came to tell me why theyre right despite a complete lack of supporting evidence.

This is a real problem for the atheist community. Atheism is only important because it often reflects a persons critical analysis of god claims from various religions, but what about when those non-theistic beliefs are the result of anything else? Like being born into an atheist family? Whatever the reason, one thing is clear: many atheists dont ask important questions about other non-religious areas of their lives. They dont apply skeptical scrutiny to certain beliefs.

Its worth noting that the skeptical movement also needs more atheism. At skeptical conferences, its common for people to discourage discussions of religion so as not to offend any believers. This is extremely hypocritical, however, considering religion is one of the first (and arguably the most dangerous) incarnation of pseudoscience.

Dont worry, there is a bright light at the end of this tunnel filled with nonsense. There is a cure for the type of gullibility I saw at Gateway to Reason and have seen for the last 10 years of my career as a secular/skeptical author. Its very simple: scientific skepticism the process of looking for demonstrable evidence prior to forming beliefs.

As I mentioned in my talk at Gateway to Reason, belief in non-religious supernatural ideas is rising even as church attendance falls at record numbers across the globe. More people believe in ghosts and Bigfoot, despite the fact that the nones (those of us who dont associate with any particular faith) are growing at an unprecedented rate. It is more important now than ever to look at these issues critically and skeptically.

I love the stick to atheism! posts I get when I discuss another brand of irrational belief. It reminds me how important rigorous scientific skepticism is.

The good news is Ive seen signs that this is already happening. There is at least some indication that skepticism is being injected into the atheist movement and thats encouraging. For starters, I didnt see any of the speakers at Gateway to Reason fall prey to these pseudoscientific beliefs (that, of course, includes Andrews and Smalley). This means that, if people follow their example, we should be OK, right?

Not necessarily. We need to do more by actively discussing these cousins to religions, demonstrating their harm, and showing people how they result from the same failure to think critically. Fortunately, some people are already doing this. At Gateway to Reason, for instance, Dan Broadbent and Natalie Newell of the Science Enthusiast Podcast did a live show in which they discussed skepticism and pseudoscience.

So, there is hope, and I think ultimately the atheist movement will receive the shot of skepticism it so desperately needs. If it doesnt, it will lose its relevance as people continue to turn away from religion in the Age of Information.

Id like to end with a quote from my new book, No Sacred Cows: Investigating Myths, Cults, and the Supernatural. This is from the chapter called, Blurred Lines Between Atheism and Skepticism.

If youre an atheist, it means you havent fallen for the god gambit, but the existence of deities isnt the only commonly held yet likely false notion. Skepticism and critical thought protect from all forms of faith-based ideas. Although the god question is often one of the most controversial ideas for which we can utilize skepticism, its not always the most relevant one. Thats why its important to stress critical thinking and reason in all areas of life above all else. I want to encourage those who reject the worlds many god claims to apply the same skeptical scrutiny to ghosts, psychics, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, and just about any topic supernatural or not.

Yours in reason,

David

Please support my work here: https://www.patreon.com/DavidGMcAfee. Any amount helps!

Here is the original post:

The Atheist Movement Needs More Scientific Skepticism - Patheos (blog)

Generation Gone #1 review: Patience is a virtue – AiPT! Comics

Posted on by

It would be tempting to fall into a pool of contemporary cliche when describing Generation Gone. It is a story that involves the military-industrial complex, tech geniuses mad with power, transhumanism, broken relationships, societal betrayal, and millennials looking for some measure of justice for the future taken from them. And it would be easy to pick a side and wash the other in judgemental aphorisms about generational misunderstandings and the world in which we live. I have the feeling, however, that this will not be an easy book to cram into a single box, if this debut issue is any indication.

There are pages of Generation Gone #1 where the art and the characters are allowed to just breathe. No dialogue, just portraits of a life stunted by unseen forces, whether that be the cancer striking at a loved one or a mad transhumanist waiting to pounce. In the hard-hitting first issue to this new series, storytellers Ale Kot and Andr Lima Arajo explore the existential crises that come with despair, over confidence, and the loneliness that their main characters feel even when surrounded by those they love.

While working for the secretive governmental organization, known as DARPA, developing the next super weapon of war, tech genius Akio presents his plan to change the human race by using code that, when read, will rewrite the very DNA of the reader, creating true super humans. His Project Utopia is discarded and later confiscated by General West, the seeming head of the program Akio was hired to create, Airstrip One. In his spare time, Akio has tracked three hackers who plan on infiltrating Bank of America to steal back, as Akio puts it to West, what his generation has stolen from them: a future.

The potential for cliche comes to its apex with the disaffected millennial hackers, Elena, Nick, and Baldwin. While their educational history is put into question by West upon learning Akio has tracked the trio, allowing them to hack into a fake DARPA server, it is not remarked upon how these three came by their skills. They come together as longtime friends and lovers, in Nick and Elenas case, each for a different reason, explored in those wordless pages. Elena wakes early, heading to her job as a waitress before going home to care for her cancer-stricken mother. Baldwin, an African-American man, sees the headlines of another black man shot out of unfounded fear. Nick, the narcissist of the group, heads home, walking past pictures of a soldier, perhaps his brother, whose room he passes on his way to a meticulous self-care ritual. Even in their relationships with each other, they are alone.

Our first introduction to Nick and Elena defines their relationship throughout the story. Elena is in love with Nick, but he is concerned with control, wanting to turn her off. Later he threatens to break up with her on the spot should she drop out of the scheme to rob their way out of their troubles. His self-centeredness hurts Elena, but he is her anchor. Whether he is mooring her in the tempest that is her life or dragging her down remains to be seen. Nicks reckless and selfish behavior comes to a head as he nearly costs the team their anonymity while hacking into Akios fake DARPA. He is all about the score, the self, the win. Once behind their computer screens, the three hackers are in their element, but Nick is sucked in by the power he commands literally at his fingertips.

Akio brings up the isolation of technology in his conversations with the essentially analog West, apologizing for ignoring the chain of command, blaming it sitting behind a computer screen. This exploration of the disconnect of technology with reality can be seen as a take on the disconnect we have with each other through social media or as the disconnect between soldiers and the weapons of war through the use of drones and other technology meant to strike from afar.

In the end, as was telegraphed, Akios code infiltrates the trio causing six full pages of Exorcist-level fluid loss. Before the three hackers begin to leak out of their eyeballs, however, the code mesmerizes them. They are pulled to their screens tightly, even when addressing each other, attempting to pull out of the operation. They simply cannot look away. It takes rewriting their genetic code to rip them bodily from their computers and from the malaise that brought them to this point. The desperation, the isolation, the nihilism of the new millennium.

In the end, Generation Gone sets a provocative table. It could have fallen into any number of cliched traps. Instead, it gives the characters a chance to break through the obvious and, for lack of a better word, soar.

Generation Gone #1 review: Patience is a virtue

Is it good?

In the end, Generation Gone sets a provocative table. It could have fallen into any number of cliched traps. Instead, it gives the characters a chance to break through the obvious and, for lack of a better word, soar.

Lets the art do the talking

Gives a generational malaise a purpose

Embraces transhumanism

Just the one "they're millennials" line. It's a really good book, y'all.

Ales KotAndre Limacomic booksGeneration GoneImagereview

View post:

Generation Gone #1 review: Patience is a virtue - AiPT! Comics

Rethinking Radical Thoughts: How Transhumanists Can Fix Democracy – Raddington Report (blog)

Posted on by

On a recent evening at a start-up hub in Spitalfields, London, journalist and author Jamie Bartlett spoke to a small group of mostly under 40, mainly techie or creative professionals about his book Radicals: Outsiders Changing the World. The book, which Bartlett started to research in 2014, before Brexit and Trump, chronicles his time with a series of different radical groups, from the Psychedelic Society who advocate the careful use of psychedelics as a tool for awakening to the unity and interconnectedness of all things to Tommy Robinson, co-founder of the unabashedly far-right English Defence League, to the founder of Liberland, a libertarian nation on unclaimed land on the Serbian/Croatian border, to Zoltan Istvan, who ran as US transhumanist presidential candidate on a platform of putting an end to death. He campaigned by racing around America in a superannuated RV which hed modified to look like a giant coffin, dubbed the Immortality Bus. His efforts were in vain, and illegal, as it turned out: his campaign was in breach of the US Federal Electoral Commission rules.

