Sunday, March 19, 2017

Why America's Enemies Fear the AH-64E “Guardian” Helicopter?

See new $3.4 contract details after opening comments
Published on Jan 28, 2017
Views: 65,631
The U.S. Army will spend billions of dollars over the next decade to upgrade its iconic Apache helicopters to the latest—and most likely, last—variant, the AH-64E “Guardian.” Already battle-tested in Afghanistan, the Apache Guardian reflects the latest trends in U.S. military doctrine—namely improved response and loiter time, interoperability with drones, and the capability to engage maritime targets.

The Apache stands amongst a number of weapon systems such as the M1 Abrams tank and the F-15E Strike Eagle that entered service in the 1980s and proved their mettle in the 1991 Gulf War. Apaches fired the first shots of that conflict took out Iraqi low-band radars with Hellfire missiles, clearing the way for the initial strikes by F-117 stealth fighters. A total of 277 Apaches were deployed in the conflict, claiming the destruction of 278 Iraqi tanks as well as numerous so other targets—a high “rate of return” by the standards of most weapons systems. Only one Apache was lost in combat.

Attack helicopters are responsive and relatively precise means of unleashing heavy firepower where it’s needed most—but unlike main battle tanks or jet fighters, even an armored helicopter is vulnerable to low-tech machine guns, antiaircraft cannons and even rocket-propelled grenades, let alone surface-to-air missiles. In later conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, AH-64s continued to prove their deadly effectiveness, but couldn’t avoid losses from ground fire, including during an infamous raid against the Iraqi Medina Division that a strike group of thirty-one Apaches badly shot up by heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft cannons.


The AH-64E (AH-64D Block III) is an upgraded version of the original AH-64A, which was developed for the US Army, to replace the AH-1 Cobra. The Apache helicopter saw combat during a number of recent wars.
The Apache Guardian is fitted with a mast mounted antenna with updated Longbow fire control radar. This attack helicopter can fire Hellfire 2 air-to-ground missiles in fire-and-forget mode. Other improvements include targeting, battle management system, cockpit, communications, weapons and navigation systems. The gunship is also fitted with a 30-mm cannon.
Deliveries of the Apache Guardian began to the US Army in 2011. A total of 634 AH-64D helicopters will be be upgraded to the AH-64E standard. This attack helicopter was approved for export. It is also in service with Saudi Arabia and Taiwan. India, Indonesia, Iraq and South Korea ordered this helicopter.


$3.4Bn Contract for 268 AH-64E Apache Helicopters
First ''E'' model multi-year contract ensures readiness, cost savings
Boeing [NYSE: BA] and the U.S. government recently signed a five-year, $3.4 billion contract through which the Army, and a customer outside the U.S., will acquire the latest Apache attack helicopter at a significant savings to taxpayers.
This is the first multi-year agreement for the Apache “E” variant. The Army will receive 244 remanufactured Apaches while 24 new ones will go to the international customer, Saudi Arabia.
"This agreement is great news for our Army, our soldiers, the American taxpayers, our industry partners and numerous international partners,” said U.S. Army Col. Joseph Hoecherl, the Apache project manager. “It is a direct result of the professional dedication and diligent efforts by government and industry teammates to provide the much needed capabilities of the world's best attack helicopter - the AH-64E Apache - at a fair and affordable price that results in year over year savings to the taxpayer. In the hands of our trained U.S. soldiers, the Apache's technologies and resulting capabilities are essential to Army operations around the globe."
Boeing builds the Apache here in Mesa.
Deliveries of the “E” model began in October 2011.
Seven customers outside the U.S. have ordered this variant. Including this latest version, the U.S. and 15 other countries have relied on the Apache during the past three decades.
“The Apache has made a tremendous impact in the defense of the nations that have flown it for the last 37 years,” said Kim Smith, Boeing Attack Helicopters vice president and program manager. “Our team understands the responsibility we have to deliver the best aircraft on time at an affordable price every day, and we are committed to maintaining that well established tradition of excellence.”
Source : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) - view original press release

InThe Cubby-Hole @ Sloan Park: Big Biz or Big Bad Debt for Mesa Taxpayers?

