Search This Blog

Sunday, August 22, 2010

A word about comments here on The Politech Seeker

I have had quite a few visitors here since the start of my blog, but I have only seen one comment by a visitor.  I encourage ALL visitors who visit this blog to post what they think about the articles I find and about my thoughts as well.

Also, please spread the word about my blog.  I want to facilitate intelligent discussion about modern-day happenings regarding politics and technology and how they can affect our way of life now and in the long run.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Peace this time? Israel, Palestinians to talk

WASHINGTON – Plunging into the Mideast peacemaker's role that has defeated so many U.S. leaders, President Barack Obama on Friday invited Israel and the Palestinians to try anew in face-to-face talks for a historic agreement to establish an independent Palestinian state and secure peace for Israel.
Negotiations shelved two years ago will resume Sept. 2 in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. Obama will host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for dinner the night before.
The goal: a deal in a year's time on the toughest issues that have sunk previous negotiations, including the borders of a new Palestinian state and the fate of disputed Jerusalem, claimed as a holy capital by both peoples.
"There have been difficulties in the past, there will be difficulties ahead," Clinton said. "Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles."
Indeed, soon after Clinton's announcement the militant Hamas movement that controls the Gaza Strip, which along with the West Bank is supposed to be part of an eventual Palestinian state, rejected the talks, saying they were based on empty promises.
Winning agreement to at least restart the direct talks makes good on an Obama campaign promise to confront the festering conflict early in his presidency, instead of deferring the peace broker's role as former President George W. Bush did.
Bringing the two sides to Washington for a symbolic handshake also will saddle Obama with one of the world's most intractable problems just when many other things, from a jobless recovery to probable midterm election losses, are not going well.
"This is the Pottery Barn rule for Obama. He owns this now," said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who advised presidents during two decades of attempts at a Mideast settlement.
The breakthrough after a nearly two-year hiatus in face-to-face negotiations brings the two sides back to where they were when the last direct talks began in November 2007, near the end of the Bush administration. Those talks broke down after Israel's 2008 military operation in Gaza, followed by Netanyahu's election last year on a much tougher platform than his predecessor.
Friday's announcement came after months of shuttle diplomacy by the Obama administration's Mideast envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell. It also followed a period of chilly U.S. relations with Netanyahu, primarily over expansion of Jewish housing on disputed land.
Under the agreement, Obama will hold separate discussions with Netanyahu and Abbas on Sept. 1 and then host the dinner, which will also be attended by Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II.
Egypt and Jordan already have peace deals with Israel and will play a crucial support role in the new talks. Also invited is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the special representative of the "Quartet" of Mideast peacemakers — the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia.
On Sept. 2, Clinton will bring Abbas and Netanyahu together for the first formal round of direct talks since December 2008. At that point the parties will decide where and when to hold later rounds as well as lay out what is to be discussed. U.S. officials have said following rounds are likely to be held in Egypt.
In a choreographed sequence of events, Clinton's announcement came as the Quartet simultaneously issued a statement backing direct talks and Netanyahu's office quickly accepted the proposal.
"Reaching an agreement is a difficult challenge but is possible," it said. "We are coming to the talks with a genuine desire to reach a peace agreement between the two peoples that will protect Israel's national security interests, foremost of which is security."
Abbas enters the talks politically weaker than when he negotiated with Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, in 2007 and 2008.
A formal statement from Abbas' office accepting the invitation was expected late Friday. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said he hoped the Quartet and others would work diligently to ensure the one-year timeframe was achieved and would press Israel to end "provocative acts"
"We hope that the Israeli government would refrain from settlement activities, incursions, siege, closures and provocative acts like demolishing of homes, deporting people from Jerusalem in order to give this peace process the chance it deserves," he said.
But in Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri rejected the invitation.
"We ... consider this invitation and the promises included in it empty, and it's a new attempt to deceive the Palestinian people and international public opinion," he said.
Abbas' Palestinians had been balking at direct talks, saying not until Israel froze the construction of Jewish settlements.
Israel had rejected that, saying it amounted to placing conditions on the negotiations, and had been demanding a separate invitation from the U.S. A temporary freeze on Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank is to expire on Sept. 26.
Mitchell said the United States would step in when talks hit rough patches, offering proposals to bridge gaps "as necessary and appropriate."
"We will be active participants," he said.
It is not clear whether the United States would eventually draft its own peace plan or remain primarily a referee. Also unclear is whether Obama would convene his own high-stakes peace summit, in the mold of Camp David meetings that succeeded, under Jimmy Carter, and failed, under Bill Clinton.
 SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_mideast




