Is this what Wesley Clark endorses?

[Dover]

GREEN, YELLOW OR RED: All passengers assigned color

Monday, January 12 2004 @ 05:50 PM GMT


By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004

Despite stiff resistance from airlines and privacy advocates, the U.S. government plans to push ahead this year with a vast computerized system to probe the backgrounds of all passengers boarding flights in the United States.

The government will compel airlines and airline reservations companies to hand over all passenger records for scrutiny by U.S. officials, after failing to win cooperation in the program's testing phase. The order could be issued as soon as next month. Under the system, all travelers passing through a U.S. airport are to be scored with a number and a color that ranks their perceived threat to the aircraft.

Another program that is to be introduced this year that seeks to speed frequent fliers through security lines in exchange for volunteering personal information to the government.

The two new initiatives will augment a system introduced last week to fingerprint and photograph millions of foreign visitors on arrival in the United States.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

...cont'd

http://www.indiemediamagazine.com/article.php?story=20040112175019550

________________

Acxiom - Clark was on their board of directors.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. –
October 9, 2003 – Acxiom® Corporation (Nasdaq: ACXM) today announced that retired U.S. Army General Wesley K. Clark has resigned from the Acxiom Board of Directors, effective immediately. The Company said Clark originally had hoped to fulfill his duties as a Company Director but that the growing demands of seeking the U.S. presidency had made that impractical.

Acxiom Chairman Charles D. Morgan offered deep gratitude to Clark for his many contributions to the board. Clark had resigned his role as a consultant for Acxiom the day he announced his presidential campaign.

Clark had been a member of the Acxiom board since December 2001

http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA

[wtmusic]

1. What if you don't look good in your color?

Can you take it back? :silly:

[JVS]

2. Do you get to wear a color coded card around in the airport?

Because that would be cool. People could be like, look I got red and then do the Mohammed Ali/ George Costanza "I'm a BAAAADDDD MAANN" thing. Frankly, I'd be insulted if they didn't think of me as a threatening enough presence to warrent a yellow card. Who the hell do they think I am, mother theresa?

[Capn Sunshine]

69. Every member of DU can expect red cards

try to color coordinate

[JVS]

80. Great

[KoKo]

3. Clark still has a financial interest in Acxiom. He has shares in the

Stock so this would certainly benefit him.

[mmonk]

4. For Clark's positions on security

and privacy issues, it might be best to look at what he says concerning these issues rather than looking only at what boards he belongs, stocks he owns, or previous job positions.

[BootinUp]

6. but conspiracies are much more fun n/t

[Clark Can WIN]

66. They ARE more fun!

Clark was on the grassy knoll, with a ray gun.

[retyred]

72. Ray Gun was there?

Cool!


retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[dogman]

73. He went to West Point and so did R.E.Lee

He's from Arkansas. He must have started the Civil War.

[HFishbine]

8. Acxioms speak louder than words.

We have yet to hear Clark reconcile his rheotoric with his actions.

[CivilRightsNow]

70. Oh, just wait a minute..

You mean, you are actually supposed to do the same thing you say?

Holy shit, Batman.

Clark didnt get that memo.

It musta been piled under all the ones from Axciom, Sirva, NED, Stephens...

I know Im missing some....

I mean, it's alot of lies to keep straight.... Right?

[KoKo]

9. Do you mean that "Board Positions, Stocks and Jobs don't tell one anything

about a person. When Wes retired from the Military he could have gone to work for the UN or maybe Sierra Club. He chose to work for and be on the Board of Directors of Companies now involved with "Homeland Security." And, you think this doesn't say anything about him.

Would you agree that Cheney's work and CEO status for Halliburton have nothing to do with his views as Vice President of the US?

[Dover]

11. What he "says" rather than what he "does" and his affiliations?

Are those the narrow parameters for making your own decision...what he SAYS?

[KittyWampus]

29. Affiliations? You Don't Think Airline Security Is Important?

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Are you familiar with the Hart Rudman Report?
Gore's Airline Passenger Report?
The events of September 11th?

Are you satisfied that Name Recogntion is now the only screening system in place?

Of couse Clark had nothing to do with CAPPS II but that wouldn't stop you from trying to smear him would it.

Here is Clark in his own words:

“I was on a lot of corporate boards. And for one of the corporations I signed a lobbyist agreement, and that was the corporation dealing with homeland security. And what I did for them, I helped them. I helped government understand what the private sector could do to make America safe. And I am very proud that I did that, none of my ideas were picked up by this government. I am not surprised by that at all. But I did do my effort. I think after 9-11 every American wanted to do what they could to help, and this company called me up. I had previously turned down an opportunity to work with them and be on their board. They said ‘we really need you.’