Bartletts book has been damned with faint praise he has been called surprisingly naive about politics, and defining radical so broadly as to make the term meaningless. The general consensus goes that Bartletts journey through the farthest-flung fringes of politics and society is entertaining and impressively dispassionate, but not altogether successful in making a clear or convincing case for radicals or radicalism. But at the talk that night Bartlett challenged what he sees as the complacent acceptance and defense of our current political and governmental systems, institutions and ideas, of the kind of technocratic centrism that prevailed throughout the global North until very recently. Perhaps they need some radical rethinking. Many of the radicals Bartlett spent time with may be flawed, crazy or wrong literally, legally and morally but they can also hold up mirrors and magnifying glasses to political and social trends. And sometimes, they can prophesize them

Bartlett began the evening by saying, If democracy were a business, it would be bankrupt. A provocative statement, but one that he backs up. He pointed to research showing that only 30% of those born after 1980 believe that it is essential to live in a democracy. That rate drops steadily with age. A closer look at the research around peoples attitudes reveals widespread skepticism towards liberal institutions and a growing disaffection with political parties. Freedom Houses annual report for 2016 shows that as faith in democracy has declined so too have global freedoms 2016 marks the 11th consecutive year of decline in global freedom. While a lot of attention has been given to violent polarization, populism and nationalism rising out of anger at demographic and economic changes, Bartlett suggests that perhaps comfort and complacency are culprits too, and he is not the only one: only last weekFinancial Times columnist Janan Ganesh took up a similar theme.

What are the fringe ideas of today that might become ideas of the future? We cannot, of course, say, but Bartletts point is we should be paying much closer attention to the crazed hinterlands of human thought. In 2015 transhumanist Zoltan Istvan was talking about using technology to fundamentally change what it is to be human to augment our fleshy bodies with steel and silicon. One of Istvans favored refrains is the transformative effect of artificial intelligence on the way that we work, and the way that we live. In the past six months, it has become near-impossible to read a newspaper or a magazine without stumbling across a take on how AI is set to change our economy. Istvans other hobby-horse is immortality, and using technology to drastically expand the human lifespan ultimately to the point where it increases so fast that time cant catch up with us and we reach a kind of escape velocity. Putting Istvans quasi-religious language aside, increases in life expectancy and in our expectations of medical care pose real challenges to which we will need to find practical and political solutions. Kooky as they may seem, fringe movements have ideas, and ideas that may prove proleptic or prophetic.

Perhaps we are too attached to our traditional ways of doing things our political institutions and our centuries-old processes. Technology and society have completely transformed in the past fifty years and the way we engage with politics through technology has changed beyond recognition in the past year alone, but as Bartlett pointed out, our formal politics has not changed in two hundred years: our parliamentary democracies, our two-party systems. Young people today are deeply disdainful of labels of personal style, of sexual identity, and of political leanings; the labels no longer seem to fit. Younger generations are not apolitical on the contrary and likely do not reject the tenets of democracy, but rather, the way it is framed. The core ideas institutionalized 200 years ago are not the wrong ones, but their implementation might benefit from an injection of radical thinking from those firmly outside the mainstream.

Continued here:

Rethinking Radical Thoughts: How Transhumanists Can Fix Democracy - Raddington Report (blog)

Trump Declines to Affirm NATO’s Article 5 – The Atlantic

Posted on by

Updated at 5:07 p.m.

BRUSSELS President Trump did not explicitly endorse the mutual-aid clause of the North Atlantic Treaty at the NATO summit on Thursday despite previous indications that he was planning to do so, keeping in place the cloud of ambiguity hanging over the relationship between the United States and the alliance.

Speaking in front of a 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial at the new NATO headquarters, Trump praised NATOs response to the 9/11 attacks and spoke of the commitments that bind us together as one.

But he did not specifically commit to honor Article 5, which stipulates that other NATO allies must come to the aid of an ally under attack if it is invoked.

The only time in history that Article 5 has been invoked was after the September 11 attacks, a fact that Trump mentioned. The memorial Trump was dedicating is a piece of steel from the North Tower that fell during the attacks.

NATO, Meet Donald Trump

We remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on September 11, 2001, Trump said. Our NATO allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the Article 5 collective-defense commitment.

Trump did refer to commitments, saying of the memorial, [t]his twisted mass of metal reminds us not only what weve lost, but forever what endures: the courage of our people, the strength of our resolve, and the commitments that bind us together as one. ... We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side. And we will never waver in our determination to defeat terrorism and to achieve lasting prosperity and peace.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening that Trump would use the speech to finally endorse Article 5. Though top members of his administration, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence have done so, Trumps refusal has shaken NATO allies.

Trump has been a harsh critic of NATO overall, at one point calling it obsolete. He has repeatedly criticized other allies for not paying their fair share of the defense burden of the alliance. He has pushed the alliance to do more to combat terrorism. At the NATO leaders summit, counter-terrorism and burden-sharing will dominate the agendanot Russia.

Trump did mention the Russian threat in his remarks on Thursday. The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATOs eastern and southern borders, he said.

But he spent the bulk of the speech haranguing the other members of the alliancestanding only feet from himfor not meeting their spending obligations.

Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense, Trump said. We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even two percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness and the size of forces, he added. Two percent is the bare minimum for confronting todays very real and very vicious threats.

Trump even took a slight dig at the new NATO headquarters, which are being unveiled in time for this leaders meeting. I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost, Trump said. I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful.

After the speech, televisions in the press center at NATO showed Trump in discussion with a group of other leaders including NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

NATO had sought to make Trumps inaugural visit as smooth as possible. The conferences two topics of focusspending and counterterrorismare the two main thrusts of Trumps critique of the alliance.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, speaking to the pool reporters after the speech, said that despite the presidents omission, Were not playing cutesy with this. Hes fully committed.

If you are standing at a ceremony talking about the invocation of Article 5 after 9/11 and talking about that, that is a pretty clear indication of the support that exists for it, Spicer said. Ive seen some of the questions Ive gotten from you guys, but theres 100 percent commitment to Article 5.

In a press conference on Wednesday before the summit, Stoltenberg had downplayed Trumps silence on Article 5. He said that because Trump has expressed support for NATOwhich he declared no longer obsolete during Stoltenbergs visit to Washington last monthhe has also of course expressed strong support of Article 5, because Article 5, collective defense, is NATOs core task.

At a press conference after the leaders meeting on Thursday, Stoltenberg was asked repeatedly about Trumps refusal to verbally commit to Article 5. He maintained his position, arguing that Trump has shown sufficient commitment to NATO, and thus to Article 5. President Donald Trump dedicated a 9/11 and Article 5 memorial, Stoltenberg said. And just by doing that he sent a strong signal. We have had a clear message from the U.S. administration, he added, citing assurances he received from top administration officials as well as from Trump himself in meetings. Its not possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to Article 5.

Asked if Trumps demands about burden-sharing had troubled any allies, Stoltenberg said they had already heard Trump being blunt on spending before. We have to invest in defense not just to please the United States but we have to invest in European defense because it is in our own interest to do so, he said.

Continued here:

Trump Declines to Affirm NATO's Article 5 - The Atlantic

Russia’s Military Drills Near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression – New York Times

Posted on by

Even more worrying, top American military officers say, is that the maneuvers could be used as a pretext to increase Russias military presence in Belarus, a central European nation that borders three critical NATO allies: Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

The great concern is theyre not going to leave, and thats not paranoia, Gen. Tony Thomas, the head of the United States Special Operations Command, told a national security conference in Aspen, Colo., in July.

Peter B. Zwack, a retired one-star Army general who was the American defense attach in Moscow from 2012 to 2014, said: First and foremost, the messaging is, Were watching you; were strong; weve learned a lot; dont mess with Russia.

Western military officials caution that the United States and Russia are not on the brink of war. But they expressed concern that the heightened Russian military activity could lead to unintended confrontations.

For this installment of the Zapad maneuvers, a Cold War relic revived in 1999 and held again in 2009 and 2013, Russia has requisitioned enough rail cars to carry 4,000 loads of tanks and other heavy equipment to and from Belarus.

Airborne,

Assault and

Special Forces

New units deployed after 2013.

Units existing in 2013

redeployed and/or expanded.

Units existing in

2013 and after.

New units deployed after 2013.

Units existing in 2013

redeployed and/or expanded.

Units existing

in 2013 and after.

The Russians already have about 1,000 air defense troops and communications personnel stationed in Belarus, and logistical teams are surveying training sites there. By mid- August, advance elements of the thousands of Russian Army, airborne and air defense troops that are to participate in the exercise are expected to arrive. The rest of the force is expected to reach Belarus by early September ahead of the Zapad exercises, scheduled for Sept. 14 to 20.

The United States is taking precautions, including sending 600 American paratroopers to NATOs three Baltic members for the duration of the Zapad exercise and delaying the rotation of a United States-led battle group in Poland.