I'm not too optimistic about these talks.  This disputed territory in the Middle East is more than just political trouble; It's religious trouble as well.  The Israelis feel that they can have the territory over a UN directive after WWII, but it is the home land of the Palestinians.  The first mistake was made after WWII, taking the Palestinian land to start with to put Jewish communities there.  Even back then the Arabs were against it, and rightfully so.  I wouldn't want anyone just to take a part of MY land without my approval (though the UN took a vote and approved the partitioning of Palestine, the Arab League rejected it and lost).  Ever since then they have been fighting over Israel.  The UN obviously did not do enough to foresee this situation back then.  What will have to probably happen is a unification of Palestinian lands, which can result in a harsh coexistence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which is rooted deep in Islam itself.  Perhaps if people can let go of their religious differences long enough to realize that both parties are full of goodness in some way, a peaceful coexistence is possible.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Medvedev talks with Afghan, Pakistani leaders

MOSCOW – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday offered Pakistan support in dealing with catastrophic floods as he hosted the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan for talks on efforts to stabilize the region.
Medvedev began his meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi by expressing condolences over the floods that have killed about 1,500 and affected some 20 million people — or one Pakistani in nine.
"We are mourning together with you and we are ready to provide all the necessary assistance," Medvedev said.
A Russian Emergency Situations Ministry plane delivered relief supplies to Pakistan on Tuesday, and another such flight will be conducted Thursday.
The four presidents are expected to issue a statement after their talks urging stronger international support for the flood victims.
The four-way talks at Medvedev's seaside residence will also focus on fighting terrorism and drugs spreading from Afghanistan. The Russian president has previously held similar talks, seeking to strengthen Russia's clout in the volatile region.
Before the joint meeting, he held separate bilateral talks with Zardari, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Tajik leader Emomali Rakhmon.
"Russia fully supports Afghan efforts to restore civil peace in the country," Medvedev said in televised remarks at the start of the meeting. "We support the Afghan government's fight against terror and are ready to provide support for that."
NATO has urged Russia to provide helicopters and training for the Afghan air force and to train more local police. Moscow has responded that it is willing to help — fearing that a return to power by Taliban extremists would destabilize ex-Soviet Central Asia and threaten Russia's security — but not for free and suggested that NATO pay the costs.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Wednesday that Russia is currently negotiating the sale of about 20 helicopters to Afghanistan and expects NATO to foot the bill. He didn't say how much the deal would cost.
Lavrov also said that Moscow would soon provide a free shipment of firearms for the Afghan Interior Ministry and step up training of its personnel.
Russian officials previously said that they planned to train about 200 Afghan policemen this year.
"We are ready to cooperate," Lavrov said, accordinng to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "The more efficient Afghan law enforcement agencies are in fighting drug traffickers, the better the situation in the region will be."
The Russian support for NATO- and U.S.-led operations so far has been limited to offering transit for railway shipments of non-lethal supplies and air corridors for weapons supplies, as supply routes through Pakistan have come under increased Taliban attack.
Russian officials also have strongly urged NATO and U.S. forces to do more to stem a flow of drugs from Afghanistan to Russia.
Medvedev told Karzai Wednesday that tackling Afghan drugs requires strong international cooperation. "It's our common problem, a problem for all countries of the region, and we must take consistent and coordinated actions," he said.
Afghanistan provides more than 90 percent of the heroin consumed in the world, and the bulk of it flows through ex-Soviet Central Asia and Russia.
The problem of drug abuse is of vital concern for Russia — where cheap, abundant Afghan heroin has helped fuel a surge in addiction rates, and injection drug use has been a key factor in the spread of the virus that causes AIDS.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100818/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_afghanistan_pakistan


I'm glad Russia wants to help the Afghan government's fight against the Taliban.  However, if they are having problems with drug trafficking into their country, NATO should not have to solve that problem, not without Russia's help anyway.  I don't think Russia believes that it is in their interest at this point to conduct helicopter training with Afghan soldiers, and NATO shouldn't have to pay Russia to do it either. 