Do Stadium/Ballparks Save Cities?
Baseball stadiums are expensive to build and property prices have always been high, especially considering the amount of parking needed to accommodate 15-20,000 people.
As a result, teams want public financing, tax abatements, and all the other ills that crony capitalism promotes.
Paid for with higher taxes, increased public indebtedness, and highway improvements, the stadiums/ballparks were sold to city, county, and state governments as a form of economic development and urban regeneration.
None of that has happened most of the time - here in Mesa it's questionable with another pitch for another stadium using the same playbook to hoodwink taxpayers to finance the games of millionaire sports team franchise owners or to finance some dodgy real estate development schemes of one kind or another 
According to Bloomberg in 2013, sports stadiums don’t fulfill development goals because they’re empty much of the time, the jobs they create are low-wage, and they divert spending on food and beverages from other businesses... retail sales-and-use taxes do get a boost if it's only for the one month of spring training.
Stadium deals are no better than ordinary economic development funds.
Back in December of 2012, the New York Times found that states and cities spend up to $80 billion a year on economic development incentives with nothing much to show for it in the way of stronger economies or more and better paying jobs...
as long as team owners use threats to move a beloved team as emotional blackmail against an entire city—and public officials think can win votes on bad deals—sports franchises will continue to feast on public funds like a slugger on hanging sliders.
Matthew M. Robare is a freelance journalist based in Boston who writes about urbanism and history. This article was supported by a grant from the Richard H. Driehaus Foundation.

Cubs mean big business, and big debt, for spring training home Mesa
ByContact Reporter Chicago Tribune
When the Chicago Cubs opened spring training play last month in Mesa,  nearly 15,000 far-flung fans packed the city's 3-year-old stadium, celebrating the defending world champions after more than a century of shared futility.
For Mesa, a city of 475,000 which bankrolled the $100 million ballpark to keep the Cubs from bolting to Florida, ownership in the team's success is a source of civic pride, an economic opportunity and a major league debt.
Much larger cities than Mesa have balked in recent years at funding sports stadiums and indeed, in Chicago, the Cubs are privately funding the $800 million renovation of their team-owned mothership, Wrigley Field, and part of the surrounding neighborhood.
 But beyond a new upscale hotel, adjacent development has come slower than some had hoped, and while the stadium's tax burden falls on Mesa, the economic benefit flows across the border to neighboring Scottsdale, Tempe and other Phoenix-area towns.
Whether the one-month exhibition season provides enough of a boost to justify building the stadium remains the $100 million question.
Faced with potentially losing its most prominent tourist attraction to Florida and unable to secure state funding, Mesa stepped up to the plate, backing the deal through a municipal bond sale. The Cubs got a state-of-the-art spring training facility and increased stadium revenue, juiced by higher ticket prices. The city got the bill.
"The Cubs were in position to negotiate a very lucrative deal, and we're not begrudging that at all," said Mesa Mayor John Giles. "There still is a significant amount of economic activity that occurs outside of the ballpark, in the restaurants and hotels and everything. It's very significant for us."
HOW SIGNIFICANT?
Some history