Look, well be ready; well be prepared, said Lt. Gen. Frederick B. Hodges, the head of United States Army forces in Europe. But were not going to be up on the parapets waiting for something to happen.

In 2014, Russias stealthy forays into eastern Ukraine and its rapid capture of Crimea were seen as skillful exercises in hybrid warfare, a combination of cyberwarfare, a powerful disinformation campaign and the use of highly trained special operation troops and local proxy forces.

But there is nothing subtle about the tank-heavy unit at the heart of the coming Zapad exercise.

The First Guards Tank Army, made up mainly of forces transferred from other units, including elite motorized and tank divisions near Moscow, has an extensive pedigree. The unit battled the Germans during World War II on the Eastern Front and eventually in Berlin before becoming part of the Soviet force that occupied Germany. In 1968, it participated in the invasion of Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring.

After the end of the Cold War, the unit was withdrawn to Smolensk, near the border with Belarus, before being disbanded in 1998. But it was reconstituted by Mr. Putin to give the Russian military more offensive punch and present a visible demonstration of Russian power.

That name was chosen for a reason, said Philip M. Breedlove, a retired four-star Air Force general who served as NATO commander. It sends a very clear message to the Baltics and Poland.

In addition, the Russians have fielded a new motorized division near Smolensk, close to the border with Belarus, which could be used in conjunction with the tank unit. In combination with the highly mobile tank army, that force has about 800 tanks, more than 300 artillery pieces and a dozen Iskander tactical missile launchers.

That is more tanks than NATO has in active units deployed in the Baltic States, Poland and Germany put together, not including armor in storage that would be used by reinforcements sent from the United States, noted Phillip A. Karber, the president of the Potomac Foundation, who has studied Russian military operations in and around Ukraine.

There is only one reason you would create a Guards Tank Army, and that is as an offensive striking force, General Hodges said. This is not something for homeland security. That does not mean that they are automatically going to do it, but in terms of intimidation it is a means of putting pressure on allies.

Mr. Karber cautioned against exaggerating the First Guards Tank Armys capability, noting that not all of its units were fully manned and that some of the most modern tanks earmarked for it have not arrived.

But if fully deployed into Belarus, he said, it will be a powerful offensive formation and a way for the Russian military to rapidly project power westward, which is all the more important for Moscow. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that Russian forces lost Belarus and Ukraine as buffers.

Just the presence of the First Guards Tank Army near the Polish border would put NATO on the horns of a dilemma, Mr. Karber said. Does NATO reinforce the Baltics or defend eastern Poland? NATO does not have enough forces to do both in a short period of time. It adds to the political pressure Russia can bring to bear to keep the Baltic nations and Poland in line.

The Russians have also announced that the First Guards Tank Army will be the first formation to receive the T-14 Armata tank, a new infantry fighting vehicle, as well as advanced air defense and electronic warfare equipment.

A more immediate concern, however, is whether Russia will use the Zapad exercise to keep Belarus in line. Belarus has long worked closely with Moscow, and its air defense units are integrated with Russias to the east. But with friction between the nations autocratic president, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, and Mr. Putin have come reports that Belarus is reluctant to host more Russian forces permanently.

As part of the maneuvers, units of the First Guards Tank Army are expected to establish a forward command post in western Belarus, and to hold exercises in training areas near Brest, on the Polish border, and Grodno, near Poland and Lithuania.

Russian officials have told NATO that the maneuvers will be far smaller than Western officials are anticipating and will involve fewer than 13,000 troops. But NATO officials say the exercise is intended to test Russias contingency plans for a major conflict with the alliance and will also involve Russian civilian agencies.

We have every reason to believe that it may be substantially more troops participating than the official reported numbers, Jens Stoltenberg, NATOs secretary general, said in July.

Adding to the concern, the Russians have yet to agree that international observers can monitor the Zapad exercise. American officials have long said that monitoring is important, given the difficulty of Western intelligence in determining whether Russian military activity is merely an exercise or a preparation for an armed intervention.

The United States, in contrast, allowed Russian, Chinese and even North Korean observers to monitor a recent Army exercise, called Saber Guardian, in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria.

At least two battalions of First Guards units, or some 3,000 armored troops, are expected to participate in the Belarus maneuvers. The total number of Russian troops, security personnel and civilian officials in the broader exercise is expected to range from 60,000 to as many as 100,000.

The question NATO officials are asking is whether all of the troops and equipment in Belarus will leave.

Said General Hodges, I am very interested in what goes in and what comes out.

Michael R. Gordon reported from Washington, and Eric Schmitt from Washington and Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, Romania.

A version of this article appears in print on August 1, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Russian Exercise On NATO Border Has U.S. on Alert.

Continued here:

Russia's Military Drills Near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression - New York Times

Your Watch Needs a NATO Strap – Fortune

Posted on by

It's the height of summer and that stainless steel bracelet is making your wrist feel uncomfortable and sweaty. (The leather band isn't so lovely, either.) What you need is a stylish solution worn by British spies and watch enthusiasts alike.

You need a NATO strap.

The NATO strap wasn't developed by the defense alliance of the same name but rather the British Ministry of Defence. (The NATO name came from its stock number.) The design of the strap is perfect for rugged conditions. It's a one-piece strap that slides underneath the case so that the skin never touches metal. It's great on hot days because the nylon wicks moisture away from the skin. It also means the strap will stay on the wrist even if a spring bar pops out.

The real beauty of the NATO is its simplicity. It's inexpensive (though fancier leather variants exist), infinitely adjustable, available in dozens of colors and patterns, and is extremely comfortable on the wrist.

Whether it's an Aston Martin, a vodka martini, or a Rolex Submariner an association with the James Bond franchise makes a product all the more desirable. And how did the most iconic Bond (Sean Connery, don't @ me ) in his most iconic movie (1964's Goldfinger) wear his Rolex? On a NATO strap, as any self-respecting British naval commander would.

The strap only features in the movie for a split-second but it was enough to cement the diver's watch/NATO combination as a classic look.

The humble NATO doesn't care about the social standing or bank balance of its owner. It looks just as good on a $40 Timex Weekender as it does on a $5,000 Omega Speedmaster . It even fits perfectly with sportier haute horlogerie pieces like the Patek Phillipe Nautilus .

As with all things watches you can spend as much or little as you like. I've tried many of the brands available on Amazon and found BluShark's Premium Nylon at around $17 to be the best balance of budget and quality. (Skip anything around the $10 mark, the nylon is thin and the buckles are poor quality.)

For those looking for something more special, Omega has launched eight new NATO straps with a handy online tool to match the strap to your timepiece. Theirs start at $180.

Weve included affiliate links in this article. Click here to learn what those are.

See the rest here:

Your Watch Needs a NATO Strap - Fortune

Black Hawk Down: NATO helicopter has hard landing in Afghanistan; 2 injured – Fox News

Posted on by

Two U.S. soldiers were injured after their Black hawk helicopter made a hard landing early Tuesday.

The crew members suffered minor injuries when their copter crash landed in the Achin District in eastern Afghanistan as a result of a mechanical issue, according to a statement released by NATO.

A U.S. HH-60 Black Hawk suffered a mechanical issue that resulted in a hard landing during operations near Achin, Nangarhar early this morning, The NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan said in a statement. Rescue personnel safely recovered the crew. Two crew members suffered minor injuries in the landing and are receiving treatment at a coalition medical facility.

The aircraft is being recovered and the incident is under investigation.

The Taliban in a statement claimed they opened fire on the helicopter, killing everyone on board. The insurgents routinely exaggerate their gains and casualties they inflict in battle.

The Achin District is the home to hundreds of militants from ISIS-Khorasan or ISIS-K, the Islamic States Afghanistan affiliate. They are the same extremist group that claimed responsibility for the attack on the Iraqi Embassy in Kabul on Monday.

The region is where American troops are supporting Afghan security forces in a campaign against the ISIS affiliate.

This past April, two U.S. Army Rangers were killed kight ISIS in Achin, just weeks after the U.S. Military dropped the Mother of all Bombs, or MOAB on an ISIS cave complex.

Lucas Tomlinson is the Pentagon and State Department producer for Fox News Channel. You can follow him on Twitter: @LucasFoxNews

Go here to see the original:

Black Hawk Down: NATO helicopter has hard landing in Afghanistan; 2 injured - Fox News

How US Allies Undermine NATO – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Posted on by

Wall Street Journal (subscription)
How US Allies Undermine NATO
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Worse, many of these free riders also punish U.S. companies for manufacturing weapons used by the Pentagon to defend NATO allies and other countries. Specifically, several NATO member governments have divested from or even criminalized the ...