“And after three months of helping them for nothing, I said ‘Okay, if you really want to pay me I’ll take it.’ But…um…there is a legitimate function out there, don’t be misled by the labeling. Government has to, people who work in government are working hard hours, and they don’t know everything they need to know, and somebody has to be out there to bridge the gap.

“Somebody has to be able to knock on the door and go in. I took this company in to see the Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill because I used to work for Paul O’Neill when I was a White House fellow. And I said ‘Mr. Secretary, this company can help us track terrorist financing. And we need to get them involved.’ And he listened to it, and he said ‘You’re right.’ Of course nothing was ever done about it. But that’s what I did, and I’m proud I did that because I tried to help our country. Help you and everybody else in the country be safe. So…that’s what it’s all about and…and it’s not a defense, it’s an offense. Every American should try to help their country and that’s what I’m doing.”

[rucky]

12. Sorry, we already fell for that once

"Follow the money" is a tried-and-true guideline. If he divests, I'll believe his words, but no politician gets the benefit of the doubt.

Lessons learned from Bush I & Bush II

[progressivebydesign]

87. I'm sorry, that makes no sense.

Can you see how hypocritical that sounds? He takes the money, helps set the policy, and you say that just because his campaign website says that he cares about personal privacy issues, means that all he's taken money for doesn't really mean anything? From a sheer logic position, it doesn't work.

[KittyWampus]

5. Nice Try At Guilt By Association

Do you believe the Hart Rudman Report or are you familiar with Al Gore's Report on Airline Safety?

Do you believe that Name Recognition is an adequate method of screening passengers?

Clark has nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

His expertise on matters of National Security are unimpeachable as is his integrity.

[QC]

19. Most of the "research" here is nothing more than guilt by association.

Spend five minutes on Google, post eight screens full of random info from sites of varying quality, and then demand that we all "connect the dots."

[Bombtrack]

7. this is so freakin mild, sorry if the govt. reacts to the greatest tragedy

since the kennedy assassination by doing a simple thing like making it harder for the same thing to happen again by using color codes

[KoKo]

13. You have no problem with being assigned a color code because of a

search through your financial, religious and purchasing information?

hmmmm.....sort of reminds me of the "Papers" the Nazi's forced one to have before riding on trains or traveling from city to city.

You don't see the connection?

[slinkerwink]

22. I do.

:-(

[Bombtrack]

41. of course you do

what's bad for Clark is good for the infallable Dean

[rdfi-defi]

10. this is an issue of civil liberties,

so do not expect any meaningfull responses.

as for clark, of course he is for this kind of police state policy. if it lines his wallet at the same time that is a bonus.

[KittyWampus]

25. Except Everything He's Stood For His Entire Career Indicates Otherwise

[John_H]

14. Maybe. I bet the NRA endorses it. And they endorsed Dean.

[JohnKleeb]

16. Sorry this poster isnt a Dean supporter

At least last time I checked wasnt.

[Dover]

18. .........and STILL not! LOL!

GOOOOOOOOOOOOO Dennis!

[JohnKleeb]

21. I remembered correctly

then

[slinkerwink]

15. again, that's why I'm so suspicious of Clark.

[BootinUp]

17. Seems some Democrats would rather run on a *weak on Nat Sec*

platform.

Clark believes in a strong National Security program, he has the expertise to guide us in that pursuit and also to protect our civil liberties.

http://clark04.com/issues/patriotact/

[HFishbine]

23. Seems some "democrats" would rather run roughshod over the Constitution.

It's Bush who links loss of civil liberties with national defense, not democrats.

[KittyWampus]

32. Well, Clark's On Record On Protecting Civil Liberties

as well as caring about tracking terrorists.

Tell me, does your candidate believe terrorists should be able to board airplanes?

[BootinUp]

37. Thats beside the point

or is it?

Clark will not discourage dissent in this country like Bushes administration.

He will not force us to keep the Patriot Act, expand it, adopt CAPPS II, etc.

He believes in discourse and in our constitution to guide us. One of the MAIN reasons he is running is because he is concerned with the direction of civil liberties under Bush.

[HFishbine]

47. I'd like to believe you

Do you have a source that verifies your claim that Clark would not keep CAPPS II?

