DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Jun 17, 2006 8:59:06 GMT 4
Did you wonder why our alleged President wanted so desperately to get Samuel Alito onto the Supreme Court? Guess we just found out...
Justices allow no-knock searches By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY Fri Jun 16, 7:29 AM ET
Drugs or other evidence seized at a home can be used in a trial even if police failed to knock and announce their presence, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a major shift in its rulings on illegal searches by police. The 5-4 decision in a Detroit drug case undercuts a nearly century-old rule that says evidence found during an unlawful search cannot be used. The decision also offers a sign that the court might be more apt to strengthen the hand of police with Justice Samuel Alito in the place of retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, who was on the court when the case was first argued, had worried about "the sanctity of the home."
Alito sided fully with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, which emphasized that tossing out evidence acquired in violation of the knock-and-announce rule - but with a valid warrant - could mean "releasing dangerous criminals."
In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer called the decision "doubly troubling."
"It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents," he wrote, joined by John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection."
The rule is based on a centuries-old idea of home privacy and the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. It requires police to knock, announce themselves and wait a "reasonable" time, which justices noted can be about 20 seconds, before entering. The practice shields occupants from surprise and property damage.
In the Detroit case, officers had a warrant to search for drugs and firearms in the home of Booker Hudson. They called out their presence and, after three to five seconds, entered through an unlocked front door.
Hudson tried unsuccessfully to suppress the evidence - rocks of cocaine - that police found and was convicted of drug possession. In an appeal, he argued that unless tainted evidence is suppressed, police will not be deterred from barging into homes. O'Connor was sympathetic to the view at January arguments.
After she retired, the eight remaining justices apparently were deadlocked. The case was re-argued in May with Alito on the court. His vote gave Scalia the majority. Joining them were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
Kennedy noted that he didn't agree with a section of Scalia's decision that would have more broadly weakened the rule requiring evidence from an improper search to be kept out, depriving Scalia of the necessary fifth vote to further curtail the Fourth Amendment.
Regarding the no-knock rule, Kennedy agreed with Scalia that police are sufficiently deterred from improper searches by the right of occupants to sue under civil rights law. Breyer countered that such lawsuits are rare and often do not bring much relief for victims.
Critics said the decision could lead to an increase in no-knock police raids. Jack King, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said, "The only sanction that police really care about is if the evidence is thrown out."
Tim Richardson, a senior legislative liaison for the Fraternal Order of Police, rejected the idea that police would change their practices. "There's a new professionalism among law enforcement officers. They want to have clean, successful, swift prosecutions."
Mod's note:As I understand it,the police can now kick in your door and invade your home whenever they feel like it .The Constititional right to be secure in your home has just been eliminated.Sadly,it is quite possible that some law enforcement officers and citizens alike will be killed as a direct result of this ruling.More sadly,it's possible that Commander Terror couldn't give a damn less about that. The few Bush supporters left will respond to this with something like"Well,I'm not a drug dealer, so I have nothing to worry about." Be assured,this unprecedented,utterly reckless decision gives EVERYONE something to worry about. The road to a Police State just got a helluva lot shorter. The trap has been sprung...
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Jul 9, 2006 11:44:20 GMT 4
There can be no no further serious debate concerning the fact that George W. Bush has assumed dictatorial control of this country.On the occasion of our nation's two hundred and thirtieth birthday,we have come full-circle,finding ourselves confronted by a tyrant named George. Irony is eternal,it seems. My response is best expressed thus:I am unwilling to remain silent anymoreby: teacherken Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 05:27:16 AM PDT myleftwing.comPerhaps it is that I am now officially a senior citizen. It may be not having children and having a wife who makes more than me and hence is economically self-sufficient. Perhaps as a result I may feel more at liberty to act on principles and damn the consequences. Maybe it is that I have reached a point where I want to set into the movie “Network” and be like the character Howard Beale played by Peter Finch, that I want to throw open the window and yell at the top of my lungs “I”m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.” Maybe it is that I have finally reached a point at which the idea that things can’t yet be that bad no longer has any salience -- they are that bad, they are worse than “that bad.” All that sounds fine. But there are no maybes. It is not a question of perhaps. I have a moral imperative, and as a result I am unwilling to remain silent anymore. teacherken :: I am unwilling to remain silent anymore There is an expression that those of us in the Society of Friends will on occasion use, that we have the responsibility to speak truth to power. We also do not believe in oaths, and some will not even offer affirmations, because oaths and affirmations imply that absent these we are not bound to speak only truth. I will speak truth as I know it, and let those who have ears hear. I will not remain silent while the Constitutional underpinnings of our liberal democracy are undermined. I will not remain silent while the rights of others are denied. I will not remain silent while some are labeled in fashions to demean their humanity or to justify treatment that is inhuman. I will not remain silent when I encounter those who would divide people into “us” and “them”, whether that be political opponents domestically or those who are called the enemy. I will not remain silent in the presence of those who seek partisan or personal advantage in manipulating elections, courts, laws and regulations. I will not remain silent when racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, or demeaning language of any kind is use towards any other human being. I will not remain silent when I encounter those who justify a particular course of action when they do it but condemn