Excerpt from:

How US Allies Undermine NATO - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Mike Pence’s Baltics Visit Prompts Hope NATO Will Double Jet Deployment During Russia War Game – Newsweek

Posted on by

Lithuania hopesthe U.S. willdeploy as many as seven air force jets on its territory when European neighbors Russia and Belarus flex their military muscles nearby in the Zapad drill in September, the Baltic news site Delfi reported Monday.

Speaking after a meeting in Estonia withother Balticleadersas well asvisiting U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said she believed Washington would deploy almost twice as many jets as the current NATO commitment to her country.

Read more: Russia suggests NATO troops wont join its tank Olympics because they are not ready for the challenge

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Lithuania and Estonia both currently host four foreign air-force jets on their airfields. a measure intended to protect NATOs airspace in the Baltic, in an area that directly borders Russia. Grybauskaite said she and other Baltic leaders were happy to see the U.S. supported them not only in words but in real deeds.

Pence pledged U.S. support for NATO allies in the Baltic region, though it was not immediately clear if he had told Grybauskaite about the prospective U.S. deployment.

The three Baltics are the only former Soviet republics currently in the alliance. Since Russias annexation of Crimea and backing of insurgents in Donbas, both territories in ex-Soviet state Ukraine, the Baltic states' worryabout a similar scenario in northeastern Europe has peaked.

Currently, more people in each of the three countries fearwar more than extremist attacks. Officials in Vilnius, Lithuania, are concerned about the upcoming Zapad military drill, fearing Russia may act as it has before and announce a tide of overlapping military drills to run in parallel, dramatically increasing the scale of its military activity.

Lithuanias Defense MinisterRaimundas Karoblis has called the drill a simulated attack on NATO in the Baltics, though Russia denies that the drill will be offensive in character or lack transparency.

Each of the Baltics and Poland have a multinational NATO battalion deployed on their territory to serve as treadwire in the face of Russias own, more numerous, westernmost forces. Lithuania has requested that the U.S. deploy air defense missiles on its territory as part of these security assurance measures.

Read the rest here:

Mike Pence's Baltics Visit Prompts Hope NATO Will Double Jet Deployment During Russia War Game - Newsweek

ShadowBrokers leak probe looking at NSA insiders: report – The Hill

Posted on by

Investigators believe the ShadowBrokers leaks were from a National Security Agency insider, thewebsite CyberScoop reports.

Since August of last year, the ShadowBrokers have leaked files apparently stolen from the NSA, primarily source code for NSA hacking tools along with some additional files.

One set of files leaked by the group contained tools to hack into the Windows operating system. Those tools were eventually used in the devastating international ransomware attacks known as WannaCry and NotPetya.

WannaCry infected between hundreds of thousands and millions of systems, causing such damage to the United Kingdoms hospitals that some patients were turned away. NotPetya caused significant damage to a major Russian energy firm and the U.S.-based pharmaceutical giant Merck.

Citing multiple sources familiar with the investigation, CyberScoop reports that ex-NSA employees have been contacted by investigators concerning how the ShadowBreakers obtained their cache of files.

The report claims that the leadingtheory is that an inside actor was at the helm but that other theories are still in the mix, including a foreign hacker.

Sources also told CyberScoop that the investigation "goes beyond" Harold Martin, the NSA contractor arrested for hoarding classified documents at his home last year.

The ShadowBrokers claim to have leaked files to raise interest for a planned sale of the remaining cache of documents. Currently, the group is offering a subscription, leak-of-the-month service.

See the original post:

ShadowBrokers leak probe looking at NSA insiders: report - The Hill

Posted in NSA

NSA whistleblower Snowden: VPN ban makes Russia ‘less safe and less free’ – ZDNet

Posted on by

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden argues that Russia's decision to outlaw VPNs is a "tragedy of policy".

Edward Snowden has laid into the Russian government for banning the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and other tools that people can use to circumvent censorship and surveillance.

Russian president Vladimir Putin signed the law on Sunday, prompting a Twitter tirade from Snowden, the US National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower who has been sheltering in Moscow since 2013.

Snowden called the decision a "tragedy of policy" that would make Russia "both less safe and less free". He also linked the government's move to China's crackdown on VPN technology, which led Apple to pull dozens of VPN apps from its Chinese App Store over the weekend.

"Whether enacted by China, Russia, or anyone else, we must be clear this is not a reasonable 'regulation,' but a violation of human rights," Snowden wrote, arguing that: "If the next generation is to enjoy the online liberties ours did, innocuous traffic must become truly indistinguishable from the sensitive."

He also appeared to urge tech industry workers to push back against the anti-VPN trend.

Linking Russia's move to China's crackdown on VPN technology, Snowden urged tech workers to be vigilant.

Snowden is these days the president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. In line with his 2013 decision to expose the NSA's mass-surveillance activities, he has long been an advocate of individuals being able to protect their communications and online activities.

However, he has previously warned against people relying too much on VPNs, because their operators may be vulnerable to hacks or subpoenas that could expose users.

The former NSA contractor originally fled from the US to Hong Kong, where he famously started working with newspapers to expose the agency's activities.

Then, while apparently trying to fly to Latin America, Snowden found himself stranded at a Moscow airport because the US had cancelled his passport. The Russians granted him asylum, which was extended for "a couple more years" in January this year.

During his stay there, Snowden has occasionally voiced strong criticism of Russia's surveillance policies.

In mid-2016, when the Russian government introduced a data-retention law and forced communications providers to help decrypt people's messages, the American said the legislation was "an unworkable, unjustifiable violation of rights that should never have been signed".

In 2014, he also denounced the so-called Blogger's Law, which imposed restrictions on what bloggers can write.

The latest law, banning VPNs, will come into effect in November this year. It is mainly intended to stop Russians viewing websites that are on the official state blacklist.

Continue reading here:

NSA whistleblower Snowden: VPN ban makes Russia 'less safe and less free' - ZDNet

Posted in NSA

Ex-NSA boss questions encrypted message access laws proposed by Malcolm Turnbull – ABC Online

Posted on by

Updated August 01, 2017 07:34:44

The Federal Government's bid to force tech companies to reveal terrorists' secret conversations could be unachievable, according to the former deputy director of the US National Security Agency (NSA).

Chris Inglis had a 28-year career with the NSA and now advises private companies on how to detect Edward Snowden-style leakers within their ranks.

He told the ABC the Turnbull Government's bid to access encrypted messages sent by terrorists and other criminals is to be admired, but the technology may prove problematic.

"I don't know how feasible it is to achieve the kind of access the Government might want to have under the rule of law, the technology is tough to get exactly right," Mr Inglis told the ABC.

"But the Government is honour-bound to try to pursue both the defence of individual rights and collective security."

Encrypted messages affect close to 90 per cent of ASIO's priority cases and the laws would be modelled on Britain's Investigative Powers Act, which obliges companies to cooperate.

Technology experts, like adjust professor at the Centre for Internet Safety Professor Nigel Phair, have questioned how these laws would really work.

"From a technical perspective we are looking at very high-end computing power that makes it really, really difficult to decrypt a message on the fly, it's just not a simple process," he said.

Facebook has already indicated it will resist the Government's laws, saying weakening encryption for intelligence agencies would mean weakening it for everyone.

"Because of the way end-to-end encryption works, we can't read the contents of individual encrypted messages," a spokesman said.

But Mr Inglis said technology companies would not need to create a so-called backdoor to messages, but rather allow intelligence agencies to exploit vulnerabilities.

The NSA was criticised in May after it was revealed it knew about a vulnerability in Microsoft's system, but exploited it rather than reporting it to the company.

"Here's the dirty little secret: most of these devices already have what might be technically described as a backdoor their update mechanisms, their patch mechanisms," he said.

"My read on what you are trying to do is to put that issue on the table and say, 'we are not going to create backdoors, but we are going to try and use the capabilities that already exist'."

Mr Inglis said the Australian Government was pushing for legal powers the US Government had not called for.

"We have not had as rich a debate as what I sense is going on in Australia," he said.

"The Government by and large has not stepped in and directed that we are either going to seek a solution, we are still trying to find a voluntary way forward."

When Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the legislation, he noted strong libertarian tendencies of US-based technology companies.

Mr Inglis said Australia was "in the middle of the pack" when it came to cyber security planning.

"You are currently working through how to balance individual privacy the defence of liberty as well as we would say in the states and the pursuit of collective security," he said.

"No-one is exempt from the threats that are traversing across the cyber space at this moment in time."