Monday, August 16, 2010

WikiLeaks says it won't be threatened by Pentagon

STOCKHOLM – WikiLeaks will soon publish its remaining 15,000 Afghan war documents, despite warnings from the U.S. government, the organization's founder said Saturday.
The Pentagon has said that secret information will be even more damaging to security and risk more lives than WikiLeaks' initial release of some 76,000 war documents.
"This organization will not be threatened by the Pentagon or any other group," WikiLeaks founder and spokesman Julian Assange told reporters in Stockholm. "We proceed cautiously and safely with this material."
He said WikiLeaks was about halfway though a "line-by-line review" of the 15,000 documents and expected to publish them within weeks. Assange said "innocent parties who are under reasonable threat" would be redacted from the material.
The first documents released in WikiLeaks' "Afghan War Diary" laid bare classified military documents covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. The release angered U.S. officials, energized critics of the NATO-led campaign, and drew the attention of the Taliban, which has promised to use the material to track down people it considers traitors.
That has aroused the concern of several human rights group operating in Afghanistan and the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, which has accused WikiLeaks of recklessness. Jean-Francois Julliard, the group's secretary-general, said Thursday that WikiLeaks showed "incredible irresponsibility" when posting the documents online.
WikiLeaks describes itself as a public service organization for whistleblowers, journalists and activists.
In addition to speaking at a seminar, Assange was in Sweden to investigate claims that the website was not covered by laws protecting anonymous sources in the Scandinavian country.
He confirmed to Swedish broadcaster SVT that WikiLeaks passes information through Belgium and Sweden "to take advantage of laws there." But some experts say the site doesn't have the publishing certificate needed for full protection in Sweden.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_hi_te/afghanistan_wikileaks

I think this hooligan ought to be found and locked up.  This careless jerk can potentially cost the lives of our troops in Afghanistan and jeopardize our mission in Afghanistan.  Loose lips sink ships, and Mr. Ass's lips ought to be zipped. 

Friday, August 13, 2010

Obama signs $600M border security bill into law

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday signed a bill directing $600 million more to securing the U.S.-Mexico border, a modest election-year victory that underscores his failure so far to deliver an overhaul of immigration law.
The new law will pay for the hiring of 1,000 more Border Patrol agents to be deployed at critical areas, as well as more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It provides for new communications equipment and greater use of unmanned surveillance drones. The Justice Department gets more money to help catch drug dealers and human traffickers.
But the bill fell short by the standards Obama has set for dealing with the immigration problem. In a speech last month Obama reiterated his commitment to a comprehensive approach that would secure the border but also address the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country.
"Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols," the president said then. "It won't work."
Obama signed the bill Friday in a low-key Oval Office ceremony alongside Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. There were cameras present, but no reporters. The action came a day after the Senate convened in special session during its summer recess to pass the bill.
Napolitano said later: "This bill is clearly another step forward on border security, on top of the significant progress that the administration has already made. It is one of the many tools in the toolbox we have constructed along the border."
That wasn't good enough for some immigration advocates, who've criticized the legislation as election-year politics.
"Efforts to overhaul our broken immigration system have once again taken a back seat to appeasing anti-immigrant xenophobes, as Congress passed another dramatic escalation in border enforcement with very little evidence that past escalations have been effective," said Margaret Moran, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens.
Napolitano on Friday blamed Congress, Republicans in particular, for the failure to move forward on comprehensive legislation.
"Look, only Congress can pass a bill," she said. "The president can advocate. He can get them to the table, as he has in the Roosevelt Room upstairs. He can implore. He can provide ideas. He can agree to a framework, as he already has. He can give a major address that spells out what's needed in a bill, but only Congress can pass a bill."
Napolitano said efforts seeking comprehensive legislation would continue.
Although some moderate Republicans have in the past supported such far-reaching legislation, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants now in the country, most in the GOP label that approach amnesty.
"If the president takes amnesty off the table and makes a real commitment to border and interior security, he will find strong bipartisan support," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Friday.
Even past GOP backers of comprehensive immigration bills, such as Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, are no longer willing to lend their support. That's in part because of opposition from conservative primary voters.
Republicans largely backed the border security bill signed Friday even while complaining it didn't go far enough in increasing the number of customs inspectors along the border.
The border security debate has become even more heated since Arizona passed a law directing law enforcement officers to be more aggressive in seeking out illegal immigrants. Although a federal judge has since struck down some of the law's major provisions, it remains a rallying cry for those who say Washington has lost control of the border.
SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_border_security


While this bill is still not enough, it is better than nothing.  Because of our insecure southern border, the Mexican drug cartels have been spreading their filth into the US.  We need a bigger physical fence, more border cops, and more UAVs to patrol the border with Mexico.  No one should be welcomed here illegally.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Claims of Afghan civilian deaths spark protest