when done by someone whom they deem their opponent. I will not remain silent at rationalization of selfishness. I will not remain silent at the destruction of the environment or any part thereof - it is the common heritage of all humanity. I will not remain silent when destruction of lives and property in other countries is justified on the basis that it is our national self-interest or that it is better to fight them over there than over here. And I will certainly not remain silent when people argue that it is better to keep quiet now in order to win an election and/or achieve power at some future point - how can I explain that to those whose lives, families, homes, freedom are destroyed or lost in the interim? I cannot assume that my choosing to speak - to no longer remain silent - will be affirmed. I must expect that other will criticize, condemn and reject the words I speak, the actions I take. I know that I will be accused of exercising a judgment which is not mine to apply, or that I do not see all the facts. I will listen, I will attempt to understand what others have to say, what they express as their thoughts and motivations. I accept that we will not always agree. But that does not remove from me the moral responsibility to speak out when I encounter any wrong. I will not always speak in the same way. Sometimes public confrontation does not empower the person to easily change their mistaken ways, while a private encounter gives the space necessary. Sometimes phrasing my concern in terms of a question might elicit a recognition by the person to whom the question is addressed of the need to change, or allow her to give me the information that allows me to recognize that I have misunderstood or misperceived. Sometimes I will speak without words, by simply shaking my head, or refusing to nod, or not laughing at a “joke,” thereby allowing the other person an opportunity to self-correct. If I have doubt, I will inquire. I know I can be wrong. But if I know, I cannot pretend that I do not know, that I do not understand. And if then I remain silent I become complicit. That I will no longer be. I will speak out because I still can. I will write because perhaps some will read the words I offer. I will participate politically because that is part of speaking out. I am 60. I have had a life far richer in material benefits and in the opportunity to learn than the vast majority of people who have ever lived. If I die tomorrow, the measure of my life will not be how much I have consumed or accumulated. In my mind, if I could then look back, the measure will be how willing I was to stand up for others. This is not altruistic, because what can be denied to others can be denied to me. And I do not hold myself out as thereby superior. This is quite selfish, because I am affected. And it is not original in thought. Let me offer the words of Hillel, from the Pirkei Avoth: If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when? I am not willing to remain silent anymore. Allow someone who can truly be called a patriot put it another way:
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." -Samuel Adams
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Oct 18, 2006 8:16:17 GMT 4
Government Targets American Bloggers As Enemy PropagandistsMilitary, Homeland Security, Bush White House strategy sharpen knives against anyone critical of the "war on terror"Paul Joseph Watson/ Prison Planet.com | October 17 2006 Recent scientific polls that show around 84% don't believe the government's explanation behind 9/11 and others confirming the fact that support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low have led the Bush administration to sharpen their knives against the new breed of perceived "enemy propagandists," bloggers, journalists and online activists who dissent against the "war on terror." As Raw Story reports, CENTCOM announced earlier this year that a team of employees would be "[engaging] bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information." So when you're wasting your time arguing the finer points of the collapse of Building 7 or the quagmire in Iraq with someone who seems unable to grasp basic principles, your foe could well be sat behind a plush U.S. government desk in a uniform. CENTCOM is infiltrating blogs and message boards to ensure people, "have the opportunity to read positive stories,"presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans. The CENTCOM website features a useful section, "What Extremists Are Saying," which provides a full catalogue and showcases the diatribes of US government agents Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, Ayman al-Zawahiri and their sympathizers - rhetoric that CENTCOM hopes surfers will seek out in order for them to grasp a true understanding for the necessity of bombing the shit out of another broken backed defenseless country in the name of "freedom." The jaw-dropping hypocrisy of a regime and its military attack arm that has engaged in the most gargantuan of deceit and propaganda purges against the American people then pointing the finger at inquisitive bloggers for "aiding the enemy," is alarming to behold. The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Bush's own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society. In a speech given Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills." Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool. How long before influential online writers, bloggers and journalists like Greg Palast, who was charged with aiding the terrorists when filming "critical U.S. infrastructure," are arbitrarily gunned down on the street like in Russia or the newly "free" Iraq? The Bush administration's media mouthpieces have also been mobilized to stereotype any kind of critical thinking as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," a recent case in point beingFox News' Bill O'Reilly calling for the FBI to investigate the 9/11 Scholars organization for possible ties to terrorist organizations. Will we witness a "night of the long knives" to silence any and all dissent as the official dictatorship is announced or does the chilling effect of simply threatening to treat bloggers and journalists as terrorists go far enough to intimidate enough people to keep their mouths shut? A combination of this chilling effect and moves to license websites, impose "hate speech" restrictions and kill off the old internet in favor of a government regulated, China-style "Internet 2" are the tools in the arsenal of the neo-fascists who wish to continue their domestic and imperial bloodletting under the mandated consensus of total obedience. Mod's note... I hang my head,have a sigh in disgust,and hope for change. The possibility of peacefully removing these bloodthirsty corporate wardogs from the helm of our goverment diminishes with each passing day. I will continue to shout from the rooftops, knowing that the Truth will come out on top,political fallout be damned. I encourage you to SPEAK UP,let your voice be heard. Your silence will not protect you.