In 2009, the Ricketts family bought the Cubs and Wrigley Field from Tribune Co. (now Tribune Media) in an $845 million deal, launching a long-term plan to renovate the club and the century-old ballpark.
In Mesa, the Cubs threatened to exercise a 15-year lease option and move spring training to Florida after the 2012 season. Two Naples businessmen proposed building a 15,000-seat stadium, expansive training facilities and an adjacent Wrigley Village commercial district, with beach access nearby.
"It was a very attractive deal," said Crane Kenney, president of business operations for the Cubs. "We were flattered to be that attractive to Naples."
While Mesa could not match the beach access, the Cubs agreed to stay if they could get the rest, including a new stadium, adjacent training facilities and a "Wrigleyville" commercial complex.
Mesa first looked to fund the project through state legislation that called for a surcharge on Cactus League tickets. The so-called Cubs tax met with opposition from other club owners — notably White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf — and died on the vine.
Under the gun, Mesa agreed to finance the $84 million stadium and $15 million in infrastructure improvements itself, a plan approved by voters in November 2010.
"The political appetite outside of Mesa for stepping up to build the stadium was not there," said Giles, a lawyer and former city councilman who was elected mayor in August 2014. "So the city of Mesa just took the whole thing on its shoulders."
ADD on the back of taxpayers
In 2013, Mesa sold $94 million in excise tax bonds to cover the cost of the Cubs stadium and an $18 million renovation of Hohokam for its new tenants, the Oakland Athletics.
The bonds mature in 2027 and 2032, but the city can pay off the bonds earlier, in 2017 and 2022.
How is Mesa planning to pay off the debt?
Back in 2010 Mesa was talking about using a combination of existing funds, selling off city-owned land, and an increase in the hotel tax to raise $99 million in construction costs.
Mesa is planning to pay off the debtholders by selling nearly 11,400 acres of distant Pinal County farmland it acquired during the 1980s for water rights it no longer needs.
In December 2013, Pinal Land Holdings, a Scottsdale-based developer, agreed to buy the entire property for about $135 million, closing on 1,613 acres for $24 million.
The deal included an annual option fee of about $4.9 million to buy the balance of the land in two phases — by June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2019 — with the remaining 9,734 acres priced at $89 million.
The city expects the stadium bonds to be paid in full by 2022, according to Michael Kennington, Mesa's chief financial officer.
Mesa's commitment to carry the full debt for Sloan Park comes at a time when some cities are turning away from publicly financed pro sports facilities.
Most recently, San Diego voters in November rejected a referendum to allocate hundreds of millions in tax dollars toward a new stadium for the Chargers, prompting the football team to move to Los Angeles.
In Chicago, the Ricketts family is spending $800 million of its own money for the ongoing renovation of 103-year-old Wrigley Field and the surrounding neighborhood.
Bob Leib, a Wisconsin-based financial consultant to professional sports teams and owners, said taxpayer fatigue and shifting economic priorities have made publicly funded stadiums a harder sell.
"A politician doesn't want to be known as the guy who put into place a funding mechanism that funneled public dollars to billionaire owners," Leib said.
Bob Kammrath of the Mesa Taxpayer's Alliance, a now-defunct grass-roots group that led the failed opposition to the stadium funding referendum in 2010, still believes Mesa made a mistake by financing Sloan Park.


NEW POLITICAL TRICK in Arizona State House
The bill would allow creation of “community engagement” districts of up to 30 acres. Within them, up to half of the state’s share of sales taxes generated from retail sales and hotel stays would be dedicated to paying the bond debt for new sports or entertainment facilities. It also would allow an additional 2 percent district sales tax to be applied to all purchases within the district, with those revenues also dedicated to defraying the cost of facility construction.
This is a bit of a hybrid bill, combining super-TIFs (where half of existing sales and hotel taxes would be kicked back to pay teams’ construction costs) with a new sales tax surcharge in the area around the new sports venue. The math on how much of a subsidy this amounts to gets dicey — virtually all of a TIF would be cannibalized from sales and hotel tax receipts elsewhere in the state, but a slice of a sales tax surcharge could come out of a team owner’s pockets, depending on how big the surcharge area is ...the new super-TIF districts could be applied to help build any new sports and entertainment facilities. The only limit is that state money would only be allowed to pay for half of construction costs up to $750 million ...

