Free Speech Beneath US Homeland Security

FOX Monsanto Cover Up

2012-01-26T19:36:00.000-05:00

http://axiomatica.org/myvideos/video/130

Indefinite Detention Law Hall of Shame - List of Senators Who Voted Yes on the NDAA bill (And a list of their twitter accounts)

2011-12-30T21:42:00.005-05:00

http://www.waitingforthestorm.com/indefinite-detention-law-hall-of-shame-list-of-senators-who-voted-yes-on-the-ndaa-bill

Below is the list of the Senators who voted yes on the NDAA bill which provides for indefinite detention of "any person who has committed a belligerent act". See section 1031 (b) 2 of s1867 (National Defense Authorization Act of 2012). The term "belligerent act" is extremely wide and could applied to any form of resistance including protesting in the streets or even speaking out against the U.S. government. Be sure to also visit the list of the twitter ids for the senators who voted for NDAA below.

Voted Yes

Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI]
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN]
Sen. Kelly Ayotte [R, NH]
Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY]
Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT]
Sen. Mark Begich [D, AK]
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO]
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO]
Sen. John Boozman [R, AR]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA]
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE]
Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA]
Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]
Sen. Daniel Coats [R, IN]
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND]
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE]
Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID]
Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL]
Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]
Sen. Al Franken [D, MN]
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY]
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
Sen. Kay Hagan [D, NC]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
Sen. Dean Heller [R, NV]
Sen. John Hoeven [R, ND]
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX]
Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, HI]
Sen. John Isakson [R, GA]
Sen. Mike Johanns [R, NE]
Sen. Ron Johnson [R, WI]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D, MA]
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN]
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI]
Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]
Sen. Joe Manchin [D, WV]
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D, NJ]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
Sen. Jerry Moran [R, KS]
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK]
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE]
Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL]
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR]
Sen. John Reed [D, RI]
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV]
Sen. James Risch [R, ID]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS]
Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]
Sen. Marco Rubio [R, FL]
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI]
Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT]
Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA]
Sen. Tom Udall [D, NM]
Sen. Mark Udall [D, CO]
Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]
Sen. Mark Warner [D, VA]
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]

Voted No

Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

Here is a list of twitter IDs for senators who voted for S1867 Defense Authorization act. #NDAA

@senjohnbarrasso @senronjohnson @senrockefeller @sen_joemanchin @pattymurray @us_sen_cantwell @markwarner @senatorleahy @orrinhatch @kaybaileyhutch @senalexander @senbobcorker @johnthune @senronjohnson @grahamblo @senwhitehouse @sentoomey @senbobcasey @jiminhofe @robportman @sensherrodbrown @senjohnhoeven @kayhagan @senschumer @sengillibrand @tomudall @SenatorMenendez @senatorlautenberg @jeanneshaheen @senatorayotte @senatorreid @deanheller @mike_johanns @senbennelson @clairecmc @rogerwicker @alfranken @stabenow @sencarllevin @johnkerry @scottbrownma @senatorsnowe @senatorcollins @davidvitter @senlandrieu @mcconnellpress @moranforkansas @tomharkin @senatorlugar @sendancoats @senatorkirk @senatordurbin @daniel_inouye @senatorakaka @senatorisakson @saxby08 @senbillnelson @chriscoons @senatorcarper @joelieberman @senblumenthal @markudall @mbennet @barbaraboxer @johnboozman @senjohnmccain @lisamurkowski @senatorbigich @senshelbypress @senatorsessions @johncornyn @marcorubio @chuckgrassley @senatorburr @senatorsanders @jimdemint

Senators who voted for the NDAA who do not have twitter accounts:

Kohl (D-WI) Webb (D-VA) Reed (D-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Bingaman (D-NM) Cochran (R-MS) Klobuchar (D-MN) Cardin (D-MD) Mikulski (D-MD) Roberts (R-KS) Kirk (R-IL) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Pryor (D-AR) Kyl (R-AZ) Risch (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)

Following are the senators who voted against the act who are on twitter:

@senrandpaul @tomcoburn @senmikelee @senjeffmerkley @ronwyden @senatorsanders

Senators who votes against who are not on twitter:

Harkin (D-IA)

YAHOO Political E Mail Blockage

2011-09-21T00:20:00.001-04:00

Targeting Protests

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/68-68/7517-yahoo-admits-to-blocking-wall-street-protest-emails

Thinking about e-mailing your friends and neighbors about the protests against Wall Street happening right now? If you have a Yahoo e-mail account, thihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifnk again. ThinkProgress has reviewed claims that Yahoo is censoring e-mails relating to the protest and found that after several attempts on multiple accounts, we too were prevented from sending messages about the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations.

Over the weekend, thousands gathered for a “Tahrir Square”-style protest of Wall Street’s domination of American politics. The protesters, organized online and by organizations like Adbusters, have called their effort “Occupy Wall Street” and have set up the website: www.OccupyWallSt.org. However, several YouTube users posted videos of themselves trying to email a message inviting their friends to visit the Occupy Wall St campaign website, only to be blocked repeatedly by Yahoo. View a video of ThinkProgress making the attempt with the same blocked message experienced by others (click full screen for a better view of the text):

http://youtu.be/IP2LREhJH4U

ThinkProgress tried other protest websites, like AmericansforProsperity.org and TeaPartyPatriots.org, and both messages were sent smoothly. However, emails relating to the OccupyWallSt.org protest were blocked with the following message (emphasis added):

Your message was not sent
Suspicious activity has been detected on your account. To protect your account and our users, your message has not been sent.
If this error continues, please contact Yahoo! Customer Care for further help.
We apologize for the inconvenience.

ThinkProgress has sent a request for more information to Yahoo, and will post any reply once we have received it with Yahoo’s explanation for its apparent censorship.

It’s not the first time Yahoo has been accused of political censorship. Yahoo officially partners with the repressive Chinese regime to provide the government with access to emails related to groups viewed as dissidents. An explosive investigation by Der Spiegel found that Yahoo provided Chinese authorities with access to emails from journalists, and the snooping resulted in the same journalists being sent to prison camps.

The Occupy Wall Street protests have continued, but if you own a Yahoo e-mail account, you might not know about it.

Update

We’re continuing to monitor Yahoo’s mail service and have now been able to send messages containing the phrase “Occupy Wall Street” and its website on some Yahoo accounts. On other accounts, however, Yahoo is still blocking the messages.
Update

Yahoo’s customer care Twitter account acknowledges blocking the emails, but says it was an unintentional error:

“We apologize 4 blocking ‘occupywallst.org’ It was not intentional & caught by our spam filters. It is resolved, but may be a residual delay.”

Yahoo’s main Twitter account adds:

“Thanks to @YahooMail users & @ThinkProgress for catching problem w/ #Occupywallst.org mail. Prob is fixed, but there may be residual delays.”

Wikipedia SELF-CENSORSHIP

2011-09-12T18:05:00.010-04:00

Adhering to the government line - disgrace to the internet
Under the censorship of a 17 member supreme council

an intriguing wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JclemensAdmin statistics
Action Count
Edits 29905
Edits+Deleted 31771
Pages deleted 19264
Pages restored 269
Pages protected 255
Pages unprotected 10
Protections modified 9
Users blocked 915
Users reblocked 36
User rights modified 12
Users created

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html?scp=2&sq=wikipedia&st=cse

As the nation marked this terrible anniversary, people invariably turned to Wikipedia to learn about the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly two million page views were registered last September for the article “September 11 Attacks,” a typically Wikipedian effort with exhaustive, even picayune, details of the events, bolstered by nearly 289 footnotes. This September, the total page view number could be something like six million.

Likewise, readers have repeatedly turned to the article “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” The article — similarly detailed with 299 footnotes purporting to explain accusations of faked video footage or controlled demolition of the two buildings — had 400,000 page views last September, and is on pace to have more than a million views this year.

One thing is certain, however. Not one of those visitors got to the conspiracy theories page by making a hypertext leap from a link in the main article about the Sept. 11 attacks. There is simply no mention of these theories, deemed fringe ideas, which have been repeatedly and officially discredited [sic-spin]. They are written up in a variety of articles on Wikipedia, but they are kept on the fringe of the site.

This is no accident, but rather a Wikipedia policy concerning a topic as fraught with emotion [sic spin] as the Sept. 11 attacks. Thus the so-called [sic-spin]gatekeepers of the media world — prominent newspapers, television news programs, newsweeklies — have an unlikely ally in Wikipedia, which bills itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

“Certainly you would get dissent from a lot of our critics that we are responsible,” said Ira Brad Matetsky, a lawyer and member of the arbitration committee that resolves disputes over the editing of articles. But, he added, “one of the reasons that the 9/11 article has been pushed in a fairly conservative direction — and I don’t mean politically — is because so many people are reading this article.”

•

Over the last 10 years, the site has developed elaborate rules and standards, including creating the arbitration committee, a 17-member supreme court of sorts for Wikipedia.

In 2008, doubters of the official account of the attacks — sometimes called truthers — were told by the arbitration committee not to edit the main page on the attacks after so-called [sic-spin] edit wars over what should be included there. (Mr. Matetsky, as a New Yorker who well remembered the attacks, recused himself.)

Since then, any mention or link to conspiracy theories from the main account has been scrubbed from that article: there is no description of the celebrities who have endorsed the view; no mention of poll results on the subject that show some support among the public; no account, even, of the attraction of conspiracy theories in a time of crisis.

The move has been supported on the discussion pages accompanying the Sept. 11 article, though one Wikipedia contributor, Arthur L. Rubin, a former aerospace engineer who is beginning law school at Western State University in Fullerton, Calif., has been trying to push back.

He does not believe the theories, he said, but says they are part of the Sept. 11 story. “Although the theories are fringe, the fact that there are theories is a mainstream phenomenon,” he said in an interview as he prepared for class. “Even in law school one of the students I was talking to was in the truther side of the matter — it really is a widespread phenomenon.”

His latest unsuccessful effort was to include the conspiracy theories article on the template for Sept. 11, a list of articles on the subject that appears on the bottom of any of those entries. It is a way of packaging Wikipedia’s work on a topic; the prevailing view at Wikipedia is that including the conspiracy theories would make the ideas seem more mainstream.