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Jan 7, 2007 9:18:02 GMT 4
Sheehan Arrives in Cuba to Protest Gitmo Published: 1/6/07, 11:45 PM EDT By ANITA SNOW HAVANA (AP) - American "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan called for the closure of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as she and other activists arrived here Saturday to draw attention to the nearly 400 terror suspects held at the remote site.
Sheehan is among 12 human rights and anti-war activists who will travel across this Caribbean island next week, arriving at the main gate of the Guantanamo base in eastern Cuba on Thursday - five years after the first prisoners were flown in.
"Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not afraid of anything," Sheehan said when asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions for traveling to communist-run Cuba, which remains under an American trade embargo.
"What is more important is the inhumanity that my government is perpetrating at Guantanamo," she told reporters.
Sheehan, 49, of Vacaville, Calif., became an anti-war activist known as the "peace mom" after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq in April 2004.
She drew international attention after camping outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the war in Iraq, and has been arrested numerous times for trespassing.
Sheehan arrived in Havana early Saturday evening with trip organizer Medea Benjamin of the California nonprofit groups Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace.
Benjamin said group members believed they were exempt from U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba because they were traveling as professional human rights activists who will attend a daylong international conference in the Cuban city of Guantanamo on Wednesday, the eve of their protest.
The U.S. military still holds about 395 men on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban, including about 85 who have been cleared to be released or transferred to other countries.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 16, 2007 13:26:40 GMT 4
Congress can't stop buildup, Bush saysIn CBS interview, Bush calls himself 'educator in chief' 15 Jan 2007 As Congress and the administration gird for conflict over troop levels in Iraq, Dictator Bush says he has the power to send more U.S. forces, regardless of what lawmakers want... In a "60 Minutes" interview, taped last week, Bush said he wasn't bothered by his low approval ratings and called himself the "educator in chief," arguing that sharing his views would help to overcome public and congressional resistance.
Also, the article includes much talk from congressional presidential wannabes, both Democrat and Republican. I listen to what they are saying regarding what we should do about Iraq and I hear nothing but a runaround from each side. The person I do hear with a humane and viable plan from is Dennis Kucinich. Please refer to the following for Dennis' plan: Kucinich for President! Reply #5 on Jan 10, 2007, 4:48pm The Kucinich Plan for Iraq See:airdance.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1166019736I would also like to bring to your attention that Representative Ron Paul [Texas] has thrown in his bid for the presidency:Texas Congressman Seeks Presidency 11 Jan 2007 Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid _ this time as a Republican. Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. See: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101424.html He is a Republican, one whom I also admire for his truth telling. Wouldn't that be an exciting presidential race, Kucinich vs Paul?! A race where we would actually have two honest politicians from both parties to choose from....Ahhh, I Have a Dream MichelleCongress can't stop buildup, Bush saysBy Nicole Gaouette Los Angeles Times Monday, January 15, 2007 President Bush said low approval ratings don't bother him and he'll keep on sharing his views with the public. WASHINGTON — As Congress and the administration gird for conflict over troop levels in Iraq, President Bush says he has the power to send more U.S. forces, regardless of what lawmakers want."I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it," Bush said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes." When asked whether he thought he had the authority to send additional troops in the face of opposition from the Democratic majority in Congress, Bush said: "In this situation, I do, yeah." The president's comments were part of an administration effort to quell the growing criticism about its Iraq strategy, as congressional Democrats plan nonbinding resolutions opposing the troop increase and some Republicans echo their resistance to the plan. Bush admitted that some administration steps contributed to Iraq's instability and said any mistakes should be laid at his feet. "If people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it's my decisions," the president said. "No question, decisions have made things unstable," he added. "But the question is: Can we succeed?" On Wednesday, Bush unveiled a plan to subdue the growing violence in Baghdad and in nearby Anbar province by adding 21,500 soldiers and Marines to the 132,000 troops in the country. The decision ran counter to a recommendation by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the U.S. draw down troops, and it brought denunciations from Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In the "60 Minutes" interview, taped last week, Bush said he wasn't bothered by his low approval ratings and called himself the "educator in chief," arguing that sharing his views would help to overcome public and congressional resistance. "I'm going to have to keep explaining," he said. He said he was discouraged by the handling of Saddam Hussein's execution, which he saw on an Internet video. He said he stopped watching before the trap door opened under the former Iraqi leader. "I didn't want to watch the whole thing," he said. He also expressed pride in the U.S. achievements in Iraq to date: "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude," Bush said.
Asked if he owed the Iraqi people an apology for failing to provide adequate security after the 2003 invasion, he said: "Not at all."
Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Fox News Sunday," said complaints from Congress would not stop the administration, which "cannot run a war by committee."
He disagreed with the suggestion that the administration had overruled military commanders who argued against increasing troops, and he sidestepped a question about Americans' unhappiness about the war.
"I don't think any president worth his salt can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls," Cheney said when asked about midterm-election exit polls showing only 17 percent of voters supported an increase in troops.