Topics: science-and-technology, defence-and-national-security, security-intelligence, information-and-communication, turnbull-malcolm, government-and-politics, australia, united-states

First posted August 01, 2017 04:44:23

View post:

Ex-NSA boss questions encrypted message access laws proposed by Malcolm Turnbull - ABC Online

Posted in NSA

Quadruple murder suspect’s trial continues – WTXL ABC 27

Posted on by

Video Gallery - WTXL Video Template

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WTXL)- Jury selection continues Tuesday in the trial of a quadruple murder suspect

WTXL ABC 27's Stephen Jiwanmall reported from the Leon County Courthouse.

Henry Segura has swapped an inmate jumpsuit for a suit.

His trial is getting underway nearly seven years after his girlfriend Brandi Peters and her three children were killed.

The state and the defense questioned more than 50 jurors.

The judge said they'll start narrowing down the field based on how familiar jurors are with the case and whether they have any hardships. In other words, can they serve during the whole trial?

The trial is expected to go for three weeks, and jurors will need to be here for all of it.

In other news this Monday morning, former gang member James Santos, who admitted last week to ordering the murders, is now "unsure" about testifying and invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.

The judge has ordered a competency evaluation to determine whether Santos can offer truthful testimony under oath.

Opening arguments won't start before Wednesday morning. The state says it's working on getting a key witness to testify about when the murders happened.

Check back for later developments.

MOBILE USERS:Download our WTXL news app on yourAppleandAndroiddevices for the latest from South Georgia and North Florida. Also, download our WTXL Weather Now app forAppleandAndroiddevices to get the latest local weather wherever you go.

Follow this link:

Quadruple murder suspect's trial continues - WTXL ABC 27

The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment: In Plain English – SCOTUSblog (blog)

Posted on by

In 1976, in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the bank records of a man accused of running an illegal whiskey-distilling operation were not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though law-enforcement officials did not have a warrant, because the bank records contained only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. Three years later, in Smith v. Maryland, the justices ruled that no Fourth Amendment violation had occurred when, without a warrant and at the request of the police, the phone company installed a device to record all of the phone numbers that a robbery suspect called from his home, leading to his arrest.

These cases are often cited as examples of the third-party doctrine the idea that the Fourth Amendment does not protect records or information that someone voluntarily shares with someone or something else. But does the third-party doctrine apply the same way to cellphones, which only became commercially available a few years after the courts decisions in Miller and Smith? Justice Sonia Sotomayor, at least, has suggested that it should not: In 2012, she argued that the doctrine is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. That question is at the heart of Carpenter v. United States, in which the justices will hear oral argument this fall.

The petitioner in the case, Timothy Carpenter, was accused of being the mastermind behind a series of armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan. Law-enforcement officials asked cellphone providers for the phone records for 16 phone numbers, including Carpenters, that had been given to them by one of Carpenters partners in crime. They relied on the Stored Communications Act, a 1986 law that allows phone companies to disclose records when the government provides them with specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that records at issue are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation; the government does not need to show that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Such requests have become a common tool for police officers investigating crimes according to Carpenter, they are made in thousands of cases each year.

Investigators received several months worth of historical cell-site records, which indicate which cell towers a cellphone connected with while it was in use. Based on those records, investigators were able to determine that, over a five-month span in 2010 and 2011, Carpenters cellphone connected with cell towers in the vicinity of the robberies. After his arrest, Carpenter argued that the records should be suppressed because the government had not obtained a warrant for them. But the district court disagreed, and Carpenter was convicted and sentenced to almost 116 years in prison.

A federal appeals court upheld his convictions. Applying the Supreme Courts decision in Smith (among others), it ruled that the government was not required to obtain a warrant because Carpenter could not have expected that cellphone records maintained by his service provider would be kept private. Carpenter then asked the justices to weigh in, which they agreed to do in June.

Carpenter contends that the disclosure of his cellphone records to the federal government was a search for which the government needed a warrant. At the heart of this argument is the idea that, as Sotomayor has suggested, times have changed, and cellphones are different from the more primitive phone technology and bank records at issue in Smith and Miller. Therefore, he tells the justices, they should not mechanically apply their earlier decisions, but should instead use a more nuanced approach that accounts for both the volume and precision of the data that is now available for cellphones. And, in particular, the fact that a third party, such as Carpenters cellphone provider, has access to his cellphone records does not automatically mean that he cannot expect those records to remain private.

But even under Smith and Miller, Carpenter continues, he would still prevail. To determine whether he can expect his records to be kept private, he contends, the justices should look at whether he voluntarily gave the records to his service provider. Here, he stresses, he did not do so in any meaningful way, because he did not affirmatively give information about his location to his service provider by either making or receiving a call. Moreover, he suggests, another factor that the justices should consider his privacy interest in the information revealed by the records weighs heavily in his favor. Most people have their phones with them all the time, he emphasizes, which means that cellphone records can show where someone was and what he was doing at any given time, even in places most notably, at home where he would expect privacy.

In a friend of the court brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy groups echo Carpenters arguments. In particular, the groups highlight how times have changed since the courts third-party-doctrine decisions in the 1970s. Here, they observe, the SCA gives law-enforcement officials access to much more information than just the few days worth of dialed phone numbers at issue in Smith. Moreover, the data that can be obtained under the SCA are generated simply by the act of carrying a phone that has been turned on: It is created whenever the phone tries to send and receive information, generally without forethought or conscious action by the owner.

For the federal government, this case is a straightforward one, regardless of any new technologies like cellphones that may be involved. First, the government contends, Carpenter does not have any ownership interest in the cellphone records turned over to police by his service providers. Those providers, the government reasons, simply collected the information for their own purposes, which included a desire to find weak spots in their network and to determine whether roaming charges should apply.

Second, the government adds, Carpenter does not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in the cellphone records, which only tell the government where his cellphone connected with the towers, without giving it any information about what was said in his calls a core distinction, according to the government. What Carpenters argument really boils down to, the government argues, is that law-enforcement officers could infer from his service-providers records that he was near a particular cell tower at a particular time. But, the government counters, an inference is not a search.

The federal government also pushes back against Carpenters suggestion that broader privacy concerns weigh in favor of Fourth Amendment protection for his cellphone records. Cellphone users like Carpenter know (or at least should know) how their phones work: by giving off signals that are sent to the cellphone providers through the closest tower. Therefore, the government contends, Carpenter assumed the risk that the information would be divulged to police.

Carpenters argument that cellphone records are somehow more private than the financial information that was not protected in Miller has no real support, the government tells the justices. And the information at issue in Carpenters case is more limited than in United States v. Jones, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the installation of a GPS tracking device on a suspects car, without a warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment. In Jones, the government points out, the police used the GPS device to follow the cars movements continuously for 28 days, allowing them to pinpoint the cars location to within 50 to 100 feet. Here, the government emphasizes, the only information that the government received was which tower connected with Carpenters phone when he was making the calls.

Carpenters case is not the Supreme Courts first foray into the intersection of cellphone technology and the Fourth Amendment. In 2014,the justices ruled that police must obtain a warrantto search information stored on the cellphone of someone who has been arrested. In his opinion for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that todays phones are based on technology nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago and are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy. And the justices made clear that their decision did not render the information on a cellphone completely off limits to police; it just meant that police officers will normally have to get a warrant. The justices may ultimately conclude that, as the federal government argues, giving law-enforcement officials access to information about where a particular cellphone has been is not the same as allowing them to review the kind of detailed personal facts available on the phone itself. But no matter what they decide, their ruling could shed significant new light on what limits the Fourth Amendment will impose on efforts by police to benefit from the significant technological advances in the 21st century.

Posted in Carpenter v. U.S., Summer symposium on Carpenter v. United States, Plain English / Cases Made Simple, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment: In Plain English, SCOTUSblog (Jul. 31, 2017, 10:57 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/07/justices-return-cellphones-fourth-amendment-plain-english/

Here is the original post:

The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment: In Plain English - SCOTUSblog (blog)

Rep. Collins to introduce Second Amendment Guarantee Act – 13WHAM-TV

Posted on by

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said Monday he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women. (WHAM photo)

Honeoye Falls, N.Y. (WHAM) - Opponents of New York state's controversial SAFE Act are turning to Congress for help.

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women.

The SAFE Act - which became law in 2013 - lumps the shotguns and rifles used by hunters and sportsmen in with all handguns, including those Governor Cuomo called assault weapons.

"This is the first time I can remember any legislation that was more harmful to law-abiding citizens - legally - than it is to criminals," said Tim Andrews of SCOPE.

"Governor, you are on notice. We are going to repeal and declare, null-and-void, your SAFE Act," Collins told a cheering crowd at Rochester Brooks Gun Club in Honeoye Falls.