In response to Mr. Rubin, a commentator on a Wikipedia discussion page, Tom Harrison, wrote: “Like most fringe subjects it has been unduly (and unintentionally, in most cases) promoted, giving readers and maybe search engines an impression of cultural significance that isn’t supported to that extent in reliable sources. I don’t want to Suppress the Truth [sic-spin], I just want to give due weight.”

This consensus on Wikipedia certainly is not what an outsider might expect from a site that prides itself on its free expression views. In the past, Wikipedia editors have reveled in publishing material that others have considered better left unseen.

•

In the case of the ink blots used in Rorschach tests, complaints that publishing the material would threaten the psychology profession only emboldened the editor who put them there.

The phenomenon even has a name, the Streisand effect, a result of Barbra Streisand’s failed effort to suppress in court an aerial photograph of her home for privacy reasons, which only seemed to stoke interest. The photograph now illustrates Wikipedia’s Streisand Effect article.

Wikipedia, created in the year the Sept. 11 attacks took place, was profoundly shaped by those events. According to the article “History of Wikipedia,” the attacks spurred “breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles.”

A look back at the page from December 2001 about the attacks, including its gray In Memoriam banner, is to be transported to a rawer time — for the United States and Wikipedia. The writing is more emotional than one might expect from a site that now prides itself on a just-the-facts prose style. The article’s opening words describe the events as “what might well be the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the world.”

The links from that December 2001 entry to other Wikipedia articles also tell a story, especially the ones like Missing Persons, Opportunists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

Members

The current members of the Arbitration Committee are listed below. Arbitrators may be active or inactive. The inactive designation includes members who are on wikibreak, who have not participated in arbitration within the past week, or who have indicated their absence. The following list is accurate as of 29 August 2011:

Active arbitrators

Casliber
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Richard Symonds)
Cool Hand Luke (Frank Bednarz)
Coren (Marc-André Pelletier)
David Fuchs
Elen of the Roads
Jclemens
John Vandenberg
Kirill Lokshin
Mailer diablo (Kenneth Kua)
Newyorkbrad (Ira Brad Matetsky)
PhilKnight
Risker
Roger Davies
SirFozzie
Xeno

Inactive arbitrators

Iridescent

The Arbitration Committee does not have a chair, but may designate one arbitrator to coordinate timely performance of tasks. The current coordinating arbitrator is Roger Davies, with Kirill Lokshin as his deputy.

Ex FOX Reporter ENABLING Political Censorship

2011-08-23T01:56:00.005-04:00

Political discussion board 'The UnHived Mind' CENSORED!

Racist content - a small fraction - as the excuse to censor huge library of non-racist historical and political information

More at:
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2011/08/unhived-mind-censored.html

http://web.mac.com/len15/TrueOtt.com/KANE_KNOCKS_OUT_TOP_3_RACIST_SEXIST_SITES.html

The top three White supremacy propaganda mills were shut down this week by an investigative journalist who survived blackmail, libel, and physical threats to accomplish the historic victory for humanity’s peace and inter-racial harmony.

Sherri Kane, an investigative journalist who defected from FOX News in Los Angeles protesting Rupert Murdoch’s criminal influence over the media, prompted the hosts of three leading conspiracy community web sites to cease and desist posting hateful anti-Jewish, anti-Black, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, and anti-government articles.

FREE PASS for Police to Trash Video Evidence- According to Texas Judge Bob Pemberton

2011-08-13T01:59:00.013-04:00

particularly regarding the cigarette protectionist statutes (drug war)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3557.asp

Texas Appeals Court: Driver Has No Right to Dashcam Video

Texas Court of Appeals sides with police officer claiming dashboard camera video of traffic stop does not exist.

Justice Bob Pemberton Drivers have no recourse if police say the tape from a dashboard-mounted video camera is not available, according to a ruling Wednesday from the Texas Court of Appeals. Mark Lee Martin wanted to defend himself against drug possession charges filed in the wake of an August 29, 2008 traffic stop, but he was told no video was available.

Travis County Sheriff's Deputy Darren Jennings claimed that he pulled over Martin that evening because he failed to signal a left-hand turn. Within less than two weeks after the incident, Martin's attorney formally requested that the department preserve video evidence from the stop. Subpoenas were issued to ensure "all videos and dispatch calls" would be saved. At trial, Jennings was asked why the camera evidence had not been kept.

"Since I didn't put it in my report it wasn't preserved because I didn't believe it had any type of evidential value," Jennings told the court.

The dashcam is automatically activated when an officer turns on his emergency lights. Department policy states that all video must automatically be saved for thirty days. Jennings could not say whether his machine was operating that night, but he would have noted either at the beginning or end of the shift if the device had not been functional. Jennings stated that the only way to know for sure if the video had been taken would have been if he had preserved the video. Martin argued the police were obviously hiding evidence.

"The officers intentionally destroyed the video and thereby put exculpatory evidence as far as the search is concerned or evidence favorable to the accused out of the reach of the accused," Martin's attorney claimed. "We feel that for no other reason the search is invalid and any evidence found as a result of that search should be suppressed."

The appellate court found no merit in this argument.

"We agree with the state that the record supports a finding by the district court that the police did not act in bad faith," Justice Bob Pemberton wrote. "The United States Supreme Court has held that 'unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.'"

The court found no evidence of bad faith because the officer testified that he had "no clue" whether there even was a recording made.

"There is no indication in the record that Jennings or his supervisors handled the videotape in question any differently than they handled other videotapes," Pemberton wrote. "Nor is there any indication in the record that the tape was not preserved because of any improper motive on the part of Jennings or other officers."

The court concluded that failure to follow the instructions on the subpoena was not evidence of bad faith because Jennings testified that he never received the document.

A copy of the unpublished decision is available in a PDF file at the source http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflink below.

Source: PDF File Martin v. Texas (Court of Appeals, State of Texas, 8/10/2011)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/tx-dashcamhide.pdf

Below is a partial list of Judge Pemberton's supporters:

http://www.bobpemberton.com/supporters/

Hon. Greg Abbott
Marjorie & Edwin Adams
Tricia Affleck
Victor Alcorta
Doug Alexander
Lee & Anissa Allbritton
Martin Allday
William Allensworth
Debbie Alsup
Jean & Kenneth Anderson
Joe Anderson
Claire Arenson
Gaylord Armstrong
John Arnold
Hon. Bud Arnot
Missy Atwood
Al Axe
Tom Baird
Scott & Anna Baker
Annette & O’Gene Barkemeyer
Geoff Barr
Travis Barton
Stephanie Bascom
Chester S. Beattie
Eric Behrens
Steve Benesh
Bruce Bennett
Natalie Wallace Bennett
Gilbert J. Bernal
Paul Bessette
Hon. Lisa Birkman
Barry Bishop
Tom Bond
Jack Borchers
Roger Borgelt
Wayne Bost
Ryan Botkin
Chris Bounds
Cindy Bourland
Jeff Boyd
Hon. Bruce Boyer
Terry Bray
Anna & Bill Brodie
Joe Brophy
Lou Brown
Britt Buchanan
Michael Burk
Bob Burleson
Michael Burnett
William T. Burrell
Jim Byrom
Charles Cain
Kerry Cammack
Jim Cannon
John Cargile
Charles Carter
Barron Casteel
Hon. Carter Casteel
Cheryl Casteel
David Chamberlain
Bill Christian
Bill Cobb
Patricia Cofty
Greg Coleman
Hon. Susan Combs
Diane Connell
Hon. Geoff Connor
Scott Cooley
Gail Corser
Peggy Cravens
Joe Crawford
Jack Crews
Bill Crocker
Jill Cronin
Wade Crosnoe
Mert Darling
C. Dean Davis
Fred Davis
Hector DeLeon
Andrew Dillon
Casey Dobson
Doug Dodds
Dennis Donley
Craig Douglas
Matt Dow
Claude Ducloux
James & Felicia Dunks
Mark Eidman
Jay Ellwanger
Ty Embrey
Hon. Craig Enoch
Leland Enochs
Jim Ewbank
Gary Farmer
Vic Feazell
Ed Fernandes
Scott Field
Wayne Fisher
Tom Forbes
Tom Fortenberry
Lisa Fountain
Tim La Frey
Hon. Dan Gattis
James W. George
Pam Giblin
David Gillmeister
Carroll Glaser
Janessa Glenn
Raymond & Doris Ann Goldman
Kinnan Golemon
Hon. Raul Gonzalez
Grant Goodwin
Yantis Green
Ann Greenberg
Hon. Joe Greenhill
Marci Hogan Greer
Brian Greig
Don & Prissy Griffis
Randy Grimes
Gary & Fran Grogan
Derek Van Guilder
Susan Gusky
Anthony Haley
Hon. Jack Hampton
Hon. Kent Hance
Hon. Tim Hancock
Rob Hargett
John Harmon
Jim Harp
Bruce M. Harris
Terri Harris
Louri O’Leary & Jim Harrison
David Hartman
Mike Hatchell
Molly Hatchell
Bob Hearon
Ted Hejl
Mack Ray Hernandez
David Herndon
Amanda & Jason Hill
Glenna Hodge
John Mark Hogg
Frank A. Holbrook
Kevin Holcomb
Donna Holmes
John Howard
Bob Howell
T.B. Hudson
Mike Huerta
Lin Hughes
Mark Humble
Lino Mendiola, III
Eustace Isidore
Mike Jines
Kay P. Johnson
Jennifer Johnson
Bill Jones
Paul Jordan
Franklin Scott Spears, Jr
John R. Hays, Jr.
Dan Kacir
Sidney Kacir
Hon. Patrick Keel
Mary Keeney
Paul Kerr
Andrew Kever
Frank King
Monique Kleck
Robert Kleeman
Joe Knight
Don Kothman
Matt Kyle
Lance Lackey
Ray Langenberg
Joe Lea
James Lee
Wilma & Bennie Lewis
Albert Lin
Lloyd Lochridge
Patton Lochridge
Will & Mary Long
Stewart & Mari Long
Elias Lorenzana
Michael Lovins
April Lucas
Tonia Lucio
Dr. Dennis Lynch
Barbara Mabray
Hon. Keifer & Sammie Marshall
Michael M. Martin
Dolores & Tony Massaro
David Mattka
Mark Mayfield
Shannon McClendon
Witcher McCullough
Samuel McDaniel
Gordon McHaney
Colleen McHugh
Mike McKetta
Drayton McLane
John Mark McLaughlin
Laura Merritt
Lorri Michel
Drew Miller
Janet Monteros
Wendell Moody
Robert Neblett
Chad & Annabell Nelson
Alvin New
Howard Nirken
Scott Norman
Erle Nye
Bob O’Boyle
Patrick O’Daniel
David Ogee
Rufus Oliver
Joe Osborn
Paul Van Osselaer
Gregg Owens
Dr. Darrell Palm
Hon. Greg Parker
Bill Parrish
Jennifer Patterson
Becky Yates Pemberton
Hon. Stan & Jo Ann Pemberton
Lee Pfluger
Bane Phillipi
Hon. Thomas R. Phillips
Hon. Jack Pope
H. Robert Powell
Jennifer Powell
Pike Powers
Scott Powers
Wayne Prescott
Adam Price
Shannon Ratliff
Gracie & Bob Renbarger
Wes & Aida Riddle
John Riley
Randy Roach
Forrest Roan
Mary Joe Roddie
Tom Rodman
Wendy Rogers
Tom Rogers
Dr. Jim Rohack
Frank & Jean Rose
Marc Rosenthal
Joe Will Ross
David Rowe
Paul S. Ruiz
Brian Russell
Kevin Sadler
Alex & Paul Saenz
Travis & Sandy Sales
Randy Sarosdy
Mitchell Savrick
Pete Schenkkan
Jody Scheske
Everett Schmidt
Carl Schwenker
Jamey Secrest
Jerry Secrest
Hon. Bob Shannon
Lance & Laura Sharp
Mike Shaunnesy
Nancy Shellhorse
Ryan Shelton
West Short
Cory Smith
Todd Smith
Jim Sneeringer
Dan A. Gattis, Sr.
Ram Sriram
Joe Stallone
Bill & Lynda Stokes
Frank Suhr
Robert Summers
Andy M. Taylor
Tim Taylor
Amy & Lloyd Thomas
Hazel Thomas
Jay Thompson
Laurie Tice
Charles Tighe
Austin Tighe
Tom Tourtellotte
Glynn Turquand
Ben Vaughan
Gavin Villareal
Meg & Dathan Voelter
Robb Voyles
Don Walden
Don Walker
Brian Walters
Karen Watkins
Skip Watson
Tom Welch
Stacy Wendlandt
Robert Westbrook
Mark Whitaker
Ivan & Dot White
Raymond White
Rick Whitley
David Whittlesey
Hon. Dick Wieland
Liz Wiley
Glen Wilkerson
Talley Williams
Ellen Williams
Bob & Esther Wilson
Steve Wingard
Pete Winstead
Susan & Reid Witliff
Rick Wittenbraker
Jim & Carla Wright
Anita & Dr. James Wuensche
John Yarling
Richard Yeomans
Larry York
John Youngblood
Gary Zausmer
Bill Nations
Hon. Bill Meacham
Gus Lindemann