Withdrawing forces, Cheney said, would "revalidate the strategy that Osama bin Laden has been following from Day 1: that if you kill enough Americans you can force them to quit, that we don't have the stomach for the fight."Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the author of a bill that would require the president to obtain authorization from Congress before raising troop levels in Iraq, said Bush was ignoring his generals, the Iraq Study Group and the public, as well as Congress. "The stubbornness of this administration means repeating the same colossal mistakes over and over," he said Sunday. Administration officials said the additional U.S. troops would help the Iraqi military to confront the sectarian violence that has cleaved Baghdad. They added that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would no longer place restrictions on confronting the 60,000-strong militia of leading Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a strong source of support for al-Maliki's government. "There will be no safe havens, including Sadr City," national-security adviser Stephen Hadley told ABC's "This Week," referring to the cleric's stronghold in Baghdad. Hadley said he expected Congress to fall into line with the administration's plan. "We will be able to persuade the Congress that this is the only option for success in Iraq." Republicans who appeared on the Sunday talk shows decried what they described as Democratic obstruction and warned of the stakes. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender who has long called for a troop increase, said on "Face the Nation" that failure in Iraq would be a "catastrophe in the form of increased Iranian influence," regional instability and increased bloodletting. He dismissed the Democratic plan for a resolution condemning the troop increase as a political ploy. "The opponents of doing this are obligated, in my view, to tell the American people what the option is if we do leave. What is the option?" he said. Democrats said the looming catastrophe Republicans were warning of had already arrived. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who may vie for his party's presidential nomination, followed McCain on CBS and cited increased bloodshed and growing Iranian influence in Iraq. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, laid out an alternative plan similar to the Iraq Study Group's. He advocated a phased pullout, along with improved reconstruction efforts and increased diplomacy that includes Syria and Iran. "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war," Obama said. "I think it's important to understand that the options are not either total withdrawal or a 'stay-the-course-plus,' which is essentially what the administration is proposing, but rather the kind of thoughtful bipartisan strategy that's been suggested by not just Democrats but also Republicans, not just civilians but also by the military." Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times CompanySource:seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003525632_bushcheney15.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 30, 2007 12:13:56 GMT 4
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation People, this is bad news....REALLY BAD NEWS. If there was any hope left of salvaging PUBLIC WATCHDOG INSTITUTIONS like the EPA, Dept. of Labor, etc.. Bush has just smashed those hopes. Dictator Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president's priorities.
Looting, polluting, exploiting corporations dance for joy. Citizens huddle together cold, hungry, and broken in the squalor that was once their beautiful country.
Are you ready to commit acts of civil disobedience, now, finally? We are held hostages to conditions of doomsday technology, runaway, economics, global poisoning, and uncontainable, unending war. We are not impotent as citizens! Practical sense says that we cannot keep silent, not one bit anymore. Society's levers of power must be taken away from the giant corporations, and their political collaborators. There is NO ONE TO SAVE US; will you continue to stand, staring into the headlight of that runaway train about to mow you down?
I don't know what to say anymore...Except, stop supporting the system that kills all it touches!.....MIchelleBush Directive Increases Sway on RegulationBy ROBERT PEAR Published: January 30, 2007 WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities. This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats. The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.” Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush. Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations. The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention. Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued. The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements. Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”
“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.” Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”Business groups hailed the initiative. “This is the most serious attempt by any chief executive to get control over the regulatory process, which spews out thousands of regulations a year,” said William L. Kovacs, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “Because of the executive order, regulations will be less onerous and more reasonable. Federal officials will have to pay more attention to the costs imposed on business, state and local governments, and society.” Under the executive order, each federal agency must estimate “the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all its regulations” each year. Until now, agencies often tallied the costs and the benefits of major rules one by one, without measuring the cumulative effects. Gary D. Bass, executive director of O.M.B. Watch, a liberal-leaning consumer group that monitors the Office of Management and Budget, criticized Mr. Bush’s order, saying, “It will result in more delay and more White House control over the day-to-day work of federal agencies.” “By requiring agencies to show a ‘market failure,’ ” Dr. Bass said, “President Bush has created another hurdle for agencies to clear before they can issue rules protecting public health and safety.” Wesley P. Warren, program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill Clinton, said, “The executive order is a backdoor attempt to prevent E.P.A. from being able to enforce environmental safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out of the air and water.”Business groups have complained about the proliferation of guidance documents. David W. Beier, a senior vice president of Amgen, the biotechnology company, said Medicare officials had issued such documents “with little or no public input.” Hugh M. O’Neill, a vice president of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis, said guidance documents sometimes undermined or negated the effects of formal regulations. In theory, guidance documents do not have the force of law. But the White House said the documents needed closer scrutiny because they “can have coercive effects” and “can impose significant costs” on the public. Many guidance documents are made available to regulated industries but not to the public. Paul R. Noe, who worked on regulatory policy at the White House from 2001 to 2006, said such aberrations would soon end. “In the past, guidance documents were often issued in the dark,” Mr. Noe said. “The executive order will ensure they are issued in the sunshine, with more opportunity for public comment.” Under the new White House policy, any guidance document expected to have an economic effect of $100 million a year or more must be posted on the Internet, and agencies must invite public comment, except in emergencies in which the White House grants an exemption. The White House told agencies that in writing guidance documents, they could not impose new legal obligations on anyone and could not use “mandatory language such as ‘shall,’ ‘must,’ ‘required’ or ‘requirement.’ ”The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for a battle over the nomination of Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination died in the Senate, under a barrage of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, which said she had been hostile to government regulation. Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9. With Democrats in control, the Senate appears unlikely to confirm Ms. Dudley. But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year. Some of Ms. Dudley’s views are reflected in the executive order. In a primer on regulation written in 2005, while she was at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms. Dudley said that government regulation was generally not warranted “in the absence of a significant market failure.” She did not return calls seeking comment on Monday. Source: www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/washington/30rules.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 15, 2007 8:37:54 GMT 4