KABUL, Afghanistan – A crowd of about 300 villagers yelled "Death to the United States" and blocked a main road in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday as they swore that U.S. forces had killed three innocent villagers, officials said.
NATO forces rejected the claim, saying they had killed several suspected insurgents and detained a local Taliban commander in the overnight raid.
The gulf between the two accounts is a reminder of how sensitive every NATO operation in Afghanistan has become. In Taliban-heavy areas it is hard to distinguish villagers from insurgents and sometimes public opinion turns against coalition forces even when they say they are certain they targeted the correct people.
And while NATO has drastically reduced the civilian deaths it causes, the military coalition still makes mistakes. During a clash in southern Helmand province Wednesday, coalition forces mistakenly killed an Afghan woman as they fired back at insurgents, NATO said in a statement.
In the first six months of this year, 386 civilians were killed by NATO or Afghan government forces, including 41 during search-and-seizure operations such as night raids, according to the United Nations.
The Taliban issued a statement decrying the U.N. report, which said insurgent groups were responsible for 76 percent of civilian deaths and injuries in the first half of 2010.
The U.N. "plays a major role as a propaganda organization for the American imperialism and keeps covering up the blatant crimes of the Pentagon," the group said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Thursday's raid happened before dawn in Wardak province's Sayed Abad district, a Taliban-dominated area where Afghan police can only go with very tight security, according to district police Chief Abdul Karim Abed.
Elders from Zarin Khil village said American troops stormed into a family's house and shot three brothers — all young men — and then took their father into custody, Abed said. Police are investigating the allegations but could not yet confirm or deny them, he said.
NATO called the men "suspected insurgents" and a spokesman, Capt. Ryan Donald, said they drew weapons and pointed them at the coalition troops.
"The assault force engaged the threat, killing the men. After securing the compound, the assault force detained one suspected insurgent," NATO said in a statement.
According to villagers, there was no fighting before the troops entered the house.
"They were sleeping in one room and suddenly the soldiers broke the glass window and they fired on them and killed them," said Mahmoud Khan, a relative who lives in the village.
Early Thursday morning, men from the village started to gather in the main market of Sayed Abad to protest the alleged civilian killings, Abed said. The men blocked the main highway going through the area and burned two trucks belonging to Afghan private security contractors, he said.
Abed said he did not have more detailed information because he was unable to leave the police compound.
"If we go out, maybe fighting will start," he said.
In nearby Paktiya province, meanwhile, NATO and Afghan troops killed more than 20 armed insurgents in an ongoing operation to disrupt insurgents in the area around Dazadran district, the coalition said in a statement.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100812/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

One person's innocent civilians is another person's terrorists.  These tribesmen are so stupid!  I doubt that the soldiers wouldn't have fired without being provoked.  If these stupid villagers are saying that we are killing their friends, and we say we are killing insurgents, we ought to just get rid of all of them.  The enemy is obviously hiding in these villages and I think that these villagers are hiding them from us.  If these stupid villagers would man up and expose the enemy, we wouldn't be having these problems.  But noooooo, we have to whine and complain and shout "death to America" every time they kill someone in our village, whether we liked them or not.

These Afghans are the most spineless people in the world.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