Pemberton Earns Bipartisan Law Enforcement Support

Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT)
Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA)
Texas State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)
Austin Police Association
Cedar Park Police Association
Central Texas Lodge #29 (Temple area), Fraternal Order of Police
Hill Country Lodge #23 (Hays County), Fraternal Order of Police
New Braunfels Police Association
Round Rock Police Officers Association
San Angelo Coalition of Police
San Antonio Police Officers’ Association
Travis County Sheriff’s Officers Association
Travis County Sheriffs’ Law Enforcement Association
West Bell County Lodge #32, Fraternal Order of Police
Williamson County Sheriff Officers Association

District Attorney Bryan Goetz, Bastrop County
Sheriff Dan Smith, Bell County
District Attorney Henry Garza, Bell County
Sheriff Bill Ellsbury, Blanco County
Sheriff Joe Pollack, Burnet County
Dean Myane, County Attorney, Blanco County
County Attorney Eddie Arredondo, Burnet County
District Attorney Chris Schneider, Caldwell County
District Attorney George McCrea, Coke, Concho, Irion, Runnels, Schleicher, Sterling and Tom Green counties
District Attorney Steve Lupton. Coke, Concho, Irion, Runnels, Schleicher, Sterling and Tom Green counties
Sheriff Bob Holder, Comal County
District Attorney Dib Waldrip, Comal County
Sheriff Richard Doane, Concho County
Sheriff Allen Bridges, Hays County
District Attorney Mike Wenk, Hays County
Sheriff (Ret.) Don Montague, Hays County
Sheriff Gordon Morris, Lampasas County
District Attorney Larry Allison, Lampasas County
Sheriff William Baird, Runnels County
Sheriff John Wells, San Saba County
County Attorney David Williams, San Saba County
Sheriff David Doran, Schleicher County
Sheriff Joe Hunt, Tom Green County
Constable Bob Vann, Travis County
Sheriff James Wilson, Williamson County
District Attorney John Bradley, Williamson County
County Attorney Jana Duty, Williamson County

Organizations

Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association PAC
Texas Medical Association TEXPAC
Family Law PAC
Texas Civil Justice League PAC
Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC
Central Texas Home Builders Association
Temple Area Home Builders Association
Texas Farm Bureau AGFUND
Texas State Rifle Association
Hudson Bend Professional Fire Fighters Association

No surprise that this judge can count on the support of the Fraternal Order of Police.

My police video was 'just grey static'
http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

Internet Censorship Test

2011-08-01T18:17:00.009-04:00

Last month I posted the following url article about the impeding real estate project -- "The Hampshires" by Comstock Homes -- to block the best route for inside the Beltway/Washington, D.C. I-95:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2011/07/eastern-star-dc-i-95-chock.html

The article's purpose is to inform, not only the officials and the general public, but as well anyone considering buying into this ill advised real estate development project.

When I search via Google for that project by name, both the developers web site and my article about their project appears on the first page.

IF this project is built, and we end up with people buying into it unaware of the information within my article about this blocking the I-95 route, in this day and age of near universal use of the internet, particularly by anyone about to invest a substantial amount of money purchasing something, it will be apparent that we have internet CENSORING.

US 'NSA' Uses Cell Phones as Tracking Devices Without Search Warrants

2011-07-27T15:52:00.004-04:00

National Security Agency ADMITS It Tracks Americans Via Cell Phones

http://www.infowars.com/nsa-admits-it-tracks-americans-via-cell-phones/

The general counsel of the National Security Agency testified to a Senate hearing yesterday that he believes the agency has the authority to track Americans via cell phones.

“There are certain circumstances where that authority may exist,” said Matthew Olsen the current nominee to head up the National Counterterrorism Center.

Olsen made the comments to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) repeatedly asked if the government has the authority to “use cell site data to track the location of Americans inside the country.”

Olsen added that the reason his answer was not definitive was that “it is a very complicated question”, assuring the committee that the NSA would provide more information in a future memo.

Sen. Wyden recently wrote (full letter below) to the Director of National Intelligence demanding to know whether the CIA and the NSA “have the authority to collect the geolocation information of American citizens for intelligence purposes.”
“If yes, please explain the specific statutory basis for this authority,” the letter, co signed by Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.) states.

The Senators also requested information on how many Americans have been monitored under authority granted by 2008 legislation amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. “Have any apparently law-abiding Americans had their communications collected by the government?” the letter asks.

Two months ago Wyden expressed concern that the law relating to surveillance is unclear. “The law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch” Wyden noted.
Along with Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), Wyden has introduced a joint bill that would force any government agency to secure a search warrant and show probable cause before tracking the location of any American.

The issue of cell phone tracking blew up earlier this year when it was revealed that computer researchers discovered a hidden file that allows Apple to track the location of iPhone and iPad users. Google’s collection of location from cellphones has also been open to question.
As we have previously highlighted, however, since October 2001, the FCC has mandated that all wireless carriers track the location of their users down to within 50 feet.
Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC mandated that by October 1, 2001 a quarter of all new cellphones be equipped with GPS functionality that would allow authorities to track the location of users. By the end of 2002, this became a mandatory requirement of allnew cellphones.
As Geek.com reported back in October 2001, “Because cellphone calls to 911 (estimated at around 140,000 per year) do not give the 911 operator location information, the FCC mandated that wireless companies “be able to locate 67 percent of callers to 911 within 50 meters that elect the handset solution while those using network technology must be able to locate the caller within 100 meters.” Wireless companies must also have one-quarter of the new cellphones they offer equipped to provide that location information by the end of the year, and all new cellphones so equipped by the end of next year.”

As a PC World article written in August 2001, two months before the first phase of the new FCC rules were enacted, asked, “The FCC requires cell phone companies to track you, in order to find you when you call 911–but what about your privacy?”
“Cell phone tracking was propelled by the Federal Communications Commission, which adopted enhanced 911 rules to cover wireless services. For E911′s first phase, cellular carriers must be able to pinpoint, to the nearest cell tower, the location of someone calling 911. For Phase II, carriers must be able to pinpoint a 911 caller’s location to within 50 to 300 meters,” states the article.

Your cellphone has been tracking you in real time for the lion’s share of the last decade, so why has it taken the media nearly 10 years to notice? Because in 2001, when such measures could have been made illegal, there was no iPhone, there was no app store, and the smart phones being used were extremely crude compared to today’s models, which are no less than mini-laptops.

In 2001, cellphones did little else than make calls and send text messages – these services didn’t require GPS technology. People weren’t addicted to their cellphones like they are today, they didn’t use them to catalogue, record and process every aspect of their existence.

The likes of Apple have worked hard over the last decade to make hundreds of millions of people dependent on their gadgets, creating an army of addicts who couldn’t care less that their cellphone is transmitting their every move directly to Steve Jobs. In their eyes, the choice between sacrificing their privacy and sacrificing their precious “apps” is an easy one to make. Privacy can’t book a table at a restaurant in a few taps of a finger, nor can it tell you the weather forecast or where the nearest ATM is located.