Reminder: Monday is Wiretap the Internet DayFriday, May 11, 2007 May 14th is the official deadline for cable modem companies, DSL providers, broadband over powerline, satellite internet companies and some universities to finish wiring up their networks with FBI-friendly surveillance gear, to comply with the FCC's expanded interpretation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Congress passed CALEA in 1994 to help FBI eavesdroppers deal with digital telecom technology. The law required phone companies to make their networks easier to wiretap. The results: on mobile phone networks, where CALEA tech has 100% penetration, it's credited with boosting the number of court-approved wiretaps a carrier can handle simultaneously, and greatly shortening the time it takes to get a wiretap going. Cops can now start listening in less than a day. Now that speed and efficiency is coming to internet surveillance. While CALEA is all about phones, the Justice Department began lobbying the FCC in 2002 to reinterpret the law as applying to the internet as well. The commission obliged, and last June a divided federal appeals court upheld the expansion 2-1. (The dissenting judge called the FCC's position "gobbledygook." But he was outnumbered.) So, if you're a broadband provider (separately, some VOIP companies are covered too) … Hurry! The deadline has already passed to file an FCC form 445 (.pdf), certifying that you're on schedule, or explaining why you're not. You can also find the 68-page official industry spec for internet surveillance here. It'll cost you $164.00 to download, but then you'll know exactly what format to use when delivering customer packets to federal or local law enforcement, including "e-mail, instant messaging records, web-browsing information and other information sent or received through a user's broadband connection, including on-line banking activity." There are also third party brokers who will handle all this for you for a fee. It's worth noting that the new requirements don't alter the legal standards for law enforcement to win court orders for internet wiretaps. Fans of CALEA expansion argue that it therefore won't increase the number of Americans under surveillance. That's wrong, of course. Making surveillance easier and faster gives law enforcement agencies of all stripes more reason to eschew old-fashioned police work in favor of spying. The telephone CALEA compliance deadline was in 2002, and since then the amount of court-ordered surveillance has nearly doubled from 2,586 applications granted that year, to 4,015 orders in 2006. Posted by Kevin Poulsen 1:46:34 PM in SurveillanceSource: blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/reminder_monday.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 22, 2007 5:56:13 GMT 4
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq This week, on July 17th, Bush signed an Executive Order blocking property of anyone who threatens "stabilization efforts in Iraq." I would assume that means anyone who opposes his policies and you, united States citizens, would not be exempt from this. Perhaps that is why he ceded Presidential power to Cheney today, this Saturday, during a routine colonoscopy....Michelle
See yesterday's post at:Re: Our Man Cheney « Reply #11 on Jul 20, 2007, 11:27pm » Bush to cede power to VP during colonoscopyGo to:airdance.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=anwrart&action=display&thread=1132114481------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. I issued this order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person designated pursuant to this order, or to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued. GEORGE W. BUSH The White House, July 17, 2007. Source:www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in IraqBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order: Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. Sec. 3. For purposes of this order: (a) the term "person" means an individual or entity; (b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and (c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States. Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order. Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order. Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken. Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order. Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, July 17, 2007. Source:www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 2, 2007 14:59:00 GMT 4
Democrats Signal Deal on Terrorism LawFrom the Washington Post 07/31/07:White House Seeks Warrantless Authority From Congress The Bush regime is pressing Congress this week for the authority to intercept, without a court order, any international phone call or e-mail between a surveillance target outside the United States and any person in the United States. The proposal, submitted by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to congressional leaders on Friday, would amend [void] the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for the first time since 2006 so that a court order would no longer be needed before wiretapping anyone "reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." From the NYT 08/01/07:Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers. Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval. From the Washington Post 07/31/07:NSA Spying Part of Broader Effort --Intelligence Chief Says Bush Authorized Secret Activities Under One Order 01 Aug 2007 The Bush administration's chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described. The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the regime has publicly acknowledged that Bush's order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless [illegal] surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005. Democrats Signal Deal on Terrorism LawBy BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, August 1, 2007 (08-01) 07:28 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic congressional leaders said Wednesday they want to expand the government's surveillance authority over suspected terrorists and get it done before going on recess at week's end. But they remain in a stalemate with President Bush over spending, with no signs of progress. The administration is pushing to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow surveillance without a warrant of terror suspects who are overseas. The proposal, offered late last week by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is designed to fix what the White House says is a glaring problem: the missing of significant foreign intelligence that could protect the country against terrorist attacks. "To the extent that more flexibility is needed, as Director McConnell has indicated, we are prepared to make those accommodations under the law," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after congressional leaders met with Bush at the White House Wednesday. "We hope to do that this week."Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he, too, thought the matter would be worked out. But he would not predict timing, as Pelosi did. "In the Senate, I don't promise any legislation," Reid said. He said the hang-up is "what the involvement of the attorney general will be." Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate have openly questioned the truthfulness of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whom they also accuse of helping Bush exploit executive power at the expense of civil liberties and possibly beyond the law on an array of matters. The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he saw bipartisan willingness to get the legislation done before the Congress goes into recess.The White House responded with measured optimism.