UN: Afghan civilian deaths rise sharply this year

KABUL, Afghanistan – The number of civilians killed in the Afghan war jumped 21 percent in the first half of 2010 compared with the same period last year, with insurgents responsible for the spike, the United Nations said in a report Tuesday.
Shortly after the U.N. released its report in Kabul, two gunmen with explosives strapped to them tried to storm the office of an international security company in the capital. When guards fought back, the men detonated their explosives, killing two Afghan drivers.
The U.N. report showed a reduction in civilian casualties from NATO action, but the overall rise in deaths indicated that the war is getting ever-more violent — undermining the coalition's aim of improving security in the face of a virulent Taliban insurgency.
"The human cost of this conflict is unfortunately rising," said Staffan De Mistura, the top U.N. envoy in Afghanistan. "We are very concerned about the future because the human cost is being paid too heavily by civilians. This report is a wake-up call."
According to the U.N. report, 1,271 Afghans died and 1,997 were injured — mostly from bombings — in the first six months of the year. There were 1,054 civilian deaths in the first six months of 2009.
The U.N. said insurgents were responsible for 72 percent of the deaths — up from 58 percent last year.
In much of the south, people say they are too scared to work with NATO forces or the Afghan government because they will then be targeted by insurgents. And the risk of attack makes travel, running a business or any sort of community organizing or political campaigning dangerous.
The attack on Hart Security in Kabul started with a gunbattle as the assailants tried to shoot their way in to the compound in the largely residential Taimani neighborhood about 3:30 p.m. (1100 GMT, 7 a.m. EDT), said Abdul Ghafar Sayedzada, chief of criminal investigations for the Kabul police.
The Taliban told The Associated Press that they orchestrated the attack.
After the assault, a group of men could be seen carrying a body out of the building toward a waiting police truck. One of the men carrying the body was weeping, according to an AP reporter at the scene.
The attack appeared timed to coincide with the end of the company's workday, Sayedzada said.
Area residents said they heard shooting about the same time as the blast.
"I was about to park my car when I heard gunfire. I turned and saw shooting between the security guards and two other people. They were trying to get in the building," said Mohammad Sharif, who lives nearby. "In the middle of that fighting suddenly there was a big explosion."
One of the security guards was also wounded, Sayedzada said.
The Kabul deaths were not the day's only civilian casualties. Three civilians were killed when their car struck a roadside bomb just outside the eastern city of Ghazni, according to deputy provincial governor Kazim Allayar. And an insurgent-planted bomb killed an Afghan civilian near southern Kandahar city on Monday, according to NATO forces.
De Mistura said militants were using larger and more sophisticated explosive devices throughout the nation.
"If they want to be part of a future Afghanistan, they cannot do so over the bodies of so many civilians," de Mistura said.
De Mistura said that does not dissuade the U.N. from seeking a negotiated peace between the government and the Taliban, but he called on insurgent groups to consider whether they are not hurting their own long-term goals.
"One day, when unavoidably there will be a discussion about the future of the country, will you want to come to that table with thousands of Afghans, civilians, killed along the road?"
Deaths from U.S., NATO and other pro-government forces dropped in the first six months of 2010. The report said that 223, or 18 percent, of the Afghan deaths were due to U.S., NATO and other pro-government forces. That was down from 310 deaths, or 31 percent, during the first six months of last year, primarily because of a decrease in airstrikes, the report said.
Even so, air attacks were the largest single cause of civilian deaths caused by pro-government forces — accounting for 31 percent.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former NATO commander, introduced strict rules on air strikes and called on soldiers to assess the likelihood of civilian casualties before taking any action. His successor, Gen. David Petraeus, has continued the policy.
"Every Afghan death diminishes our cause," Petraeus said in a statement. He also noted that even the increase in insurgent-caused deaths can hurt NATO's effort.
"We know the measure by which our mission will be judged is protecting the population from harm by either side. We will redouble our efforts to prevent insurgents from harming their neighbors," Petraeus said.
Though bombs continued to be the largest killer, there was a large jump in deaths from assassinations, particularly in the last few months.
There were about four assassinations or executions of civilians a week in the first six months of 2009. That jumped to about seven per week in the first six months of this year, spiking in May and June to 18 per week.
"These figures show that the Taliban are resorting to desperate measures, increasingly executing and assassinating civilians, including teachers, doctors, civil servants and tribal elders," said Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch. "Targeting civilians violates the laws of war."
The Taliban has called on its fighters to avoid civilian casualties, but the group pointedly excludes anyone allied with the government from this protection. So mayors, community elders taking foreign money for development projects and mullahs seen as supporting the government have all become targets.
Children have also increasingly become casualties. The report says 176 children were killed and 389 others were wounded — up 55 percent over the same six-month period last year.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, seven Afghan policemen were killed Monday in attacks in southern Helmand province, police officials said.
In Laghman province in the east, seven Afghan soldiers have died and 14 have been wounded in ongoing fighting with insurgents on the outskirts of the provincial capital of Mehtar, said Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry. He confirmed reports that up to 20 Afghan soldiers have gone missing in the province and are in the hands of the Taliban.
(This version CORRECTS percentage in first paragraph and headline and number of civilians killed in 2009 in fifth paragraph.)

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

PERSONAL COMMENTARY:

It is sad when innocent people die, but people seem to forget that this is a war.  Expect civilian casualties.  If those civilians were smart enough, they should have left the warzone to avoid getting killed.  Instead of following this basic rule, we have sacrificed our own soliders to try and save the stupid civilian lives through our flawed rules of engagement.  Sure, the RoE means well, but face it:  By putting civilians first, we are risking the lives of our soldiers against an enemy that hides among the civilians and creates an ambush.  We're not supposed to fight a war to make our soldiers die for Afghan civilians, as the Rules of Engagement have it now.  They are supposed to destroy the Taliban to keep the United States and everyone else much safer.  I wish our commanders in Washington would get a clue as to the situation our soldiers are facing and make swift amendments to the rules of engagement, so that our good men and women fighting overseas can have an advantage over these barbarians.