If the debate had been allowed to run its course in 2001, when cellphone tracking was first being adopted, the outcome may have been different. But since cellphone companies have been tracking their users for the best part of a decade, in line with government mandates, the recent controversy is merely part of the acclimatization process to achieve calm subservience and acceptance of the fact that true privacy is dead, and as Henry Blodget explains, Apple’s omnipresent brainwashing campaign has helped keep the outrage to a minimum.

Sen. Ron Wyden’s letter inquiring over tracking of Americans by federal intelligence agencies:

Sen. Ron Wyden’s letter inquiring over tracking of Americans by federal intelligence agencies:

July 14, 2011

The Honorable James R. Clapper, Jr. Director of National Intelligence Washington, DC 20511

Dear Director Clapper:

In the coming months Congress is likely to consider various legislative initiatives that would modify different aspects of domestic surveillance law. We believe that the debate over these initiatives will be better informed if Congress and the public are provided with more unclassified information about how these initiatives will affect current intelligence authorities and activities.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 significantly modified the US government’s surveillance authorities with regard to individuals believed to be located outside the United States. These new authorities are currently scheduled to expire in late 2012, and Congress could begin considering possible extensions or revisions to these authorities later this year. Since any thorough consideration will require an understanding of how the FISA Amendments Act has been interpreted and implemented, we ask that you provide unclassified answers to the following questions:

• In a December 2007 Statement of Administration Policy on the FISA Amendments Act, the Office of Management and Budget said that it would “likely be impossible” to count the number of people located in the United States whose communications were reviewed by the government pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act. Is this still the case? If so, is it possible to estimate this number with any accuracy?
• Official documents released in 2010 noted that there have been multiple incidents in which intelligence agency personnel have failed to comply with the FISA Amendments Act, and that “Certain types of compliance incidents continue[d] to occur.” Please elaborate on these compliance incidents to the extent possible, and explain why you believe that they have continued to recur.
• Have any apparently law-abiding Americans had their communications collected by the government pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act?
• Are any significant interpretations of the FISA Amendments Act currently classified?

Turning to another area of surveillance law, recent advances in geolocation technology have made it increasingly easy to secretly track the movements and whereabouts of individual Americans on an ongoing, 24/7 basis. Law enforcement agencies have relied on a variety of different methods to conduct this sort of electronic surveillance, including the acquisition of cell phone mobility data from communications companies as well as the use of tracking devices covertly installed by the law enforcement agencies themselves.

Unfortunately, the law has not kept up with these advances in technology. As a result, courts in different jurisdictions have issued diverse, conflicting rulings about the evidence and procedures required for the government to surreptitiously track an individual’s movements using a mobile electronic device. Congress is now considering multiple legislative proposals that would attempt to establish clear rules for this sort of surveillance and will need to determine at some point whether it is necessary to update the laws that apply to intelligence investigations as well as the laws that apply to law enforcement investigations.

While there is a substantial amount of public information available regarding different interpretations of this area of the law (including the executive branch’s interpretation and the interpretations of various courts) all of these interpretations apply to law enforcement authorities, not intelligence authorities. Clearly Congress needs to also understand how intelligence authorities are being interpreted as it begins to consider legislation on this issue. For this reason, we request that you also provide unclassified answers to the following questions:

• Do government agencies have the authority to collect the geolocation information of American citizens for intelligence purposes?
• If yes, please explain the specific statutory basis for this authority. And to the extent that this statutory basis imposes any procedural requirements, such as judicial review or approval by particular officials, please describe these requirements.
• If no, please explain the statutory basis for this prohibition.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

Ron Wyden Mark Udall United States Senator United States Senator

Airbourne Assassination

2011-06-21T01:47:00.007-04:00

Pentagon Pushing Mini-Drones
With smaller and smaller size
and the lack of oversight regarding surveillance,
this shall empower the government to target dissidents lethally.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/01/03/Air-Force-seeks-lethal-mini-drones/UPI-85651294069921/

Air Force seeks lethal mini-drones

excerpt

KADIMA, Israel, Jan. 3 (UPI) -- A rapid acquisition program for lethal mini-drones for Special Operations Forces has reportedly been launched by the U.S. Air Force's Rapid Acquisition Cell.

Defense Update, an Israeli publication, said the equipment to be delivered under the Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System program will provide warfighters in covert positions a portable, non-line-of-sight precision strike capability with a very low risk of collateral damage.

Last month, the Air Force selected Aerovironment, IAT and Textron Defense Systems three contractors to provide weaponized systems for a test series planned for this spring. Procurement of weapons would begin next year.

Two representative systems in the category are a new "Point and Toss" mini-drone from IAT and the Switchblade, developed by Aerovironment, Defense Update said.

The Air Force expects the new weapon to weigh around 3 pounds.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/01/03/Air-Force-seeks-lethal-mini-drones/UPI-85651294069921/#ixzz1PtDONFE6

The Pentagon promotes this on a smaller and smaller scale- insect sized.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/03/for-years-now-p/

Just imagine the possibilities, combined with a lack of adequate oversight against abuse.... potential rule by terror.

Rand Paul On The "PATRIOT Act"

2011-05-31T23:11:00.000-04:00

U.S. 7th Circuit Court Approves Warrantless GPS tracking

2011-04-29T15:31:00.000-04:00

All for the pharma-cigarette market protection racket

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3467.asp

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled yesterday in favor of police officers who attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without first obtaining a warrant. The three-judge panel insisted searches of this sort do not violate the Fourth Amendment after considering the case of Juan Cuevas-Perez.

On February 6, 2009, Phoenix, Arizona detective Matthew Shay attached a tracking device to Cuevas-Perez's Jeep Laredo while it was parked on the street. He did not bother to ask a judge for a warrant. By February 8, the device had tracked the Jeep driving through Missouri. After sixty hours of use the GPS battery died so Shay had other law enforcement agencies track the Jeep to its ultimate destination in Illinois. After following Cuevas-Perez for forty miles, an Illinois State Police pulled him over for "remaining in the left-hand passing lane," a violation almost never enforced by the department. A subsequent drug dog search uncovered nine packages of heroin.

Seventh Circuit already ruled in a 2007 case that secretly installing a GPS device on a vehicle did not constitute a search because the unit provided the same information that could be had from an officer physically following the car. In light of the November US v. Maynard decision from the DC Circuit striking down GPS searches lacking judicial approval (view ruling), the Seventh Circuit judges re-examined the issue. The judges concluded that the twenty-eight-day surveillance in DC could not be compared to the sixty-hour tracking in the present case.

"Unlike in Maynard, the surveillance here was not lengthy and did not expose, or risk exposing, the twists and turns of Cuevas-Perez's life, including possible criminal activities, for a long period," Judge Richard D. Cudahy wrote for the majority. "As the Maynard court noted, the chances that the whole of Cuevas-Perez's movements for a month would actually be observed is effectively nil -- but that is not necessarily true of movements for a much shorter period."Seventh Circuit already ruled in a 2007 case that secretly installing a GPS device on a vehicle did not constitute a search because the unit provided the same information that could be had from an officer physically following the car. In light of the November US v. Maynard decision from the DC Circuit striking down GPS searches lacking judicial approval (view ruling), the Seventh Circuit judges re-examined the issue. The judges concluded that the twenty-eight-day surveillance in DC could not be compared to the sixty-hour tracking in the present case.

"Unlike in Maynard, the surveillance here was not lengthy and did not expose, or risk exposing, the twists and turns of Cuevas-Perez's life, including possible criminal activities, for a long period," Judge Richard D. Cudahy wrote for the majority. "As the Maynard court noted, the chances that the whole of Cuevas-Perez's movements for a month would actually be observed is effectively nil -- but that is not necessarily true of movements for a much shorter period."

Lawyers for Cuevas-Perez also argued that the tracking device in this case was far more advanced than those used in prior precedents. The device was capable of sending real-time location updates every minute, whereas the systems in previous cases required physical retrieval of stored information.

"We do not consider this particular advancement to be significant for Fourth Amendment purposes in general: real-time information is exactly the kind of information that drivers make available by traversing public roads," Cudahy wrote. "The historical data gathered and stored on comparatively primitive GPS devices is actually less akin to the publicly-exposed information on which the Fourth Amendment permissibility of GPS tracking is based."

Judge Diane P. Wood disagreed with the majority's interpretation, arguing it leaves open the possibility of mass surveillance restrained only by the financial resources of the police department.

"If the Fourth Amendment is out of the picture, then it makes no difference whether a police officer subjectively had a good reason to activate a device that he attached, if he acted on a whim, or if he was systematically using devices put on every car in a bad part of town to see where the drivers might be going," Judge Wood wrote in her dissent.

Wood argued that Congress could step in and provide appropriate requirements for use of surveillance devices as it has done in the past. Judge Joel M. Flaum agreed with Cudahy's reasoning but added that the implications of the ruling are troubling.

"If the doctrine needs clarifying, tweaking, or an overhaul in light of technologies employed by law enforcement, that additional guidance should come from the Supreme Court," Flaum wrote in a concurring opinion. "The matter is, as they say, above our pay grade."

A copy of the decision is available in a 300k PDF file at the source link below. Source

ObUma Worse Then Bush on 4th Amendment

2011-04-08T16:46:00.000-04:00

April 7th, 2009

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's
Commentary by Tim Jones

We had hoped this would go differently.

Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration made two deeply troubling arguments.

First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.

It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.

Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses "sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is striking. As a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency and accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own Department Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government shall be entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its own laws.

This isn't change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.

For further reading, we suggest Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald and The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

Related Issues: NSA Spying

Related Cases: Jewel v. NSA

ObUma Adminstration Embraces GW Bush Administration Position on Subverting the 4th Amendment

2011-04-08T16:42:00.000-04:00

April 6th, 2009

Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy

Says Court Must Dismiss Jewel v. NSA to Protect 'State Secrets'

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

San Francisco - The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

For the full motion to dismiss:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewelmtdobama.pdf

For more on Jewel v. NSA:
http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

Contacts:

Kevin Bankston
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bankston@eff.org

Cindy Cohn
Legal Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
cindy@eff.org

Rebecca Jeschke
Media Relations Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
press@eff.org

Related Issues: NSA Spying

Related Cases: Jewel v. NSA

Right to Peaceably Assemble to Redress Grievances Undermined by Quantico Marine Command that Violates Soldier's Oath

2011-04-04T18:50:00.000-04:00

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Shock-Troops-Used-to-Preve-by-Kevin-Zeese-110404-182.html
By Kevin Zeese

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." - Soldiers Oath

On March 20th, Americans, in a vet led assembly, gathered to support PFC Bradley Manning who is accused of leaking documents to WikiLeaks and who has been held in solitary confinement at the Quantico Marine Base for 7 months. We worked successfully with the Prince William County Police for a safe and peaceful event, but one aspect of the event was in dispute -- a veteran led flower laying ceremony.