[BootinUp]

60. Re-read my post please

I said he wouldn't try to force it through like Bush. Clark believes in airing out civil liberties concerns and letting America decide.

I don't see any other candidate with a stronger position in favor of protecting civil liberties than Wes Clark.

Of course you and I have had this discussion before.

[HFishbine]

49. Straw man

Terrorists on planes or survallience dossiers on every American citizen. Are those are only two choices?

[1floridademocrat]

26. And...

it seems that some democrats are convinced that you have to be a former General to be a Democrat thats strong on National Security.

Taking talking points from the RNC lately aren't we?

[BootinUp]

39. I responded to the original post

which strongly leans against any type of system for tracking terrorists that board planes and fly them into superstructures.

I never said anything like what you stuffed in my virtual mouth, thanks.

[The Magistrate]

50. If You Think, Sir, Gen. Clark's Military Background No Asset In The Electi

You have not been paying much attention to how campaigns are conducted, and how people vote, in this country.

Among the people, for better or worse, the Republican Party is seen as generally better suited to deal with matters of national security, and Democratic candidates are accordingly vulnerable where such issues are the ground on which people are deciding their votes.

It will, however, be very difficult to make the usual arguments of naivite and ignorance and pacifism that have proved so effective in the past against Gen. Clark. It is always desirable to deprive an enemy of a weapon he is accustomed to use to good effect: it puts him off his usual game, and forces him to improvise under pressure, which is the breeding ground for mistakes.

[rdfi-defi]

33. that is the only argument clark supporters have

"national security"
it has never been more obvious that we need to curb the military-industrial-congressional-complex. electing a general/corporate executive, and let him continue the current imperialist forien policy, is the worst mistake we could possibly make.

[BootinUp]

42. You distort Clarks platform, policies, beliefs, but don't let that concern

you. e/o/m

[rdfi-defi]

51. it is not a distortion,

that is where clark's allegiances lie.

[BootinUp]

56. que theme from twighlight zone -eom-

[rdfi-defi]

48. we could make the nation much more secure by

allowing, instead of detering, democracy and self determination around the world.
we could make the nation much more secure by insisting on having intact civil liberties, so the peolpe can stand up to the corpritists who threten our nat. sec. from within. we could make the nation more secure by having a truly transparent investigation into events of 9-11, allowing for adjustments that make sense not just tranforming into a police state before we even know what happened. we could make the nation more secures by having an opposition party that actualy will oppose the majority when it should be done. we could make the nation more secure..........

[BootinUp]

57. So you agree with Clark then.

I'm glad you familiarized yourself with his stances.

[rdfi-defi]

74. i am familiar with the war in yougoslavia,

clark was in command of that war. based on that, i do not think what i posted as grounds for making the nation more secure applies to clark. has he stated on record that he will repeal the pat. act.? so on and so forth

[BootinUp]

88. He will immediately repeal parts on search and seizure and

Ask for a full review by Congress and American citizens of the Patriot Act.

One of the reasons Clark was motivated to run for office is he is very concerned about the direction of both our foreign policy and our civil liberties.

for more...
http://clark04.com/issues/patriotact/

[Hoppin_Mad]

78. Hey ! I've heard that before -eom

[Kolesar]

20. Hell, the gov't spies on peace activists, they might as well track them

I guess if you are not guilty of anything, then you should not have anything to fear--is that it?

[HFishbine]

24. You got it

Welcome to the New American Patriotism.

[slinkerwink]

27. where they run deep background checks on you, and give you a color card

before you even step on the plane. Wtf? I thought that there already was a state list of ex-cons and suspected terrorists at airports to check off passengers' names against. Now if we're arrested for public brawls, or minor offenses, we get stuck with a color card?

[Dover]

28. He didn't even resign from his position until OCTOBER of 2003!!

Clearly he has no issue with Conflicts of Interest...or sees none.

[KittyWampus]

You Mean When He Starting Running For Office?

It must stink when you have to try so hard to smear a Candidate.

[slinkerwink]

30. and he still receives a financial renumeration from Axicom!

[Dover]

36. ...which means he was participating in decision-making until just

recently. So I think it's likely he DOES support the color-coding info-gathering functions outlined in the original post.

[KittyWampus]

40. Prove He Had ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT

Otherwise you are smearing a Candidate for some unknown reason... and doing a poor job of it.

[HFishbine]

58. Okee Dokee

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7380-2003Sep26?language=printer

His envolvement with the government on behalf of the company was so direct that he had to register as a lobbyist. But I'm sure you knew that already.

