Clark played major role in Corp. helping spy on citizens.

[sfecap]

CLARK PLAYED MAJOR ROLE IN CORPORATION HELPING GOVERNMENT SPY ON CITIZENS

LESLIE WAYNE, NY TIMES - sought out Thomas F. McLarty III, a former Clinton chief of staff. "Wes called me when he was leaving the military and seeking advice," said Mr. McLarty, who has also served with General Clark on the board of the Acxiom Corporation, a Little Rock data collection company. . .

The general sought out Vernon Weaver, a former ambassador to the European Union, who is an executive at the Stephens Group, a politically connected Little Rock investment bank. The introduction helped him in the door. From June 2000, Stephens provided General Clark with a steady paycheck and a base of operations.

Stephens - where General Clark worked until last March, first as a consultant and later as a managing director - has long supported both parties. Its reputation was tarnished by ties to some people involved in Clinton fund-raising scandals. The Stephens family has also given to Republicans, including both Bushes and Bob Dole.

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.

(more)

http://prorev.com/clark.htm

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sfecap]

2. Please point out the lies.

And I'll ask that this post be deleted.

Thanks.

[HFishbine]

4. Don't hold your breath (n/t)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Everyone isn't.

Here's an example of a post I made today on a flame bait thread:

"We are both Clark supporters, and I am sure we can find agreement on many things. However I will not even read your post because you chose such an inflamatory way of presenting your thoughts. I get upset when Dean calls another Democrat "Bush'lite", and here you are equating Dean with Cheney (technically you can deny that, but it is the implicit intent of your title).

We do not need to inflame inra party tensions further. If there is something specific that Dean did or says that you have trouble with, I would much prefer it if you would directly present your concern. This type of post hurts both Clark (because as foolish as it ultimately is, some people judge a candidate by the actions of those supporters who tick them off the most) and the Democratic Party. YOu may have valid points to make. If you present them in a reasonable context, I likely would consider them."

My question for you is, are you Pro or Anti Bashing? Actions count, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in furthering a Bashing Arms Race, or you work for civility. One of the other.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jerseycoa]

7. I took my profile down, too

Since the Will Pitt episode, when I stopped feeling entirely secure here. It may not mean anything.

[Jerseycoa]

8. Handy link

It's got all of it one place :tinfoilhat:

[BootinUp]

9. waste of my time to respond n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

11. and yet you did answer and kicked the thread at the same time!

Fabulous

[BootinUp]

12. Cute!

But I think wyldwolf gets credit for a fabulous response. If I were going to answer this I would give my standard response...

Who better than Clark to advise our government on the best use of these technologies. I believe the guy, I know he is concerned with invasions of privacy (look at his policy on PATRIOT ACT). www.clark04.com/issues

[wyldwolf]

10. I'm all for it...

...and I don't think the boogyman is hiding around every corner.

As described by developers, the Acxiom system would be an unobtrusive network enabling authorities to target potential threats far more effectively while reducing lines at security checkpoints for most passengers.

This technology is used every day by the finance and business industries as well as retail outlets and can be applied to enhance airline safety.

Do you have a problem when you apply for an insurance policy that your application and identity are subjected to a computerized background check or risk assessment?

How about when you apply for a credit card? Or write a check?

Why wouldn't we want data available for airlines to check into terrorist backgrounds?

According to an Acxiom press release, Acxiom had information on 11 of the 19 publicly identified hijackers,'' Acxiom Jones said. ``Had a system been in place on September 11 that integrated commercial data with that from the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization, Customs and other agencies, several of the airplanes certainly would have had extra security directed at them.

In the post 9/11 world, I would bet you'd find more people willing to endure an 'nobtrusive network enabling authorities to target potential threats."

[HFishbine]

13. Narrow, Dangerous View

Here we go again. I find it extremely disturbing that Clark supporters toss aside any arguments about how this system infringes on our civil liberties and instead fall in, lockstep, behind Clark in its full defense. I think it is one of the most glaring casms between Clark and traditional democratic values. Clark suppoorters fail to address head on the civil liberties violations of this system and instead, make excuses for it.

First, let's be clear about what this sytem would do. It would consolidate private consumer data and publicly available information into a centtralized database controlled by the US government. It would then use that information to screen for "profiles" of people who have some spending or living habits that are deemed to be similar to "terrorists." The system would then be put into play through pre-emptive detention. People will be stopped, not because of probable cause or an immenent threat to public safety, but because they share some behaviors with a profile.