It seemed like something that should not have been controversial -- a ceremony to remember the war dead at a replica of the Iwo Jima Monument. The monument is open to the public every day of the year, but the Marines insisted on closing it to prevent a flower laying ceremony by veterans. We wanted to remember the war dead and emphasize that transparency saves lives as deception has been the basis of so many wars.

The Iwo Jima Memorial, also known as the U. S. Marine Corps War Memorial, is dedicated to all personnel of the Marines who have died defending the United States since 1775. The saying "Uncommon Valor Was a Common Virtue" is on the memorial and refers to the strength of mind and spirit that was shown by Marines in World War II who encountered danger with firmness. Bradley Manning, if he is guilty of what he is accused, has shown uncommon valor by sharing documents that show crimes and other misdeeds by the U.S. military and State Department. The inhumane treatment he is receiving is proof of the courage he has shown .

I wrote two memoranda to Colonel Daniel J. Choike, the Quantico Base Commander prior to March 20th. In them I explained our intent, the constitutional rights we were exercising and offered to find a way to exercise our rights safely. I concluded both memos saying "We ask you to please work with us in good faith and dignity to make this event work as it should under the Constitution, statutes and laws we all honor and respect. I stand ready and willing to work with you or your representatives, to make this work appropriately, and may be contacted for this purpose at any time, day or night, in furtherance of that goal." We received no response from the Marine Command. The one time I called the Marines, I was told the monument is open every day of the year but would be closed because of our presence.

On the morning of the assembly, the Prince William police offered a compromise: we could send five people to the monument to lay flowers on the memorial. While some among the Bradley Manning supporters were unhappy with this compromise, we decided to accept it in order to have a peaceful event that allowed us to show our respect for those who have died in war. In the end, the police allowed six people to approach the monument with flowers.

Among the six were two who had been awarded the Purple Heart, one from World War II and the other from Iraq. Jay Wenk, an army veteran received the Purple Heart when he was a member of the 90th Infantry Division, part of Patton's 3rd Army in Germany. His company got into a firefight in a heavily wooded area, a grenade fragment clipped his right shin, and the medic cleaned and bandaged it. The next morning after sleeping outside Wenk was in great pain, he'd contracted pneumonia and pleurisy. He was sent to a hospital west of the Rhine and rejoined his detail three weeks later. Most of his comrades had been killed while he was away when they were caught in the open by two German planes.

Photo By Ellen Davidson, Zach Choate and Jay Wenk walk back from attempted flower laying at war memorial

Zack Choate served as a scout with the Army's 10th Mountain Division in southern Baghdad. He received a Purple Heart after being wounded by a roadside bomb in October 2006. He was riding in his vehicle on a combat patrol when a roadside bomb detonated, ejecting him from the gunner's turret. After returning to the U.S. for treatment, he was awarded the Purple Heart. He was also diagnosed with PTSD. Out of a sense of "guilt" and other institutional pressures, he returned for a second tour.

Others in the flower laying group included: Retired Colonel Ann Wright who had a 29 year career in the U.S. military and also served 16 years in the Foreign Service. She served as Deputy Chief of Mission of US Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan and resigned in 2003 when the Iraq War began. There was also retired Marine Captain David C. MacMichael, the former commander of Headquarters Company at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia, a counter-insurgency expert in South-East Asia for four years who went to the CIA after his military career. Daniel Ellsberg left Harvard in 1954 to join the Marines and graduated first in a class of almost 1,100 lieutenants at the Marine School in Quantico. He served as a platoon leader and company commander in the Marine 2nd Infantry Division. In 1959 he began work at RAND, a private military think tank. He served in the Pentagon and reported the Gulf of Tonkin incident to Secretary Robert McNamara. He then served two years in Vietnam as a civilian working for General Lansdale. Ellsberg is most known for leaking the Pentagon Papers which undermined the rationale for the Vietnam War. The final member of the group was Elaine Brower, the mother of a Marine recently returned from his third deployment, 1 in Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq. She is an activist against the war with the National Steering Committee of World Can't Wait and a member of Military Families Speak Out.

As the flower laying delegation approached the monument they were told to stop at a police barrier 20 feet from the memorial. The memorial was too far away to even throw the flowers on to it. The delegation was disappointed. Jay Wenk told me that "when we came up to the barriers and were told to put our flowers on the ground, that we could go no further because "that's Federal land' I felt shocked, angry and despairing of what our government is." Zach Choate said he "was furious and hurt" Ann Wright decided to sit down on the road in protest, Daniel Ellsberg joined her. Then people came out from behind the police barricade and into the streets.

Parmailitary Police Block Road at War Memorial in Quantico , Photo By Ellen Davidson

Police showed how much force they were willing to use to prevent vets from laying flowers on a war memorial. Riot police started to march down the hill. Dressed like Imperial Guards in Star Wars, 30 of them stood shoulder-to-shoulder covering the width of a four-lane road carrying large shields, wearing black helmets with plastic over their face in most cases only the eyes could be seen and many of them were covered by sun glasses, body armor covering their chest and arms, knee pads, shin guards and heavy boots. Behind them were an equal number of riot police without shields but similarly dressed. There were about a dozen SWAT team troops with large assault rifles, wearing green military-like clothing and also helmets with masks that hid their faces. There were eight police on horseback, the horses also wearing riot gear covering their face with plastic and the police troops riding them were wearing helmets and riot gear as well. They were accompanied by police with police dogs, two buses and an armored vehicle. There were numerous other police from Prince William County, Manassas and Quantico.

Heavily armed SWAT police threaten peaceful protesters. Photo by Ellen Davidson

Five different police forces were involved in responding to the flower laying threat. Quite a show of paramilitary force to stop a flower laying ceremony by five vets and a military mom!

There was no violence from the peace protesters who had all pledged to be non-violent at the event. Some of the protesters were treated roughly by the paramilitary police.

Paramilitary police push forward knocking people on top of each other. Photo by Ellen Davidson

Even the horse were wearing riot gear. Photo by Ellen Davidson.

What was the root cause of this expensive and unnecessary show of force? The Marine Command insisting that vets could not lay flowers at a public war memorial. Did they forget their oath? Perhaps the most important part of the U.S. Constitution is the First Amendment which protects Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Petitioning the government. The language is clear: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Rather than defending the Constitution, the actions of the Quantico Marine Command are undermining critical constitutional guarantees and violating the soldier's oath.

Daniel Ellsberg with Paramilitary Unit as he is arrested for attempting to lay flowers in an "unlawful assembly." Photo by Ellen Davidson

As a result of the events on the 20th, 32 people have been arrested. Daniel Ellsberg said when the magistrate told him the charge was "unlawful assembly" he thought: "Unlawful assembly ? I thought of that as a pre-Revolutionary charge: "Disperse, ye rabble! Go to your homes!' I was under the belief that the First Amendment--protecting the right "peaceably to assemble to petition for redress of grievances' was supposed to "change all that.' Could there be a clearer description of what we were doing--right at the immediate site of one of the grievances? Granted, we were in a highway: but the State Police had blocked off that road themselves, for the period of our assembly : we weren't even "disrupting traffic.'"

Now, it goes to the Prince William Courts. It will be an opportunity for the courts to enforce and protect the most basic constitutional rights of Americans, or an opportunity to turn those guarantees into a farce. Let's hope the courts side with the people and the Constitution or the shock troops at Quantico could become a model seen in other parts of the country.

26 Republicans Stall 3 Ways of Subverting the 4th and 1st Amendments

2011-02-14T00:55:00.000-05:00

A Patriot Act Surprise
NY Times editorial February 13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13sun1.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Republicans have a long history of favoring small government except when it comes to surveillance and security, at which point civil liberties take a back seat. Last week, however, 26 Republicans in the House demonstrated a remarkable consistency by joining 122 Democrats to prevent the extension of three questionable provisions of the Patriot Act, the post-9/11 law created during the Bush administration.

The vote splashed some cold water on the House Republican leadership, which had been so confident that it raised the extension under fast-track rules that require a two-thirds majority. The leadership is planning to bring it back this week under the normal rules. It is almost certain to pass and be sent to the Senate.

Nonetheless, the concerns that briefly brought together liberals, Tea Party members and longtime centrists from both parties should send a message to the White House and the Senate. The provisions of the Patriot Act should be carefully re-examined before being hastily reauthorized year after year. The Tea Party-backed congressman Justin Amash of Michigan was right to say that some raise serious concerns about violating the ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Three provisions in the act are set to expire on Feb. 28, and would be renewed under the House bill, supported by the Obama administration, through December.

One would allow a roving wiretap on a terror suspect to monitor his conversations as he moves from phone to phone. That can be a useful tool, but the authorization is so broad that the government does not even have to specify the suspect’s name to get a warrant. The failure to provide a more narrow identification of the suspect is too lax and could lead to abuse.
Another expiring provision has long raised serious civil liberties concerns, allowing the government to examine library and bookstore records of suspects, along with hard drives, tax documents and gun records. Investigators are not required to show probable cause that the material is related to a terrorist investigation.

The third provision, allowing surveillance of “lone wolf” suspects who may not be tied to recognized terror organizations, is also overly broad but has never been used. Rather than renew it without debate, the government should explain whether it is really necessary.

The extensions will probably pass the House this week — though leaders do not plan to give anyone a chance to amend them — and go to the Senate, which should provide another opportunity for reconsideration. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee chairman, has introduced a bill that would add several safe guards to the act, most notably the phasing out of “national security letters,” which the F.B.I. has used to obtain evidence without a court order. These letters have been subject to widespread misuse and have never received proper oversight.