On Monday afternoon, Collins unveiled the bill, which he refers to as SAGA - the Second Amendment Guarantee Act.

"Knowing the members as I do, we will have overwhelming support on this bill," Collins said while visiting the Rochester Brooks Gun Club. "Certainly, the minute they find out that the NRA and SCOPE may well be scoring this related to their Congressional score card, we'll get universal support."

SAGA seeks to limit a state's ability to regulate or impose penalties on rifles and shotguns. For example, the SAFE Act Provision limiting rifles to 10 rounds would be replaced with federal standards which currently do not have a limit. Yet it will have no impact on magazine restrictions for handguns.

"It's a good start and better than trying to wait for the whole enchilada," said Gary Zelinski of Canandaigua. "You've got to do something at this point."

New York courts have upheld the SAFE Act, and Republican proposals at the state level - including one to exempt upstate - will not pass without the support of Assembly Democrats from downstate.

"They have a different view on gun ownership," said Senator Rob Ortt (R) Niagara County. "Many of them equate it with crime. We equate the Second Amendment with freedom."

State Senator Rich Funke said, "This federal legislation may well be what we need to restore the freedom New Yorkers have enjoyed for centuries."

The bill asks conservative Republicans to limit the rights of states, but Collins predicted the bill will have the support it needs. "We're not going to allow a state to stomp on your rights for religion, and we're not going to let them stomp on the Second Amendment, and that's the difference," said Collins. "It is state's rights until they override a constitutional amendment."

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a statement Monday afternoon, blasting the bill as a, "blatant political ploy," and, "disturbing."

View post:

Rep. Collins to introduce Second Amendment Guarantee Act - 13WHAM-TV

Indiana AG: Citizens Don’t Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When … – 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)

Posted on by

On May 9, 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court resolved a long-standing dispute in Indiana:

May a police officer detainan individual in possession of a firearm in order to verify that the person's possession of the gun is lawful?

In Pinner v. State, the court ruled that the mere possession of a gun, without some additional indication that the possession is illegal, does not justify a police officer in conducting an "investigatory stop" of the individual to check to see if the person has a License to Carry Handgun or that the person's possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful. And since the possession of a gun alone does not justify a stop - it also does not justify a search of the individual as part of a "stop & frisk."

Now,Indiana Attorney GeneralCurtis Hillis asking the United States Supreme Court to accept a case that originated in West Virginia, Shaquille Robinson v. U.S..and urging SCOTUS to create a similar rule for the country as a whole thatIndiana adopted in the Pinner case.

In Robinson, a witness called authorities to report that he had seen a man in a parking lot of a 7-Eleven loading a gun and placing that gun into his pocket. The witness gave a description of the armed man and the car he got into in the parking lot. Officers then pulled over the car - purportedly because neither Robinson nor the female driver were wearing a seatbelt - and asked Robinson to exit the vehicle. When asked if he was armed, Robinson did not respond verbally but gave the officer "a weird look." At this point, Robinson was directed to place his hands on the roof of the vehicle,he was searched, and the officer recovered a handgun from his pocket. Robinson was arrested, prosecuted and convictedunder federal law for illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the primary issue was whether police had the legal right to search Robinson during the traffic stop. Robinson argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights, since the police officers were acting only on a tip that he was armed and had no reason to believe that his possession of a firearm was illegal or that he was a danger to the officers at the time of the stop. In ruling that the search was legal and upholding Robinson's conviction, the Fourth Circuit held that the mere possession of a firearm is sufficient for a police officer to fear for his safety and justifies a search of the person who is reportedly armed -- even with no reason to believe that the person's possession of the firearm is illegal.

Now, Indiana is among five states (including Michigan, Utah, Texas and West Virginia) who have filed an "amicus curiae" (friend of the court)brief, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Robinson's petition for certiorari and to review the case.

In the brief, Indiana argues that the Fourth Circuit's ruling "forces an individual to choose between her right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and her right to be free from searches under the Fourth Amendment." In effect, Indiana is now asking SCOTUS to adopt arule very similar to the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court inthis year's Pinner case - that the mere possession of a firearm is not sufficient to justify a stop or a searchof a person by a police officer without some other reason to believe that the armed person is committing a crime or is a danger to the officer.

Hoosiers should be proud that the State of Indiana, through our Attorney General, is taking a stand in support of our Constitutional rightsnot only our right to bear arms, but our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizuresrecognizing that a person who chooses to exercise his Second Amendment rights should not automatically forfeit his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Guy A. Relford

Guy A. Relford is a Second Amendment attorney in Carmel, Indiana. He is also the owner and chief instructor of Tactical Firearms Training, LLC in Indianapolis and the author of Gun Safety & Cleaning for Dummies (Wiley & Sons Publications, 2012). He hosts The Gun Guy with Guy Relford on WIBC radio in Indianapolis.

See the rest here:

Indiana AG: Citizens Don't Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When ... - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)

MMA Legend Royce Gracie on the Second Amendment – Shooting Illustrated (press release) (blog)

Posted on by

If youve heard of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, mixed-martial arts or the UFC, the reason is Royce Gracie. In the early 1990s, his dominance of the octagon brought his familys style of jiu-jitsu into the American mainstream, and the martial art has become immensely popular around the world ever since. In addition to his hand-to-hand combat skills, Gracie is also a fan of firearms and the Second Amendment. Editor-in-Chief Ed Friedman sat down with Gracie to discuss his career, his love of freedom and his interest in guns.

SI: How did you get interested in firearms?

Royce Gracie: Growing up in Brazil, my dad had a few guns on our farm. Its part of martial arts. Sure, they say its empty hands, but so many styles use weapons, so its part of the martial arts culture. When I came to America and saw the freedom that we have, I was blown away. Back in the early days, we had a friend who would take us to the range, and wed shoot 100 rounds through a .45 ACP 1911. Our goal was to make the bullseye disappear, and I got the shooting bug. Shooting is an art. You need to know what youre doing, how to be safe, to recognize the skill needed to control that power. Its a lot like martial arts in that way.

SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?

Royce Gracie: What if theres more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If its just one guy whos not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if theres more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if theres a terrorist attack? Ive got a mentality that Im going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if hes got a gun, thats suicidal if Im not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, its not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.

Attackers arent going to make it a fair fight. They launch surprise assaults; they try to take you out to get to your family or your property. Its not the octagon. Theres no referee. And if he pulls a weapon, hes not just trying to fight mehes trying to kill me. At that point, youd be crazy to try to go hand to hand. I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that.

SI: Tell me a little about the situation in Brazil as it pertains to gun ownership and crime.

Royce Gracie: Brazil never had the degree of freedom we have in the U.S., but you used to be able to buy some guns. There were restrictions, but there were shops we could go to. Then, they essentially banned civilian ownership guns in what they said was an effort to fight crime. That resulted in the criminals arming themselves to the teeth. I mean, they had RPGs and machine guns. They get it from corrupt officials. Violence got out of control after that. It was like the law switched to protect the bad guys. So at the same time they disarmed the law-abiding citizens, they made life easier on the criminals. The murder rate went through the roof. Its so bad, the prisoners in jails get better food than the police!

SI: Why do people sign up for your classes? What is it about Brazilian jiu-jitsu that is so popular?

Royce Gracie: The main reason people go to any martial arts school is to gain confidence by learning skills. They may have had something happen to them or seen a situation that they didnt know how to react to. That stays with themthey dont go right away to learn about self-defense, but that thought stays filed away. Then one day a friend will say Hey, Im learning this martial art; lets go check it out. Then they go to class and start to get the hang of it. Its a lot of the same reasons why people buy a gun for the first time. People realize theyre vulnerable, but it often takes a while. Its not like they see a fight and say, I need to learn a martial art, but a while later that thought comes to the front and they sign up for a class. Its really all about the skills you need to be confident. Parents sign their kids up for the same reason; for the confidence that can come with the discipline that martial arts provide.

SI: What can people expect to learn in a Royce Gracie-taught class?

Royce Gracie: I teach them self-defense. I dont teach competition. Martial arts were made to defend yourself. A lot of schools teach you how to score points, but thats not real life. Competition can ruin a martial art. I teach how to defend yourself in a street-fight situation. Why do you buy a gun? Sure, there are a small number of people who want to be the best competitive shooter in the world, but for most of us, its for self-defense. And maybe that leads to competition, which is fine, but thats not why you signed up for a martial arts class or why you bought that first gun.

SI: What drew you to the NRA? How important is the Second Amendment to you?