"I think they understand and appreciate the importance," Bush spokesman Tony Snow said of Democratic leaders. "We will see."The administration believes the FISA court under existing law must approve certain spying because many conversations and contacts taking place overseas are routed through U.S.-based communication carriers, satellites or Internet providers. Its latest proposal is narrower than what the administration sought in April: a slew of changes to the 1978 FISA law. That law created a court which meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the NSA and other agencies to investigate suspected spies, terrorists or other national security threats. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without requiring a warrant beforehand from the FISA court — on calls between people in the U.S. and others overseas when terrorism is suspected. After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush earlier this year put it under FISA court supervision. SNIP From: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/01/national/w065437D31.DTL
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 4, 2007 9:34:33 GMT 4
Senate passes wiretap bill Bill matches what Bush requested; Democratic version fails in HouseThe Associated Press Updated: 11:50 p.m. ET Aug 3, 2007 WASHINGTON - The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants. The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the bill.Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation this weekend. The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit. The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible." Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days. The Senate bill gives Bush the expanded eavesdropping authority for six months. The temporary powers give Congress time to hammer out a more comprehensive plan instead of rushing approval for a permanent bill in the waning hours before lawmakers begin their monthlong break.The Senate vote was 60-28. Both parties had agreed to require 60 votes for passage.Senate Republicans, aided by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said the update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, would at least temporarily close gaps in the nation's security system. "Al-Qaida is not going on vacation this month," said Sen. Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "And we can't either until we know we've done our duty to the American people." Democrats sought stricter oversightIn the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a proposal that called for stricter court oversight of the way the government would ensure its spying would not target Americans."The rule of law is still critical in this country," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said before the losing the mostly party-line 218-207 vote that fell short of two-thirds majority needed for passage. "It is exactly when the government thinks that it can be the sole, fair arbiter that we most need a judicial system to stand in and strike the balance." "We can have security and our civil liberties," Tierney said. Current law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas. The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the special FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites. Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S. spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However, they initially demanded the FISA court to review the eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure that Americans aren't targeted. By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted. It requires:*Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The administration relented to Democrats leery of Gonzales by adding McConnell to the oversight. *FISA Court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and conclude within a month of the surveillance starting *The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House initially wanted the bill to be permanent. Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will."The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy — not the executive branch."Outrage from civil liberties advocatesLikewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House. "We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control — it's mind-boggling."It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would endorse the Senate bill after days of rejecting White House offers. "I hope that there are no attacks before we are able to effectively update this important act," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. Bush has said he would reject any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country." "We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters Friday morning. "Time is short." Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the administration plan "more likely to protect the American people against terrorist attacks by those who want to do us harm." © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Source: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20108672/
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 5, 2007 15:05:23 GMT 4
House OKs wider wiretap powers Democrats concede to Bush administration on warrantless surveillanceUpdated: 10:27 p.m. ET Aug 4, 2007 WASHINGTON - The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States. The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature. He had urged Congress to approve it, saying Saturday, "Protecting America is our most solemn obligation." The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that "foreign intelligence information" is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don't touch U.S. soil. If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court. Congressional Democrats won a few concessions in negotiations earlier in the week. New wiretaps must be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney general. Congress has battled with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on several issues, and some Democrats have accused him of perjury. The new law also will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. The administration wanted the changes to be permanent. Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess."This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote. "I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment," which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.Republicans disputed her description. "It does nothing to tear up the Constitution," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif. If an American's communications are swept up in surveillance of a foreigner, he said, "we go through a process called minimization" and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a threat. The administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the FISA court. That decision barred the government from eavesdropping without warrants on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites. © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Source:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20126385/
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 10, 2007 17:23:13 GMT 4