Unfortunately, the same bill that would bring the letters under control would extend the three expiring provisions in the Patriot Act through 2013. It is a much better measure, however, than a bill by Senator Dianne Feinstein that would extend the provisions for three more years without the new safeguards, or one by Senator Mitch McConnell that would make the three provisions permanent. Congress should not miss an opportunity to wield some oversight on this issue and determine whether the government could achieve its goals with less sweeping surveillance powers.

All of these provisions are useful tools for criminal government officials to target individuals for their polictial writings, as I believe happened to me in 2006.

South Capitol Street - Untold Story

http://wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com/2007/12/south-capitol-street-frederick-douglass.html

US Senators Lieberman & Collin's Treason Against Free Speech

2011-01-30T15:05:00.000-05:00

from Sam Smith:

Lieberman & Collins wants government to be able to shut down Internet - just like Eygpt

Sean Bonner, Boing Boing - On Thursday Jan 27th at 22:34 UTC the Egyptian Government effectively removed Egypt from the internet. Nearly all inbound and outbound connections to the web were shut down. The internet intelligence authority Renesys explains it here and confirms that "virtually all of Egypt's Internet addresses are now unreachable, worldwide." This has never happened before in the entire history of the internet, with a nation of this size. A block of this scale is completely unheard of, and Senator Joe Lieberman [and Susan Collins] wants to be able to do the same thing in the US.

The bill, referred to as the 'Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act' removes all judicial oversight. This bill is still currently circulating and will be voted on later this year. Lieberman has said it should be a top priority.

This is something Americans should be paying very close attention to. Think about your daily life and how big a role the internet plays in it. Now think about what it would be like if one person had the authority to turn that off completely. If you can't imagine what that would be like you aren't alone. A week ago this was a hypothetical scenario. Now, you can just ask an Egyptian citizen what that feels like. Pay close attention to what happens with this bill.

Obama to Establish White House as Unreviewable Executioner

2010-11-09T02:44:00.000-05:00

'Change' for the Worse

Published on Monday, November 8, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/08-4

Obama Administration Claims Unchecked Authority to Kill Americans Outside Combat Zones
ACLU and CCR Statement

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration's asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.

"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration's claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing."

The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asks the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asks the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.

"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU, who presented arguments in the case. "It's the government's responsibility to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, but the courts have a crucial role to play in ensuring that counterterrorism policies are consistent with the Constitution."

The government filed a brief in the case in September, claiming that the executive's targeted killing authority is a "political question" that should not be subject to judicial review. The government also asserted the "state secrets" privilege, contending that the case should be dismissed to avoid the disclosure of sensitive information.

The lawsuit was filed against CIA Director Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Barrack Obama in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and Jennifer Turner of the ACLU; Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital. Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).

GPS Subversion of the 4th Amendment

2010-10-05T01:06:00.000-04:00

and thus the subversion of the 1st amendment
to an ancient regime continuing counter reformation

Editorial
An Illegal Search, by GPS
Published: October 5, 2010

An Illegal Search, by GPS

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05tue2.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

The courts are wrestling with whether new technology requires them to think differently about what is a reasonable expectation of privacy.","keywords":"Global Positioning System, Privacy, Surveillance of Citizens by Government, Search and Seizure, Fourth Amendment (US Constitution), Decisions and Verdicts, Courts

In a landmark 1967 case, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence from a wiretap on a phone booth was obtained unconstitutionally. Despite the public nature of a phone booth, the tap violated the defendant’s privacy under the Fourth Amendment. “Wherever a man may be,” the court explained, “he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Fast forward to today, when courts are wrestling with the question of whether new technology requires them to think differently about what is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In August, three judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (two conservatives, one liberal) ruled unanimously — and correctly — that police violated the Constitution when they hid a GPS device on a person’s car and tracked his every move without a valid warrant. That person, Antoine Jones, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack and cocaine based on the tracking of his Jeep for four weeks.

The way to define what was reasonable for Mr. Jones to regard as private, the court said, is by focusing on what was unreasonable for law enforcement to consider public. “The whole of one’s movements over the course of a month is not constructively exposed to the public,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg said, adding that it “reveals an intimate picture of the subject’s life that he expects no one to have — short perhaps of his spouse.”

Last week, the Justice Department asked the whole court to rehear the case. The government relies heavily on one precedent. In 1983, the Supreme Court said it was legal for police to use a beeper without a warrant to track a suspect on public roads. The argument was dubious: The suspect’s movements were visible and anyone could have gleaned what the police did without the beeper’s help, so he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The government now contends that replacing the beeper with a GPS makes no difference because surveillance of Mr. Jones was on public roads as well. Two other appeals courts in the past three years have accepted that argument. In one, the opinion was written by Richard Posner, among the most respected federal judges.

He got it wrong. Judge Ginsburg got it right: “The difference is not one of degree but of kind.” He also said that, in the Supreme Court case, the justices “distinguished between the limited information discovered by use of the beeper — movements during a discrete journey — and more comprehensive or sustained monitoring.” The justices left for another day whether 24/7 surveillance should be regulated by another legal principle.

That day is here. Digital technology raises questions about differences between cyberspace and the physical world, which most search-and-seizure laws deal with. In showing why a powerful advance in technology calls for significantly greater protection of privacy, the three-judge panel provided an important example of how the law can respond to new circumstances.

Obama to Remove Oversight- Tool of the Continuing Inquisition

2010-07-30T19:59:00.000-04:00

Obama to empower FBI to target dissidents without court oversight’
Potential subversion of 1st amendment via abandoning 4th amendment for internet
White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity

Lawyer Stewart Baker said the change would sometimes "mean giving a lot more information to the FBI." (Courtesy Of The Department Of Homeland Security)
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 29, 2010

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.
Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.

To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.

CPAC 2010 Debate: Does Security Trump Freedom?

2010-02-18T04:51:00.000-05:00

Interesting panel within the schedule of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Friday 19, 2010 at 1:35 PM in Washington, D.C.'s Marriott Wardman Park Hotel at 2660 Woodley Road, NW, that includes 'PATRIOT Act' author Jesuit Georgetown University Law Center (Law School) Prof. Viet Dinh

Debate: Does Security Trump Freedom?
Marriott Ballroom
Sponsored by American Center for Law and Justice

Hon. Bob Barr
Hon. Jim Gilmore, Free Congress Foundation
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA)
Viet Dinh, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Dr. Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice

Here's the panel, held February 19, 2010:

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/4846716" />http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/4846716" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4846716

The Right of Mobility

2010-01-06T16:39:00.000-05:00

From Spiritually Smart's Blog:
(which was unavailable for a while)

http://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2010/01/right-to-move-about-freely-at-home-and.html
Wednesday, January 06, 2010

"Right to move about freely; at home and abroad..." ?

I was amazed to hear my daughter repeating these words. I looked at what she was reading from and it was right out of her school text book and was a list of freedoms supposedly covered by the First Amendmnet of the US Constitution. Why or how could she actually be taught this right now? We cannot move about freely at all. I am sick over what these incompetant people are having done at the airports. I will never fly under these conditions and I wish others wouldn't fly anymore either. How can you let people touch you or look under your clothes and search your personal belongings without batting an eye?

Recently a friend of mine travelled to Florida for vacation. She verbally protested the embarrassing search of her personal belongings. The airport "security" then began to make a public example of her. Cordening her off with her child as they both were violated by the hands of strangers on their bodies. This is nothing less than sexual assault. Yet America will not speak up. So why not think that Nazi Germany is upon us again? They "dusted" my friends child's hair for explosives. And it wasn't because they suspected them of being a terrorist. It was because they spoke up. Truly evil and wicked individuals. I pray all these people that oppress others in the name of "freedom" have all peace of mind (if they have any) removed from them by God Almighty.

I am almost too disgusted to write this because I can feel the injustice of having to go through this if I wanted to travel. Of course I wouldn't keep quiet either. This would then cause me to be blocked from getting on my flight. People actually do not even want to fly with someone like me. They think you're dangerous or even perhaps a terrorist yourself if you protest the assault on your privacy we must endure. Or maybe I would end up like like the Carol Ann Gotbaum who was murdered by airport security by being choked to death and left for dead in a small cell.

While these people are saying they are protecting me from "terrorists", who will protect me from them? I haven't seen a terrorist except the ones who are wearing badges eyeballing me and asking to look through my bags at any given time. To me these are the true terrorists. Can I help being offended at this intrusion? No I can't. I am just verbally expressing how I feel. I have the right to do that. Don't I? Only here though right? Only in this little forum I have here. But what happens if you go out and verbally protest? You become a target of harrassment and intimidation.

So this leads me again to the focus and cause of my work. Being that Religious Roman Catholics are in power in this government, who can I blame?

Don't forget the article from the Washington Post which spoke of President Bush's guidance of Roman Catholic thinkers under who's watch much of this oppressive legislation was passed. The article is called, "A Catholic Wind in the White House". This "Catholic wind" has blown away ALL of our precious civil liberties.

What's very strange is that when all this oppressive legislation like the Patriot Act was being passed I heard SOME voices protesting that it was dangerous legislation. But right now, in the face of 24 hour a day News coverage of all this crazy intrusive security I don't hear any public outcry of concern of the violation of our inherited rights to move about freely at home or abroad.

So while one child is learning about Freedoms under our constitution, another child is being "dusted" for explosives and held back, seperated from their mother and having bags checked by THUGS and being taught there is no US Consitution at all and that you have no freedom to move about or any privacy.

Maybe the answer lies in my above statement, "I pray all these people that oppress others in the name of "freedom" have all peace of mind (if they have any) removed from them by God Almighty." Maybe none of them have any peace and are terrified at nothing. Here's a few verses which decribe this feeling they have and WHY. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth:" (Proverbs 28:1) and "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked." (Isaiah 48:22) Important verses to mediatate on. Do you line up?