Royce Gracie: The National Rifle Association is the front line of keeping my right to keep and bear arms. Thats the way I look at it. I really respect the NRA, because I know from experience, from what happened to Brazil, how important the Second Amendment is. It is my right to defend myself, and the NRA makes sure that right will be there. Look what happened when they took those rights away in Brazil, in Venezuelait is vital to keep that right.

Want to take a class with Royce Gracie? Visit NRACarryGuardExpo.com today to sign up for the (limited-space) Brazilian jiu-jitsu class he will teach at the inaugural Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 25 to 27. Gracie will teach paying attendees several moves that could come in handy should you find yourself in a close-quarters criminal attack. He will also be signing autographs at the show. In addition, there will be seminars from world-class instructors like Steve Tarani, Travis Doc T and many others, so you wont want to miss the best event for those interested in self-defense.

More:

MMA Legend Royce Gracie on the Second Amendment - Shooting Illustrated (press release) (blog)

Randy Krehbiel: Lankford says anti-LGBT organization is exercising First Amendment rights – Tulsa World (blog)

Posted on by

U.S. Sen. James Lankford inserted himself on Monday into a squabble between a conservative legal advocacy group and ABC News.

In a letter to ABC News President James Goldston, Lankford lodges his displeasure with a July 12 on-line story that quotes the Southern Policy Law Center's description of the Alliance Defending Freedom as an "anti-LGBT hate group."

Lankford says the story "classified a religious liberty non-profit, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), as a hate group using a standard set by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I found it odd that ABC would designate ADF as a hate group not based on any actual crime or action, but apparently based on their belief in religious liberty or traditional marriage."

Many people, especially conservatives, object to groups like the alliance being classified with with neo-Nazis and reconstituted versions of the Ku Klux Klan as hate groups. Lankford's staff said the majority of ADF's cases are not related to LGBT issues.

The ADF has been very open in its disdain for non-traditional sexual identification, and it's desire to overturn same-sex marriage. Lankford asserts that is the organization's First Amendment right as a matter of religious freedom and free speech.

Its attorneys have spoken about the "deification of deviant sexual practices" and "made-up sexual identity. For awhile, a web site affiliated with ADF said its goal was to "restore the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries."

Lankford says that doesn't qualify as hate speech and that ABC shouldn't have given credence to SPLC's designation of it as such.

"SPLCs definition of a 'hate group' is overly broad and not based in fact or legal accuracy," Lankford writes. "The Alliance Defending Freedom is a national and reputable law firm that works to advocate for the rights of people to peacefully and freely speak, live and work according to their faith and conscience without threat of government punishment."

At issue in the ABC story was a closed-door speech to the group by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the Justice Department's refusal to release information about it.

See more here:

Randy Krehbiel: Lankford says anti-LGBT organization is exercising First Amendment rights - Tulsa World (blog)

Republicans, Don’t Sacrifice Free Speech to Punish the Media – National Review

Posted on by

By a margin of over two to one, Republicans support using the courts to shut down news media outlets for biased or inaccurate stories, according to a recent poll from The Economist and YouGov.

When asked if cracking down on the press in this manner would violate the First Amendment, a narrow majority of Republicans agreed that it does, seeming to create a contradiction. However, a further question gave them a chance to clear the air and reaffirm the primacy of principle over political expediency: Which is more important to you? it asked, (A) Protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories; (B) Punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press; (C) Not sure.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press, versus just 34 percent who support protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories. By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.

On this issue, the Democrats are right. Freedom of the press is included in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: It matters, and there is perpetually an illiberal temptation to extinguish it. Republican politicians will always call CNN and the New York Times biased and inaccurate. Democratic politicians will always say the same about Fox News and Breitbart.

Both sides are right, and it doesnt matter: None of those organizations should be forcibly shuttered. Thats what happens in Turkey or Russia when a newspaper offends the ruling party. In America, if you think a media outlet is biased, your best recourse is to say so, convincing others with reason instead of blocking their access to information you dont like. This way, individuals decide which outlets deserve their trust. The only other option, the one that is apparently favored by a plurality of Republicans, is for the state to make those decisions for all of us.

This would be incredibly dangerous, even under the best of circumstances. Who, after all, can agree on what is or is not biased, or what amount of bias can be tolerated? Republicans correctly complain, for example, that ostensibly neutral fact-checkers like Politifact are themselves biased and sometimes inaccurate. The same is true of judges and politicians. In fact, I remember when every right-wing talk-radio host would decry the fairness doctrine, which also sought to suppress speech under the guise of eliminating bias.

In fact, giving the state the power to shut down media outlets for bias or inaccuracy is an admission of a lack of confidence in our ability to self-govern as a free people. A free people could deliberate and vote without relying on the fist of the state to crush all sources of information that might mislead them.

The proximate cause of the yearning for that fist among Republicans, it is only reasonable to assume, is President Trumps strident criticism of the media. Trump seems to be obsessed with the media, constantly denouncing it on Twitter and elsewhere for crimes both real and imagined. He even called it an enemy of the American people. To some conservatives, this is such a joy to behold that it has almost become an acceptable substitute for tangible accomplishments.

This is a grave mistake. Though it may satisfy a human yearning, punishing ones enemies should not be the purpose of our politics. Conservatives and Republicans have plenty of ideas to improve the country, and they have the power to implement them. From education to tax policy to abortion, we could make America more fair, more free, more prosperous, and more humane. But instead, Trump directs Republican power and attention at CNN and MSNBC.

Ignoring our principles and subordinating the First Amendment to the impulses of the moment, Republican voters, if the poll is in fact representative, seem to have let the desire to punish overwhelm them. This is both an effect and a cause of the Trumpified conservatism that some, including National Reviews own Jay Nordlinger, have warned us not to indulge.

Trump does not speak, you may have noticed, of freedom or tradition or principle. He has little time for imagined republics and principalities in which ought overshadows is. He prefers victory, even if it requires an untraditional and un-conservative approach. Forget principle: To win is now to be virtuous.

It is not hard to see the appeal of this ultimately ruinous mindset. Its viscerally satisfying to punish ones enemies, after all. But American conservatives would do well to remember Nietzsches dictum, and Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. Though the policies we have to enact are more constructive than our impulse to punish the media for its bias, we risk becoming too free from the burden of principle to care.

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

Here is the original post:

Republicans, Don't Sacrifice Free Speech to Punish the Media - National Review

Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions | Local … – The Daily Progress

Posted on by

The limits of constitutionally protected speech and freedom of assembly are being put to the test in Charlottesville.

In less than two weeks, members of the National Socialist Movement, the pro-secessionist League of the South and hundreds of their allies in the Nationalist Front and alt-right movement will gather in Emancipation Park for the Unite the Right rally.

Arranged by self-described pro-white activist Jason Kessler, the rally is expected to also draw hundreds of confrontational counter-protesters who will be able to gather at McGuffey and Justice parks, per event permits recently secured by University of Virginia professor Walt Heinecke.

While the stage for Aug. 12 is nearly set, with massive demonstrations and protesters expected, questions regarding the enforcement of law and order remain.

City officials said they have been working with Kessler to relocate the rally elsewhere because of the number of people the event is expected to draw to the downtown area. Kessler, however, does not want to change venues, according to authorities.

The director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression says the city is allowed to move the event in order to maintain public safety and prevent disruption to traffic and business downtown.

They should be able to relocate it to a more suitable location, said the centers director, Clay Hansen. As long as its for legitimate reasons and they dont try to minimize or hide the rally in some far-off corner of the city.

S. Carolina group moves event to Darden Towe Park

An attorney supporting Kessler, however, says the city is prohibited from doing so.

It would be ridiculously unconstitutional for the city to try to move the event elsewhere on that basis, said Kyle Bristow, an attorney and director of the Michigan-based Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, a self-described nonpartisan civil liberties nonprofit.

The groups board of directors includes Mike Enoch, a white nationalist commentator and podcaster. Enoch will be one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally.

In an email last week, Bristow said his recently founded legal network is quickly becoming the legal muscle behind the alt-right movement. The alt-right is considered a far-right movement that combines elements of racism, white nationalism and populism while rejecting mainstream conservatism, political correctness and multiculturalism.

Two local conservative activists are distancing themselves from Jason Kessler, who invited anti-Semitic and white nationalist speakers to headline his rally.

Earlier this year, according to Bristow, his organization helped coordinate the legal case that led to an Alabama court requiring Auburn University to let white nationalist Richard Spencer speak on campus. Auburn settled the case earlier this year with a $29,000 payout to cover the legal fees of the student who filed the suit, according to the universitys student-run newspaper, The Auburn Plainsman.