Sebastain Junger On Society, Tribes + Battlefield Trauma >


Published on Mar 19, 2017
Views: 251
An American war correspondent with a degree cultural anthropology who who came home from Iraq to discover he had short-term PTSD, Junger has some important points to bring up concerning how military react once the horror observed first hand over and why.

New Assignment > Charity Scams

Dishing it out again
Published on Mar 19, 2017
Views: 14,376
The first of three special reports for Comic Relief.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

NOW OPEN: Nominations 2017 Historic Preservation Awards

Nominations requested for Historic Preservation Awards
03-14-2017 at 3:19:46 PM 
Source: City of Mesa Newsroom      
The City's Historic Preservation Board continues to seek nominations for Mesa's Historic Preservation Awards for Outstanding Achievement. 
Nominations must be submitted by Monday, April 24 at 6 p.m.
The awards, which can be presented to an individual, group or organization, are in the categories of
Archaeology,
Adaptive Reuse,
Education and Outreach,
Landscape Preservation,
Local Preservationist,
Rehabilitation and Restoration,
Individual Lifetime Achievement and Stewardship. 
The 2017 recipients will be honored at a City Council meeting in June.Any individual is welcome to submit a nomination.
If you have questions about completing a nomination, contact Mesa Planning Director John Wesley at (480) 644-2181 or john.wesley@mesaaz.gov.

Nomination forms are available online at
www.mesaaz.gov/about-us/historic-preservation.

Since 1998, the City has recognized more than 50 citizens for their contributions to historic preservation in Mesa.

Public Information and Communications
Contact: Kevin Christopher
Tel. 480-644-4699
kevin.christopher@mesaaz.gov

 

One outstanding potential nominee
Historic Preservation and Adaptive Re-Use:
A Delicate Balance

“When you strip away the rhetoric, preservation is simply having the good sense to hold on to things that are well designed, that link us with our past in a meaningful way, and that have plenty of good use left in them.”~ Richard Moe, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Preservation and/or rehabilitation of our significant historic buildings is incredibly important. In their glory days, these buildings were symbolic of progression towards a bright future; today they are windows to the past and a lasting connection to city legacies.
One such building in Mesa, Arizona  is the Historic Post Office, also known as the “Federal Building”.
As indicated in Mesa’s Historic Property List: “The Federal Building was built in 1937 by the Federal Government Department of Treasury to become Mesa’s first 1st-class post office, and was one of the finest buildings in the City at its completion.”
Through the years,the post office experienced a series of modifications and functions. The federal government’s most recent use of the building was to house the local U.S. Forest Service offices before the building was transferred to City of Mesa ownership and was subsequently recorded on Mesa’s Historic Property Register in 2004.
An adaptive reuse of this historically significant building has been planned by the City along with the architectural team of Saemisch Di Bella Architects and Historic Streetscapes, led by Ron Peters AIA, who is a preservation architect. Current plans are in flux . . .
One of the projects in their extensive portfolio is the Mesa Center for Higher Education with a project date of 2012-2013
 
SDA’s Mesa Downtown Adaptive Reuse Project.
Saemisch Di Bella Architects built our business on producing sensitive adaptive-reuse projects, and we’re proud to have completed a number of these in our own historic downtown including the building we own and occupy at 48 W. Main Street. Built in 1895 and originally known as the Barnett Building, it’s one of the oldest in the area. Other projects completed include the Arizona Museum of Natural History, the C.W. Berge Building, the Nile Theater, and the offices at 101 W. Main, as well as tenant improvements for Sweet Cakes Café and Nunthaporn’s Thai Cuisine restaurant. For those interested in the history of Mesa’s downtown, please check out the Mesa Historical Museum website,


Source: http://www.adaptivearchitectsinc.com/understanding-the-background-of-architecture-industry/

 

Friday, March 17, 2017

KEEPING YOU INFORMED > Threats To Privacy

Arizona Committee Passes Bill to Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
PHOENIX, Ariz. (March 16, 2017) – Yesterday, an Arizona House Committee unanimously passed a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations.