Posted by T at 1:20 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: alberto rivera, Gary Dale Cearley, spiritually smart, spirituallysmart.com, thomas richards

Yahoo-Verizon Conspiracy Against the Public

2009-12-03T21:32:00.000-05:00

Yahoo, Verizon: Our Spy Capabilities Would ‘Shock’, ‘Confuse’ Consumers

By Kim Zetter
December 1, 2009 |
3:30 pm |
Categories: Cover-Ups, Surveillance, privacy

Want to know how much phone companies and internet service providers charge to funnel your private communications or records to U.S. law enforcement and spy agencies?

That’s the question muckraker and Indiana University graduate student Christopher Soghoian asked all agencies within the Department of Justice, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed a few months ago. But before the agencies could provide the data, Verizon and Yahoo intervened and filed an objection on grounds that, among other things, they would be ridiculed and publicly shamed were their surveillance price sheets made public.

Yahoo writes in its 12-page objection letter (.pdf), that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian, he would use it “to ’shame’ Yahoo! and other companies — and to ’shock’ their customers.”

“Therefore, release of Yahoo!’s information is reasonably likely to lead to impairment of its reputation for protection of user privacy and security, which is a competitive disadvantage for technology companies,” the company writes.

Verizon took a different stance. It objected to the release (.pdf) of its Law Enforcement Legal Compliance Guide because it might “confuse” customers and lead them to think that records and surveillance capabilities available only to law enforcement would be available to them as well — resulting in a flood of customer calls to the company asking for trap and trace orders.

“Customers may see a listing of records, information or assistance that is available only to law enforcement,” Verizon writes in its letter, “but call in to Verizon and seek those same services. Such calls would stretch limited resources, especially those that are reserved only for law enforcement emergencies.”

Other customers, upon seeing the types of surveillance law enforcement can do, might “become unnecessarily afraid that their lines have been tapped or call Verizon to ask if their lines are tapped (a question we cannot answer).”

Verizon does disclose a little tidbit in its letter, saying that the company receives “tens of thousands” of requests annually for customer records and information from law enforcement agencies.

Soghoian filed his records request to discover how much law enforcement agencies — and thus U.S. taxpayers — are paying for spy documents and surveillance services with the aim of trying to deduce from this how often such requests are being made. Soghoian explained his theory on his blog, Slight Paranoia:

In the summer of 2009, I decided to try and follow the money trail in order to determine how often Internet firms were disclosing their customers’ private information to the government. I theorized that if I could obtain the price lists of each ISP, detailing the price for each kind of service, and invoices paid by the various parts of the Federal government, then I might be able to reverse engineer some approximate statistics. In order to obtain these documents, I filed Freedom of Information Act requests with every part of the Department of Justice that I could think of.

The first DoJ agency to respond to his request was the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), which indicated that it had price lists available for Cox Communications, Comcast, Yahoo and Verizon. But because the companies voluntarily provided the price lists to the government, the FOIA allows the companies an opportunity to object to the disclosure of their data under various exemptions. Comcast and Cox were fine with the disclosure, Soghoian reported.

He found that Cox Communications charges $2,500 to fulfill a pen register/trap-and-trace order for 60 days, and $2,000 for each additional 60-day-interval. It charges $3,500 for the first 30 days of a wiretap, and $2,500 for each additional 30 days. Thirty days worth of a customer’s call detail records costs $40.

Comcast’s pricing list, which was already leaked to the internet in 2007, indicated that it charges at least $1,000 for the first month of a wiretap, and $750 per month thereafter.

But Verizon and Yahoo took offense at the request.

Yahoo objected on grounds that its pricing constituted “confidential commercial information” and cited Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act and the Trade Secrets Act.

Exemption 4 of the FOIA refers to the disclosure of commercial or financial information that could result in a competitive disadvantage to the company if it were publicly disclosed. The company claims its pricing is derived from labor rates for employees and overhead and, therefore, disclosing the information would provide clues to its operating costs — regardless of whether these same clues are already available in public records, such as those the company files with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company also claims that since Soghoian is trying to determine the actual amounts the Marshals Service paid Yahoo for responding to requests, the price lists are irrelevant, since “there are no standard prices for these transactions.”

But equally important to Yahoo’s objections was the potential for “criticism” and ridicule. Yahoo quoted Soghoian on his blog writing that his aim was to “use this blog to shame the corporations that continue to do harm to user online privacy.”

Yahoo also objected to the disclosure of its letter objecting to the disclosure of pricing information saying that “release of this letter would likely cause substantial competitive harm” to the company. The company added, in a veiled threat, that if the Marshals Service were to show anyone its letter objecting to the disclosure of pricing information, it could “impair the government’s ability to obtain information necessary for making appropriate decisions with regard to future FOIA requests.”

If anyone out there has a copy of Verizon or Yahoo’s law enforcement pricing list and wants to share it, feel free to use our anonymous tip address.

Image: FBI.gov

Tags: confusion, FOIA, privacy, shock, Surveillance, verizon, wiretaps, Yahoo

Post Comment |
Permalin

2009-11-25T20:04:00.000-05:00

Obama Quietly Backs Renewing Patriot Act Surveillance Provisions

By Willam Fisher, IPS News. Posted November 24, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/144170/obama_quietly_backs_renewing_patriot_act_surveillance_provisions/?page=entire

Three contentious provisions are scheduled to expire next month; opponents of these sections have been pushing to roll them back. But Obama seems ready to renew them.

NEW YORK, 23 Nov (IPS) - With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.

And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.

When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.

But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans -- and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois -- the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.

The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:

National Security Letters (NSLs)

The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.

The 'Material Support' Statute

This provision criminalizes providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalizes a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations.

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.

Asked by IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, referred to "the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms -- while publicly stating receptiveness to them." White House pressure, he speculated, "was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor".

He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.

Zazi , a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.

Leahy acknowledged that, in light of these incidents, "This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."

Pitts told IPS, "Short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach."

"In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it's become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror -- and avoid being accused of being "soft on terror" -- brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed," he added.

In contrast to the Senate, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a version of the legislation containing several significant reforms. In a 16-10 party-line vote, the committee's version curbs some of the government's controversial surveillance powers.

The Patriot Act, passed by a landslide after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional powers to thwart terrorist activities, was reauthorized in 2005.

The legislation has been criticized by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.

Judiciary Chair John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said the goal of the new legislation was to "craft a law that preserves both our national security and our national values".

The proposed new legislation would permit the so-called "lone wolf" provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures.

It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organizations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.

The Justice Department maintains that the "lone wolf" authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent citizens.

The proposed new House legislation would also restrict the use of national security letters. According to a Congressional Research Service report, "National security letters (NSL) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information."

Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies". The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.

The bill approved in the Senate contains much more modest reforms. It would retain the lone wolf provision, and is, in general, much more in line with the wishes of the administration. Should both bills pass and go into conference to be reconciled, it is unclear which approach would prevail.

House and Senate versions still need to be voted on by each body separately and then reconciled into a single bill to send to the president for signature.

Pitts told IPS, "President Obama's flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it's imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualized suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions."

In a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, "More than seven years after its implementation there is little evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources."

Digg! Share on facebook submit to reddit Bookmark on Delicious Stumble This TweetThis

See more stories tagged with: patriot act, fbi, barack obama, surveillance, fisa, russ feingold, telecoms, dick durbin, national security letters, warrantless wiretappinh

William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia for the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Censorship of Continuing Counter Reformation War

2009-11-08T18:52:00.000-05:00

from Continuing Counter Reformation:

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2009/11/along-amber-path-censorship.html

North & South:
Prussia to Trieste
Amber Path

From Continuing Counter Reformation- November 2008 & July 2009:

About Prussia

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2008/11/wlodimir-vladimir-ledochowski-cover-up.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2008/11/jesuit-masonic-betrayal-of-vertriebenen.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2008/11/vertriebenen.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/wlodimir-ledochowski-kulturkampf_17.html
from Avles Beluskes Exposed:

http://avlesbeluskesexposed.blogspot.com/2008/11/hands-of-rome-on-vertriebenen-of.html

and;

About Trieste

From Adriatische Gegenreformation Krieg Heute
Because "....The Counter Reformation of the Vatican's Jesuit Order did not end back in the 1600s" (Douglas Willinger)

Friday, November 6, 2009

Cyber Persecution of Free Speech - episode I

We are all living in 'freedom'. So you can put which comment you want under the YouTube videos about the expulsion/emigration of the Italians from East Adriatic coasts, and of course under a YouTube video about the Fascist Irredentist persecutions against the Slovenians: “assassin Slav!”, “Fascist pig!”, and others attributes, even more offensive, are the most frequent comments you encounter there.

You can reach the level of the incitement of mass homicide when, for example, I read a comment inviting “to tie a barbed wire around the necks of the partisans in order to throw them into the holes”.

So YouTube is the reign of the Freedom. In appearance. You can put which comment you want, offending with the worst threatening words whoever you want, but….. don’t dare to name the Vatican and the Jesuits order as the true masterminds of the 1914 – 1945 Eurasian massacres!

"........The Counter Reformation war of Jesuit order and Vatican punished the Slovenians as Protestant born nation and erased the Italians from the coast as being liberal Catholics hence 'heretics and to have an alibi for future wars:

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/

http://adrgegenreformationheute.blogspot.com/2009/10/day-of-reformation-national-holyday-of.html.........".

What do you think about that my above comment? Offensive? Is it an inconceivable threat? When many of the same priests of Rome and liberal ('heretic') Roman Catholics secretly agreed with my statements, and were punished for this when discovered?

So don’t try to put such a “very dangerous, threatening, offensive” comment under videos as the ones treating the past tragedies. It will be never published, never sent, never posted. You must spare your tongue only to lick the asses of the Vatican and of the Jesuits order…. Ops! Pardon! Did I offend someone?