In recent weeks, business owners, activists and others have commented on the possibility of violence at the rally, sometimes comparing it to the melees between self-styled anti-fascist protesters and alt-right ideologues at protests in Berkeley, California, earlier this year.

In a letter to city officials last week, Bristow said law enforcement officials could potentially deprive the right-wing activists of their constitutional rights if authorities do not prevent leftist thugs from attacking people at the rally.

If the Charlottesville Police Department stands down on Aug. 12, it would not be farfetched to postulate that the alt-right rally participants will stand up for their rights by effectuating citizens arrests or by engaging in acts of self-defense, Bristow said.

It would be imprudent, reckless, unconstitutional and actionable for the Charlottesville Police Department to not maintain order, he said, adding that anyone who interrupts the rally also could be sued.

Bristow alleged in his letter that Kessler recently was told that law enforcement officials would not have to intervene should left-wing protesters attack the rally attendees. A police spokesman refuted that claim Friday, saying that the department officials met with Kessler and a representative of his security staff earlier this month and discussed several security concerns.

At no time was Mr. Kessler informed officers would not take action against those that attempted or committed violence towards another, said Lt. Steve Upman.

Kessler did not reply to calls and messages last week.

Some suspect that the possible violence could be the result of intentional right-wing agitation, as local activists with Solidarity Cville have recently exposed posts on social media and far-right blogs in which supporters of Unite the Right rally seemed to revel in the possibility of violence and call on others to prepare for a fight.

Republicans and Democrats alike have cast the hardcore conservatives and populists associated with the alt-right movement as racist for its provocative leaders explicit anti-Semitism and unabashed calls for a white-ethno state.

While their beliefs and activism have turned off many, the rallys primary goal of protesting the citys effort to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee has caused some Southern heritage supporters and political moderates to become sympathetic to Kesslers cause.

But the slow revelation that the events extreme far-right elements will be met by liberals, leftists and anti-racists has scared others away.

Business owners say they are concerned for the safety of their businesses and patrons if the rally gets out of hand.

According to Albemarle County spokeswoman Lee Catlin, the organizers of the Patriot Movements planned 1Team1Fight event in Darden Towe Park, which was being relocated from Greenville, South Carolina, have called it off.

Catlin said the organizers reportedly canceled their event because of unknown variables with the opposition.

Earlier in the week, an organizer for the event, who goes by the name Chevy Love on Facebook, said the event was not affiliated with the Unite the Right rally, saying that she did not want to associate with any of the hate groups expected to attend, listing both left- and right-wing activist groups.

Earlier in the week, before the organizers canceled the event in Darden Towe Park, the National Socialist Movement announced that members will be in attendance at the Unite the Right rally to defend Free Speech and our Heritage at the Lee Monument.

In an interview, Butch Urban, the movements chief of staff, said the organization had been planning to attend the event after it was arranged by Kessler earlier this summer.

The event also will draw leaders and followers of other groups in the Nationalist Front, an alliance of groups such as the Traditionalist Worker Party and The League of the South all of which are united in working toward the creation of an ethno-state for white people.

Although National Socialism is typically cited as the definition of Nazi ideology, Urban said his organization is not a neo-Nazi group.

Thats what everybody takes it to be. Thats not what it is, Urban said. National Socialism is about your country and your people come first. You dont support wars around the world and giving billions of dollars to other countries.

As for the calls for a white-ethno state, Urban said multiculturalism has only been pushed down everyones throat in the last 30 to 40 years. Thats not what everyone wants, he said.

Take a look at Chicago, theres a prime example of multiculturalism, he added, citing the citys reputation of having high murder and unemployment rates.

In the decades following World War II, U.S. courts have grappled with the First Amendment questions involving Nazi demonstrations and displays. Many of those cases have determined that Nazi and white supremacist rhetoric is constitutionally protected speech.

And while many object to those ideals, authorities cannot justify restricting speech despite the threat of violence and public disorder a principle known as the Hecklers veto. Both Bristow and local attorney Lloyd Snook recently mentioned the doctrine in recent comments about the upcoming rally.

In First Amendment theory, it is fundamental that a government cannot regulate speech based on its content, including on the fact that some people may be hostile to it, Snook wrote on his law firms website.

Published earlier this month, about two weeks after a North Carolina chapter of the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in Justice Park to protest the planned removal of the Lee statue, Snook wrote that there has been a disturbing complaint about law enforcement being hand in hand with the Klan and white nationalists.

In fact, the city police department is required to preserve order to allow the demonstration to go forward, Snook said. This is not a matter of choice, but of constitutional law.

In his commentary, Snook cited the 1992 Supreme Court decision that invalidated an ordinance in Forsyth County, Georgia, that required fees for any parade, assembly or demonstration on public property.

According to Snook, the Forsyth County government passed the ordinance after a violent civil rights demonstration in 1987 cost over $670,000 in police protection.

Two years later, when the Nationalist Movement had to pay fees to hold a protest against the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the group sued the county.

The case eventually came before the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 opinion decided that the countys ordinance violated the First Amendment. Snook said the court struck down that ordinance because it had the possibility of being applied such that it would cost more to express unpopular viewpoints.

In recent weeks, some opposed to the Unite the Right rally have called on the city to make sure that Kessler pays the associated fees and obtains a liability insurance policy of no less than $1 million that the city requires for special events.

In an email last week, city spokeswoman Miriam Dickler clarified that the city makes distinctions between demonstrations and special events, and that the two are not interchangeable under the citys regulations.

The differences are attributable to United States Supreme Court decisions involving the First Amendment, Dickler said.

According to the citys Standard Operating Procedure for special events, a demonstration is defined as a non-commercial expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (such as picketing, political marches, speechmaking, vigils, walks, etc.) conducted on public property, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Regardless, she said that Kessler has provided a certificate of insurance voluntarily, and that the citys Special Events Coordinator has been communicating with Kessler since he filed the application.

Looking at another Supreme Court case, Hansen, of the local Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said the courts 1977 decision in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case feels closest to what were dealing with here in the city.

The case centered on a planned National Socialist demonstration in the village of Skokie, Illinois, which at the time had a large population of Jewish residents who survived detention in Nazi concentration camps or were related to a Holocaust survivor.

Fearing violence would be directed at the demonstrators who were planning to dress in Nazi-era uniforms with swastika armbands, a local court prohibited the event, an action that the U.S. Supreme Court later found to be unconstitutional in a 5-4 opinion.

In particular, the litigation in that didnt have to do with the march and the gathering itself it was more about symbols, Hansen said, explaining that the Supreme Court had to decide whether Nazi imagery could constitute fighting words, a legal distinction that prohibits some forms of speech that are likely to incite violence.

The court ultimately found that those symbols do not pass that threshold, which has in recent years largely fallen out of favor as doctrinal tool, Hansen said. Instead, the doctrine in recent years has morphed into a new rationale thats based on allowing authorities to stop speech that could lead to imminent lawless action, he said. Its useful if something goes wrong.

While the city could theoretically stop the Unite the Right rally as its happening, according to Hansen, its not a decision to take lightly, he said, adding that its unlikely that authorities will do so.

Its a high hurdle to legally justify stopping a demonstration, Hansen said.

The city has an obligation to handle any crowds that are on site as a result of a lawful and protected speech activity, he said. In a public park, and given the proper permit police are obliged to make sure that the event goes unimpeded.

Concerned that people protesting the Unite the Right could be arrested for participating in an unlawful assembly, Heinecke earlier this month applied to hold demonstrations at McGuffey Park and Justice Park.

At the Klan rally earlier this month, 22 people were arrested on various charges. About half of the arrests occurred after the rally had ended and authorities declared that the hundred or so people still on the street were illegally gathered. Authorities eventually used tear gas to force the crowd to disperse.

The best way to avoid that is to have some free-assembly zones at the parks, Heinecke said. He said the permits will allow the protesters to gather from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Aug. 12. The Unite the Right rally is scheduled for noon to 5 p.m.

Heinecke said there will be programming at the two parks. He declined to say which activist groups and organizations hes collaborating with to contend with Kesslers rally.

Alluding to the countrys legacy as it relates to racism against African-Americans, he said Charlottesville in particular has unfinished business when it comes to racial justice.

I think the city will be the epicenter of a conversation about racial justice in a new era were going toward with changing racial demographics, he said.

Asked about the alt-right activists concern that the nations changing demographics are tantamount to a displacement of white people, Heinecke said it saddens him that they are so fearful.

I think theyre operating out of fear rather than seeing an opportunity to create a diverse and equal society, he said.

Thats a sad thing when theres an opportunity to think about what the United States of America really means.

More here:

Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions | Local ... - The Daily Progress