The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Arizona, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Bob Worsley (R-Mesa) introduced Senate bill 1342 (SB1342) on Jan. 31.
The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.
SB1342 would require police to get a search warrant based on probable cause before deploying a stingray to locate or track an electronic device. It would also require law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant under existing wiretapping statutes before using a stingray to intercept, obtain or access the content of any stored oral, wire or electronic communication.
The House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee passed an amended version SB1342 by an 8-0 vote. The amendment decreases the time between the issuance of a warrant and notification of the target from 120 to 90 days.
As you can see in the map to the right Arizona is one of the states identified where Stingray and ICSMI is used by local police in Phoenix, here in Mesa and Tucson.
[read more below]


IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS
The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition: The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements.
This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court.
The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.
Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.
“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.
“Yes,” Cabreja said.
As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”
The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.
Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal data bases.
The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.
In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.
According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.
The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.
In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information.
Passage of SB1342 would represent a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT
SB1342 now moves to the House Rules Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the full House.

Some background information
Although manufactured by a Germany and Britain-based firm, the StingRay devices are sold in the US by the Harris Corporation, an international telecommunications equipment company. It gets between $60,000 and $175,000 for each Stingray it sells to US law enforcement agencies.
Critics say the technology wrongfully invades technology and that its uncontrolled use by law enforcement raised constitutional questions. “It is the biggest threat to cell phone privacy you don’t know about,” EFF said in a statement.
“The government is hiding information about new surveillance technology not only from the public, but even from the courts,” ACLU staff attorney Linda Lye wrote in a legal brief in the first pending federal StingRay case (see below). “By keeping courts in the dark about new technologies, the government is essentially seeking to write its own search warrants, and that’s not how the Constitution works.”
“If the government shows up in your neighborhood, essentially every phone is going to check in with the government,” said the ACLU’s Soghoian. “The government is sending signals through people’s walls and clothes and capturing information about innocent people. That’s not much different than using invasive technology to search every house on a block,” Soghoian said during interviews with reporters covering the StingRay story.
Advocates also raised alarms over another troubling issue: Using the StingRay allows investigators to bypass the routine process of obtaining fee-based location data from cell service providers like Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Comcast. Unlike buying location data fro service providers, using StingRay leaves no paper trail for defense attorneys.
A federal judge in Arizona is now set to render a decision in the nation’s first StingRay case. After a hearing last week, the court in US v. Rigmaiden is expected to issue a ruling that could set privacy limits on how law enforcement uses the new technology. Just as the issue of GPS tracking technology eventually ended up before the Supreme Court, this latest iteration of the ongoing balancing act between enabling law enforcement to do its job and protecting the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of citizens could well be headed there, too.
Source: Global Research
The original source of this article is Drug War Chronicle and Global Research
Copyright © Clarence Walker, Drug War Chronicle and Global Research, 2015
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research

Seymour Hersh Blasts Media for Uncritically ... - Global Research

www.globalresearch.ca/seymour-hersh-blasts-media.../5571125
Jan 28, 2017
Hersh also said he is concerned about Trump and his administration assuming power over the vast ...

Stingray Tracking Devices: Who's Got Them, Where Are They Using It?


Published on Apr 23, 2015
Views: 15,165
www.undergroundworldnews.com
The map below tracks what we know, based on press reports and publicly available documents, about the use of stingray tracking devices by state and local police departments. Following the map is a list of the federal law enforcement agencies known to use the technology throughout the United States.

The ACLU has identified 50 agencies in 21 states and the District of Columbia that own stingrays, but because many agencies continue to shroud their purchase and use of stingrays in secrecy, this map dramatically underrepresents the actual use of stingrays by law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators" or "IMSI catchers," are invasive cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell phone towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information.

When used to track a suspect's cell phone, they also gather information about the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby.
https://www.aclu.org/map/stingray-tra...