[slinkerwink]

61. yup......no responses from that guy

:shrug:

[Tinoire]

81. I am constantly amazed

One would think this was the first time that had been posted at DU.

If Clark supporters would just start owning up to who they're supporting we would make a lot of progress instead of spinning our wheels and getting bogged down in accusations that people are making this stuff up.

The spin just makes Clark look even worse than he aldready does.

[Killarney]

31. This is Clark's stance

"I'll call on Congress to fully review each provision of the Patriot Act, study the ways in which each has been used in practice, and eliminate those provisions that unduly threaten our civil liberties."

:thumbsup:

[slinkerwink]

34. yet, he worked for Axicom to compile a dossier on every woman, man, and

child in America which you see being carried out through this color-coding system in this article. How can you trust what he has to say?

[BootinUp]

45. Another one of your inside knowledge posts

Got it on tape? record of any kind?

How Acxiom data will be used or if at all, has yet to be determined. You suggest that any connection at all is evidence that Clark does not respect our civil liberties, I reject that, as does Clark, a man whose word is backed up by his record. Check his record out sometime before you call him a liar again.

[slinkerwink]

62. look at post #58

thanks.

[BootinUp]

67. Like many many public officials (including Howard Dean)

Clark wanted to participate in the process to insure Americans are safe from future Terrorists attacks. I do not deny that. What I deny is your characterization of exactly what he believes and promotes. In the same article you could have read this:

Clark also has met on the company's behalf with officials at the Department of Justice, the CIA, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration and Lockheed Martin Corp., the defense contractor that is heading up CAPPS II.

Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts.

In a meeting at the Department of Transportation in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.

.............

Shall I go and google up some statements Dean made after 9/11? All Americans are concerned about terrorist attacks. Clark has not publicly pushed for anything but more discussion on this issue. What he said behind closed doors is not something you or I can say. Seems the Washington Post thinks Clark had our privacy concerns on his mind.

[Tinoire]

83. Dean worked for Acxiom? Dean worked for CAPS II?

or the Markle Task Force on National Security in the Information Age?

Go dig up whatever you want on Dean. Though he is NOT one of my preferred candidates, he has never run on terror or a resume; he's run on solid accomplishments as an established Democratic politician. There's a lot more to Dean than campaign rhetoric and position papers we're expected to take at gullible face value.

Also Dean didn't go campaign for the war with Powell at the 2003 World Economic Forum in Davos.

[Turkw]

82. Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy

interests and the need for security."

And that IS what needs to be done. If you bring to the national level, an all or nothing argument: Bush's overreaching vs. no security- the Democrats WILL LOOSE.

The real debate is HOW to balance these two very important issues. I don't want another Oklahoma bombing before the next Timothy McVeigh gets identified. The funny thing is that domestic terrorists then to be Right Wing fringe, and these are the guys you want to protect?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Have you got a better plan in mind, Dover?

Or anyone else?

Anyone got a better way of working to screen terrorists off of airplanes? We do need a system like that in place, and every system can be improved.

You got a better idea?

[Dover]

38. Yeah, let's separate the decision-makers from profit motive

...and presidential candidates from corporate sponsorship.

How's that for a start?

[KittyWampus]

43. How Will Decision Makers Get Informed?

except with the participation of experts such as Wesley Clark participating in the discussion.

By the way, would you have a problem with a Sierra Club lobbyist advising the EPA?

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Try, try again to answer the question.

I'm absolutely positive that Clark will sell his Acxiom stock if elected President.

Now, repeating the actual question:

Do you have a better plan for screening terrorists who try to board airplanes?

Another question for you to avoid:

Where's the violation of privacy in a database of publicly available information?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Yoo-hoo? Questions being avoided down here...

Do you have a better plan for screening terrorists who try to board airplanes?

Where's the violation of privacy in a database of publicly available information?

[rdfi-defi]

53. that is a great start

simple yet effective, you sir/madam are a genius

[KittyWampus]

55. Dover, I See You Edited Your Post

Rather than answer my question. Which still remains unanswered.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. I think he did more than endorsed it

He sold it to us tax payers and made a bundle. Now they are going to use it against us.

[dawn]

52. If it's true that Clark endorses this, I can't vote for him in my primary.

I've been torn between Dean and Clark for a few months, but this may point me to Dean.