Now, let's examine why this is so egregious. For the first time in American history, the government will join with corporations to compile surveillance dossiers on all American citizens. The government would permananently monitor and track our lifestyle and consumer choices. You okay with that?

Defenders offer the weakest, most ridiculous arguments to defend this unprecedented invasion of privacy. "It's no different than applying for an insurance policy, right?" Wrong. I have a choice whether or not to do business with a particular insurance company. I also have an option to accept or reject their privacy policy. There is no choice when Uncle Sam becomes Big Brother.

Then there is this head-spinning misdirection: "Why wouldn't we want data available for airlines to check into terrorist backgrounds?" This ridiculous argument fails completely. "Check into terrorit backgrounds?" The database would allow for checking into anyone's and everyone's background -- it's by no means limited to "terrorists." Furthermore, if the "terrorists" are in the database, why not confine the database to only them? Why add every American citizen?

Finally, what people may be willing to tolerate is not a good measure for the policies of a presidential candidate. People have tolerated the illegal detention of Jose Pedia, the Patriot Act, war without legitimacy, Gitmo detentions of non-combatant juveniles, and a supreme court that decided George W. Bush would be "harmed" if all the ballots were counted. There's plenty in this day and age that people seem willing to tolerate. That doesn't mean I want a leader who is counting on that as a means of advancing the interests of a former employer. We have one of those "leaders" already. I want a leader who can protect America without dismantling American values in the process. The questionable assertion that "it will make us safer," is no answer to concerns about protecting civil liberties.

[BootinUp]

15. My dear HFishbine

We don't know as much about this "evil system" as you apparently do!

If you think that I blindly support anything, you are mistaken and I take offense that you would suggest it. The freakin thing is still being developed AFAIK! I want people like Clark, who agrees with my concerns on the PATRIOT ACT, to be in a position to make sure we know what we need to know, when there is more than UFO conspiracy theories to talk about.

If you have anything other than a conspiracy theory, like a reputable source laying out the what, when, where, how I would be very interested in it.

What makes you think that Clark is in favor of invading our privacy? Just because he advised them? He could have advised them to burn the f'in thing for all you know.

[HFishbine]

16. My Dear Jim

You are correct. I should have used the phrase "some Clark supporters." My error. I'll try to do better in the future.

One of the things I find troubling about Clark is his statements on the Patriot Act and his work for Acxiom. They are at odds with each other. I'm still keeping an open mind about Clark, but I won't be able to vote for him until he explains the discrepencies.

Presidential candidate John Edwards considers it to be an issue too.

For more on Acxiom, Clark and civil liberties, I offer you these links. Some are news reports, some are opinion. Together, they may give you some greater insight into my concerns. I think all Clark supporters owe it to themsleves to take a look:


http://www.nccprivacy.org/handv/031006villain.htm
http://www.nccprivacy.org/handv/030801villain.htm
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/11/the_ny_times_cr.html
http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/09/29/clarkwor.html
http://www.rightpolicy.com/clark.htm

[ozone_man]

20. This Acxiom consulting alone turns me off Clark.

He seems to have been on a number of different boards with ties to the Carlyle Group, etc. It just doesn't feel right to me. Not the kind of guy I would want to see even as VP for fear of a coup at some point.

[neuvocat]

14. So did Clinton.

After the OKC bombing Clinton instituted a lot of anti-terrorism legislation, including scanning private phone calls for keywords like "bomb".

[SayitAintSo]

17. Interesting site ... very Pro Dean / Anti Clark ...

Good source of unbiased information !

[maddezmom]

19. it's all right there

like someone said before...handy link for a non-Clark supporter. :(

[blm]

18. and where do Dean's dealings with the Koch brothers come into view?

Where do you stand on Dean's deal with Entergy/Koch Industries and the very BFEE Koch brothers? Are you outraged that Dean would deal with those slimy Bush loyalists? That he would facilitate the sale of Vermont Yankee to those vermin? Aren't you curious why Dean doesn't want those documents revealed?

Aren't you wondering why Dean wouldn't turn over papers to the Conservation Law Foundation who wanted to check out the deal for the taxpayers of Vermont?

[oasis]

21. Linking Clark to anti-terrorism will play well in mainstream America.

Sometimes we forget that everyone is not a DU addict.

[HFishbine]

22. You're right, some people are republicans

But then again, they already have a candidate who tramples civil liberties in the name of "anti-terrorism." I doubt if Clark would have much crossover appeal.