Data-Mining Our LibertiesCongress HANDED the Executive Branch unlimited power in their ability to spy on American citizens. We've been assured that this power has been given a limit of 6 months...Not so, folks, we're stuck with it for much longer than that! Read on, the following is very informative. And by the way, I think the article is being much too forgiving toward Congress...Michelle Data-Mining Our Libertiesby AZIZ HUQ [posted online on August 7, 2007] After enduring weeks of blistering criticism for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's inartful elisions about the National Security Agency (NSA) spying activities, the Bush Administration has successfully forced on Congress a law that largely authorizes open-ended surveillance of Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mails. How did they do it? The Protect America Act of 2007--the title alone ought to be warning that unsavory motives are at work--is the most recent example of the national security waltz, a three-step Administration maneuver for taking defeat and turning it into victory. The waltz starts with a defeat in the courts for Administration actions-- for example, the Supreme Court's extension of the rule of law to the US military prison at Guantánamo in the 2004 case of Rasul v. Bush, or its striking down of the military commissions in 2006 in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The second step does not follow immediately. Rather, some months later, the Administration suddenly announces that the ruling has created a security crisis and cries out for urgent remedial legislation. Then (and here's the coup de grâce) the Administration rams legislation through Congress--the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, or the Military Commissions Act of 2006--that not only undoes the good court decision but also inflicts substantial damage to the infrastructure of accountability. This time, the sordid dance began with a bad ruling for the government, a ruling that demands some context to be understood. In January the Administration suddenly announced that it was submitting the secretive NSA "terrorist surveillance program" to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, a closed judicial process established by the 1978 FISA law to handle search warrants for foreign intelligence purposes. The move came as federal appellate courts in Ohio and California seemed on the cusp of ruling the NSA's domestic surveillance efforts illegal as violations of FISA and possibly the Fourth Amendment. It seemed a way to forestall defeat in those cases. But in early summer, a FISC judge declined to approve part of the NSA's activities. While the ruling remains classified, it apparently focused on communication that originated overseas but passed through telecom switches in the United States. Modern telecommunications work by breaking communications into packets of data and routing them through a network of connected computers. Messages do not travel in a linear fashion: A message from Murmansk to Mali might be routed through California. Many of the largest switches routing international data are located in the United States. As USA Today reported in May 2006, the NSA is already tapping those switches. And since January, the government appears to have obtained "basket warrants," allowing it to trawl this data freely, without any judicial or Congressional oversight. It seems likely that the judge objected because the NSA was collecting calls that originated overseas but ended in the United States. The NSA can generally get a warrant for such communications--unless there is no evidence that the person under scrutiny is a terrorist. A broad-brush NSA surveillance program, especially one that generates its leads through data-mining, the science of extracting information from large databases, might have exactly this problem. The second step in the waltz came several months later, with Administration allies such as House minority leader John Boehner invoking the FISC ruling on Fox News as justification for a new law. As usual, the Administration and its allies had no compunction about using classified information--such as the ruling--when it helped them politically. And as usual, the Administration artfully concealed the full details of the ruling even while insisting on it as a spur to immediate action. By waiting for the last week of the Congressional session, the Administration in effect cut off the possibility of meaningful debate. The third step of the waltz has a grim familiarity about it: enactment of a law that is in no way limited to addressing the narrow "problem" created by the FISC ruling. Rather, the Protect America Act is a dramatic, across-the-board expansion of government authority to collect information without judicial oversight. Even though Democrats negotiated a deal with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that addressed solely the foreign-to-foreign "problem" created by the FISC ruling, the White House torpedoed that deal and won a far broader law. To those who have followed this Administration's legal strategy closely, the outcome should be no surprise. The law's most important effect is arguably not its expansion of raw surveillance power but the sloughing away of judicial or Congressional oversight. In the words of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, the law provides "unlimited access to currently protected personal information that is already accessible through an oversight procedure." Like the Constitution's Framers, this Administration understands that power is accrued through the evisceration of checks and balances. Unlike that of the Framers, its mission is the transformation of limited government into a government that is not accountable to anyone. On Monday, the Administration defended the Protect America Act as a "narrow" fix and rejected accusations that it authorized a "driftnet." To see how disingenuous these claims are requires some attention to the details of the legislation. The key term in the Protect America Act is its licensing of "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." This language has a superficial reasonableness, since domestic surveillance has long been understood to raise the most troubling abuse concerns. But the trouble with this language is that it permits freewheeling surveillance of Americans' international calls and e-mails. The problem lies in the words "directed at." Under this language, the NSA could decide to "direct" its surveillance at Peshawar, Pakistan--and seize all US calls going to and from there. It could focus on Amman, or Cairo, or London, or Paris, or Toronto... Simply put, the law is an open-ended invitation to collect Americans' international calls and e-mails. Further, the law does not limit the collection of international calls to security purposes: Rather, it seems the government can seize any international call or e-mail for any reason--even if it's unrelated to security. Indeed, another provision of the law confirms that national security can be merely one of several purposes of an intelligence collection program. This point alone should sink the Administration's claim to be doing no more than technical fiddling. While the FISA law limited warrantless surveillance absolutely, this law licenses it, not only for national security purposes but also for whatever purpose the government sees fit. Of further concern is the "reasonably believe" caveat. This means that so long as the NSA "reasonably" believes its antennas are trained overseas, wholly domestic calls can sometimes be collected. And since the NSA uses a filter to separate international calls from wholly domestic calls, it need only "reasonably believe" that it's getting this right. It's this new latitude for error that is troubling, especially because this isn't an Administration known for its care when the rights and lives of others are at stake. It remains deeply unclear how much domestic surveillance this allows. The problems created by this loosening of standards are compounded by the risibly weak oversight procedures contained in the law. Rather than issuing individualized warrants, now the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General can certify yearlong programs for collecting international calls. The program as a whole is placed before the FISA court, which can only invalidate those procedures and claims that are "clearly erroneous." The government thus has to meet an extraordinarily low standard, in a one-sided judicial procedure in which the court has no access to details of the program's actual operation. Congressional oversight is even more laughable. Attorney General Gonzales, that paragon of probity and full disclosure, is required to report not on the program's overall operations but solely on "incidents of noncompliance." Of course, given how weak the constraints imposed by the law are, self-reported noncompliance is likely to be minimal. Finally, some advocates and legislators have taken comfort in the law's six-month sunset provision. But this means that the act will be up for authorization in the middle of the presidential campaign, an environment in which the pressures to accede to Administration demands will be even higher than usual. And the law doesn't really sunset after six months: The provision is artfully drafted to allow the NSA to continue wielding its new surveillance powers for up to a year afterward. The Protect America Act, in short, does not live up to its name: It does not enhance security-related surveillance powers. Rather, it allows the government to spy when there is no security justification. And it abandons all but the pretense of oversight. The result, as with so many of this Administration's ill-advised policies, is power without responsibility--and it is by now all too clear how wisely and carefully this Administration wields power in the absence of accountability. One coda to this story is worth adding. The Justice Department is unlikely to take action against Representative Boehner for his partisan invocation of classified information on network news. Newsweek reported this week that former Justice Department lawyer Thomas Tamm is being investigated apparently in connection to leaks of information about the NSA's domestic surveillance. So goes Gonzales Justice: Politicized manipulation of classified information gets the green light, while hardworking career officials become targets for speaking out when they see the law being violated. Source:www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/huq2