Why is it that people think this will make them safer? I may sound like a tinfoiler, but this is just the tip of a huge iceberg. I have always feared restrictions on my travels for my political beliefs or lifestyle choices.

[KittyWampus]

54. Clark Never Said He Endorses It & Was NOT Involved With It

I hope that the DU'er who started this thread is proud of his smear tactics though.

[slinkerwink]

63. look at post #58

Yes, he was involved with it.

[HFishbine]

65. Slink, I think you misread

I think the meaning is "Clark never said... he was NOT involved with it."

[HFishbine]

59. Make up your own mind

Do some research, click on some links and decide for yourself the truthfulness of claims that "He was NOT involved with it."

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7380-2003Sep26?language=printer

His envolvement with the government on behalf of the company was so direct that he had to register as a lobbyist.

[dawn]

77. Thanks, I'll definitely research this. n/t

[Moderator]

68. Dover

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news
source.


Thank you


DU Moderator

[Clark4VotingRights]

71. I'm a Clark supporter who thinks this is a valid issue.

And Wes should explain it, and expect it to be used against him.

Thanks Dover.

[TexasSissy]

75. Why don't you post FOR something instead of AGAINST something?

[Hoppin_Mad]

76. Maybe he just lobbied for it but doesn't really endorse it ?

Highly paid corporate lobbyists DO that.

On second that . . NAH !

[hope42mro]

79. 1)Axciom isn't Evil. 2) Clark is sought-after Board member

So Clark was the Board Director for an experienced business consulting firm. Thant means he wants to make the USA into a police state for his own profit? I don't see it. Interested in your accusation I visited Axciom's website and it looks like any business consulting firm. So the US gov. is one of it's clients, well good for them, and good for Clark for helping to create a dependable business.

Yeah, you can probably call Clark a lobbyist just because a he has business ties to a company employed by the gov., but that was going to happen sooner or later because he is a very bright talented man who many companies want on their Board of Directors.

If you think he wants to be president just to augment his business accomplishments, you obviously aren't listening to him very closely.
I don't hear a money-hungry lobbyist, I hear a concerned citizen who wants to put his experience to good use. And God Bless him for it!!

[Tinoire]

84. No. Live Lobbyist as in registered lobbyist to Homeland Security & the CIA

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_viewer.exe?20024CLARK,$WESLEY$K.LOB~0

Here's some more addressing your comment about money-grubbing:

Those who have worked with General Clark, whether at Stephens or a half-dozen other companies, said his main value was as a Washington door-opener, helping them land government contracts and advising them what products the Pentagon might want. . .

He helped Acxiom land government contracts for its antiterrorism databases. . . In 2000, the year he left the military, General Clark had an income of $474,000, of which $184,000 came from wages, $249,000 from business earnings and the rest from investments. In 2001, he reported income of $762,000, of which $213,000 was wages, $84,000 was pension, $434,000 was business and the rest was from investments.

By 2002, General Clark's income had risen to $1.667 million. Of that, $568,000 came from wages, $86,000 was pension and $984,000 was business income, with investment gains making up the rest. Since he left the military, most of General Clark's wages have come from Stephens. . .

"Wes started making phone calls to people in the upper reaches of government," said Jerry Jones, Acxiom's legal counsel, "and then they started calling us." Many of the resulting contracts are classified. One that is not is Capps II, an airline passenger screening system that some privacy advocates have criticized. . .

The general did such a good job that he became a registered Acxiom lobbyist. In June 2002, to keep an arm's length between Stephens and his Acxiom lobbying, he and Stephens set up S.C.L., a limited liability corporation in which General Clark received a consulting fee of $300,000 to get government contracts for Acxiom.

Lots more here: http://prorev.com/clark.htm

[dave29]

85. We've had enough trouble with color in this country

and now they want to assign us one

great.

[progressivebydesign]

86. That whole issue scares me to death!!

Not a Clark bash.. but man.. if my candidate of choice were involved with that, he'd be so out of my life! This is the most frightening thing I've seen. I will never fly again, out of fear that I will be wrongly coded.. it's too scary and invasive. Clark made money with these people? How will THAT play with Democrats? He's just so republican.. School of the Americas, lobbying for arms manufacturers and now this? I think he'll appeal to lots of republicans, and I guess that's what his supporters and advisors are counting on. But, we'll just have to hope that he's sincere in his last-minute conversion, or we're back to Bush & Cheney fleece the country for the military industrial machine. Maybe people see it as the only way to get Bush out of there.... they have a point, but this shit still scares me.