Surely, World War II could not have been won with the current Rules of Engagement.

MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries for Free!

For you PC Gamers out there, and those who love big robots shooting it out, check out MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries.


This game was originally released by Microsoft 8 years ago, but has been kept alive by the awesome fellows over at MekTek!  The MekTek Development Team has spent countless hours adding new battlemechs and weapons, as well as making changes to the game engine itself, giving MechWarrior the simulation feel it has missed since MechWarrior 2.


Keep track of MechWarrior 4 at MekTek.net.  There will be big changes coming!



Fingerprint sharing led to deportation of 47,000

WASHINGTON – Records show that about 47,000 people have been removed or deported from the U.S. after the Homeland Security Department sifted through 3 million sets of fingerprints taken from bookings at local jails.
About one-quarter of those kicked out of the country did not have criminal records, according to government data obtained by immigration advocacy groups that have filed a lawsuit. The groups plan to release the data Tuesday and provided early copies to The Associated Press.
As issue is a fingerprint-sharing program known as Secure Communities that the government says is focused on getting rid of the "worst of the worst" criminal immigrants from the U.S.
Immigration advocates say that the government instead spends too much time on lower-level criminals or non-criminals.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement divides crimes into three categories, with Level 1 being the most serious. Most of those deported committed Level 2 or 3 crimes or were non-criminals, a monthly report of Secure Communities statistics shows.
"ICE has pulled a bait and switch, with local law enforcement spending more time and resources facilitating the deportations of bus boys and gardeners than murderers and rapists and at considerable cost to local community policing strategies, making us all less safe," said Peter Markowitz, director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
Markowitz's clinic, the National Day Laborer Organizers Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights had requested and sued for the statistics. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released some of the documents late Monday.
Richard Rocha, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman, said non-criminals still may be people who have failed to show up for deportation hearings, who recently crossed the border illegally or who re-entered the country after deportation. He also said it's important to remember that more people commit crimes that are considered Level 2 and 3.
Secure Communities is "a beneficial partnership tool for ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies helping to identify, prioritize and remove convicted criminal aliens not only from the communities, but also from the country," Rocha said.
The Obama administration wants Secure Communities operating nationwide by 2013.
As of Aug. 3, 494 counties and local and state agencies in 27 states were sharing fingerprints from jail bookings through the program.
From October 2008 through June of this year, 46,929 people identified through Secure Communities were removed from the U.S., the documents show. Of those, 12,293 were considered non-criminals.

SOURCE:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_local_enforcement

 PERSONAL COMMENTARY:

 I'm glad that these illegal aliens are being found and deported.  I do agree that the most dangerous ones should be rid of first, but any illegal alien that we get rid of is to the benefit of the American taxpayer.  As a result of illegal residence, taxpayers pay billions of dollars to support these aliens.  Here it is specifically outlined:

 
A report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) cited several interesting statistics based on census data. Some of these facts may be familiar to long-time readers… but I wanted each of you to know the enormous costs placed on the United States…
Our government continues to claim that the war on terror is bankrupting us. But what about these numbers? You do the math…
  • $11 billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
  • Illegal households only pay about one-third the amount of federal taxes that non-illegal households pay.
  • Illegal households create a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion a year. If given amnesty, this number could grow to more than $29 billion.
  • $1.9 billion dollars a year is spent on food-assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
  • $1.6 billion is spent on the federal prison and court system for illegal aliens.
  • $2.5 billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
  • About 21 percent of the population of U.S. prisons is classified as “noncitizens” from Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. About 5 percent is listed as “unknown.”
SOURCE:   http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/how-much-do-illegal-immigrants-really-cost-the-united-states/

Either way we go,  be it amnesty or total deportation, money will be lost, but we will save money in the long run no matter what.

Welcome to the Politech Seeker

Greetings!  This is The Politech Seeker!   

The goal of this blog is to provide political insight and knowledge in modern-day issues all over the United States and the worldAlso, postings regarding advances in technology will be here as well.

I will find news articles from various places all over the internet and post them here, including my personal thoughts regarding the articles.

I encourage visitors to The Politech Seeker to post up their own comments as well, but please be civilized in posting them.  Ultimately the information contained in this blog is meant to inform, enlighten, and intrigue readers.

I hope to find something to post up very soon.  Also, I may change the way the page looks.

I hope you find this blog enlightening.

Thank you.

With kind regards,
HDN