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Sept 27, 2007 7:22:32 GMT 4
A Coup Has Occurred informationclearinghouse.comBy Daniel Ellsberg 09/26/07 I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state. If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth. Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11. And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps. It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. … This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it. Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don’t think so. Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there’s no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don’t see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic. The Next CoupLet me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first. The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment. There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans. I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution. I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today. That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren’t found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government. It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint. When I say this I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought. They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.” It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution. Founders Had It RightNow I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right. It’s not just “our way of doing things” – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming. That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. … But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences. Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn’t, it doesn’t even make it unlikely. That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media, we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever. And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs. And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. … I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible. What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do. And … we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly, ugly prospect. However, I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives. Restoring the Republic Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now, it won’t be started under the next administration. Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little… We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, “traitor,” “weak on terrorism” – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called. How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office. I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services. And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran. I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do. I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath. The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people. Congressional Courage On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority. I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that. Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority, let’s not lose it, let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.” Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years? I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution. We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words “swear him in” when it came to testimony. I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran. And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree. That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you. Daniel Ellsberg is author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 9, 2007 15:19:24 GMT 4
House Passes Bill Against THOUGHT CRIMES! Part 1 of 2Yes folks, you read that correctly...THOUGHT CRIMES. This opens up you, me, and every US citizen who voices their dissatisfaction against the government or their actions to be labeled a domestic terrorist...and maybe prosecuted. A similar bill sits with the Senate right now and will most likely pass also. Only 6 Representatives voted Nay; 22 didn't bother to vote at all....aren't you disgusted enough yet?! Here's the 6 who voted against it:Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D, HI-1] Nay Rep. Jerry Costello [D, IL-12] Nay Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Nay Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Nay Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] Nay Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46] Nay Source: www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/2044By the way, Ron Paul abstained from voting on it; he goes down many points with me for that. I've collected a few articles on this and have picked some to post here....READ THEM! You know, the area I can stand in total freedom shrinks daily; it's about the size of a postage stamp now, inside my brain, where I can think but not speak.............. MichelleHouse Democrats Pass New Terrorism Prevention LawAlmost without notice, the House overwhelmingly (404 - 6) passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955) on October 23 some are calling "the thought crime prevention bill." It now moves to the Senate where if passed and signed by George Bush will establish a commission and Center of Excellence to study and act against thought criminals. The bill's language hides its true intent as "violent radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" are whatever the administration says they are. Violent radicalization is defined as "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change." Homegrown terrorism is used to mean "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily with the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives." Along with other repressive laws enacted post-9/11, HR 1955 may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state policies even when they're illegal as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target anti-war protesters, believers in Islam, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls "terrorist-related propaganda." CLIP Read Much more, begining HERE:tinyurl.com/37rfy4
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Nov 10, 2007 0:00:16 GMT 4
"These are dangerous days To say what you think is to make your own grave"... -Sinead O'connor"You've made your decision.Now let's see you enforce it." -Brandon LeeMichelle, I read every word of this loathsome piece of...legislation. I share your outrage.We can put nothing past these bastards.Who dreamed up this wretched thing?Cheney? It means whatever the hell they want it to mean...What will make the Americans wake the hell up and pay attention?We should take to the streets over this.It's downright treasonous!!! They can't lock us all up...Right?Uh,well,yes,actually: www.alternet.org/rights/42458/MMMMMMMMM...,deep breath...,Think about puppies.... I have to remind myself that sanity and decency will eventually return to Washington D.C.,and laws that were made can be unmade.Meanwhile,we must hold on to what's left and ride the storm out. Never sit with your back to a door. And teach the children well... May the Great Spirit be with us.
|
|