Here the videos. The first video is a conference of professor Pirjevec about his book. The title of the book is the same of that famous short movie, "Triest is ours!". Professor Pirjevec explains that "Triest is also ours!", as being also the Slovenians native of this area, they naturally feel a patriotic sentiment for the city strictly linked with their land, and are expressing it in their maternal language. So not a slogan of war. But a true war is raging on and is the one of the Cyberwar to Persecute the Freedom of Speech. In fact, after two comments the Romish axle cutted the wire to communicate with the page, and as you can see, since three days there it appears nothing:

(www.vest.si) "Trst je naš!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfH67cL1SBs

These ones are other videos, about the anti-fascist struggle of the Slovenian people and about the expulsions of the Italians. As you can see the username “avlesbeluskes” doesn’t appear, disappeared in the dark virtual holes/Foibe of the Cyber Counter Reformation persecution:

Istria Fiume e Dalmazia ESODO ISTRIANO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxV9TkXYc1g

Istria e Dalmazia=Italia!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkrW1uktnf8

Trst je Naš

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aM-urf0JHg

Day of Reformation, national holyday of Slovenia!
http://adrgegenreformationheute.blogspot.com/2009/10/day-of-reformation-national-holyday-of.html

The Truth disturbs the minister Frattini
http://adrgegenreformationheute.blogspot.com/2009/11/truth-disturbs-minister-frattini.html

Free Speech Beneath US Homeland Security
http://wwwfreespeechbeneathushs.blogspot.com/

-------------------------------------------------
(As I have no time, no resources, no money, no support at disposition, it is clear that what I wrote is affected by many errors and uncorrectness. I am not a prostitute lay journalist of this dirty Vatican 'tollerant' regime called 'democracy'. I have not the 51% of the Bank of America supporting my writings. I don't control the Casinò of Ostenda and neither Citroen and Peugeot as the General Superior did at least in 1958. So corrections and additions could appear in the future)
Posted by avles at 4:43 AM 0 comments

Barack Hussein Obama To Ban 'Blasphemy'?!

2009-10-23T15:43:00.000-04:00

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2009/10/barack-hussein-obama-to-ban-blasphemy.html

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html

Just say no to blasphemy laws

Perhaps in an effort to rehabilitate the United States’ image in the Muslim world, the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech. This country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion.
By Jonathan Turley
Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.
A 'misused' freedom?
In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that "freedom of expression has been sometimes misused" and showing that the "true nature of this right" must yield government limitations.

His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded "this joint project with Egypt" and supported the resolution to achieve "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

Blasphemy prosecutions in the West appear to have increased after the riots by Muslims following the publication of cartoons disrespecting prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005. Rioters killed Christians, burned churches and called for the execution of the cartoonists. While Western countries publicly defended free speech, some quietly moved to deter those who'd cause further controversies through unpopular speech.

In Britain, it is a crime to "abuse" or "threaten" a religion under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. A 15-year-old boy was charged last year for holding up a sign outside a Scientology building declaring, "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult. "In France, famed actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for saying in 2006 that Muslims were ruining France in a letter to then-Interior Minister (and now President) Nicolas Sarkozy. This year, Ireland joined this self-destructive trend with a blasphemy law that calls for the prosecution of anyone who writes or utters views deemed "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."
'Blasphemy' incidents
Consider just a few such Western "blasphemy" cases in the past two years:

• In Holland, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with cartoons, including one that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who want to marry and attend gay rallies.

• In Canada, the Alberta human rights commission punished the Rev. Stephen Boission and the Concerned Christian Coalition for anti-gay speech, not only awarding damages but also censuring future speech that the commission deems inappropriate.

• In Italy, comedian Sabina Guzzanti was put under criminal investigation for joking at a rally that "in 20 years, the pope will be where he ought to be — in hell, tormented by great big poofter (gay) devils, and very active ones."

• In London, an aide to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was arrested for "inciting religious hatred" at his gym by shouting obscenities about Jews while watching news reports of Israel's bombardment of Gaza.Also, Dutch politician Geert Wilders was barred from entering Britain as a "threat to public policy, public security or public health" because he made a movie describing the Quran as a "fascist" book and Islam as a violent religion.

• In Poland, Catholic magazine Gosc Niedzielny was fined $11,000 for inciting "contempt, hostility and malice"by comparing the abortion of a woman to the medical experiments at Auschwitz.

The "blasphemy" cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a "pedophile" because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9). A far-right legislator in Austria, a publisher in India and a city councilman in Finland have been prosecuted for repeating this view of the historical record.

In the flipside of the cartoon controversy, Dutch prosecutors this year have brought charges against the Arab European League for a cartoon questioning the Holocaust.
What's next?
Private companies and institutions are following suit in what could be seen as responding to the Egyptian-U.S. call for greater "responsibility" in controlling speech. For example, in an act of unprecedented cowardice and self-censorship, Yale University Press published The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book by Jytte Klausen on the original Mohammed cartoons. Yale, however, (over Klausen's objections) cut the actual pictures of the cartoons. It was akin to publishing a book on the Sistine Chapel while barring any images of the paintings.

The public and private curtailment on religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

(Illustration by Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY.)

Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, October 19, 2009 in Forum commentary, Free Speech - Forum, On religion column, Religion, Religion - Forum, Turley | Permalink

Thomas Richards Censored by Jesuit Masonic Cyber Inquisition

2009-08-29T16:49:00.000-04:00

It's the same with the censorship of the information about Ledochowski's Kulturkampf Revenge when posted to Vertriebenen boards...

From Avles:
http://avlesbeluskesexposed.blogspot.com/2009/08/spirituallysmartcom-nazi-germany.html

1914 - 1945 Second Thirty Years War of the Jesuits in Eurasia:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

1) Jews: totally extirpated/exterminated from Eurasia

2) Protestant Prussia, the most powerful Protestant anti-Vatican country: annihilated

3) Orthodox Christians: tens of millions from Balkans to Russia were slaughtered

4) 'Heretic' Roman Catholics of Germany, no more loyal to their pope and his Catholic butler Hitler : identified to be then exterminated with the "Mit Brennender Sorge" Jesuit campaign

THESE ARE THE FACTS - THE REST IS ONLY (VATICAN) CRAP

For telling such a truths, not only Douglas' Willinger blogs (and the works of Barry Chamish) are under the fire of the Romanist cyberspace censorship, also the works on the web of Thomas Richards are under the target of the Jesuit-Masonic Cyber-Inquisition
From the last message of the SpirituallySmart blog of Thomas Richards where he enlists all the censorship to which his work online has been submitted:

http://spirituallysmart.blogspot.com/2009/08/censorship-of-spirituallysmartcoms-nazi.html

Watch the video of Thomas Richards related to the truth of the Vatican as creator of Nazism

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/index.html

-----------------------------------
Friday, August 28, 2009

Censorship of SpirituallySmart.Com's Nazi - Vatican info

SpirituallySmart has been censored very often. I am only going to detail a few of the major internet corperations that are doing this to me.

But this isn't about ME. It's about the message of truth. the most important aspect to secular and religious events. the Vatican and her many daughters!

Photobucket.com
Youtube.com
Wikipedia
Infowars.com (Alex Jones and all his affiliates and blogs, forums ect that are associated with him and Loose Change.)

Youtube.com

Click the thumbnails to view full size

This is my Nazi - Vatican Video that I did. This screenshot is a picture someone took in Germany.

Here you can see that youtube deleted a documentary on the holocaust. Being that it was uploaded to my channel it was more important because it was IN CONTEXT with TRUTH! I want to ad that this video DID NOT violate youtube's terms of service.

Photobucket.com

I've been hosting my photos on photobucket since I first started building my web site. Suddenly they are deleting my pictures. Deleting even the banner to my Nazi Vatican Web Page

This was the picture they deleted:

Here you can see they deleted a whole section of my pictures. All of them were photos of high up members of the Vatican posing with high up members of Nazi-Germany

Wikipedia.com

Wikipedia has often censored me. The "administrators" there are agents for the Vatican. I have often caught wikipedia admins gatekeeping articles disallowing good evidence proving a point or weakiening an opposing point.

In the near future I will try to provide links to the actual wikipedia edits. On the Jim Jones, Ante' Pavilec and Alberto Rivera wiki pages (these are only the ones I knew about). These links to my web site were deleted and they were not put on the wiki pages myself. I did try to restore them when they were deleted but I did not originally put them in there.

Infowars.com

I have received many letters from truthseekers telling me that when they mention me in any forum associated with Alex jones that all their posts are quickly deleted. Youtube deleted my video, "Alex Jones CIA Agent of project mockingbird through Alternative Media."

It is also the same way with any mention of the Jesuits or Knights of Malta in any of these forums.

In the future I will provide screenshots of these emails from truthseekers testifying of censorship of truth through Alex Jones. Obviously it will take some time to go through my emails and find them.

Posted by Thomas at 11:33 AM

Labels: censorship, nazis, photobucket, photobucket.com, spiritually smart, spirituallysmart.com, thomas richards, vatican control, wikipedia, youtube, youtube.com

-------------------------------------------------
(As I have no time, no resources, no money, no support at disposition, it is clear that what I wrote is affected by many errors and uncorrectness. I am not a prostitute lay journalist of this dirty Vatican 'tollerant' regime called 'democracy'. I have not the 51% of the Bank of America supporting my writings. I don't control the Casinò of Ostenda and neither Citroen and Peugeot as the General Superior did at least in 1958. So corrections and additions could appear in the future)
Posted by avles at 5:29 AM

Labels: Gegenreformation Krieg Heute, Second Thirty Years War in Eurasia (1914-1945), The Vatican crusade against America, Warnings and Internet censorship

AT&T IS CENSORING ME

2009-08-19T15:55:00.002-04:00

AT&T IS CENSORING ME

by Barry Chamish

AT&T is blocking my articles to you. Since May, two of my five articles were blocked then sent by someone else, or by gmail or via the netvision internet site. In gmail's case, I can only send 100 a day, in netvision's case, the articles are sent as spam. Here is a recent letter I sent to AT&T describing what I go through to get you the news:

Saturday, Aug. 8. I finish an article. I send it to my first group of readers. My out box says it is sent.

Group two. Blocked by AT&T for abuse, though group one had fewer than 100 names. I unplug the modem and send to group two, fewer than 100 names.

Group three is blocked by AT&T for abuse.

The process continues 13 times.

There are some 120 addresses which are wrong and are always returned to me.

NONE are returned, meaning NO messages were sent.

So I send a message to myself. It does not arrive. So I cellphone a reader. She did not receive my article.

Finally, I sent AT&T's CEO this letter:

TO BE SENT ON AUG.12/09 VIA CERTIFIED LETTER WITH RETURN RECEIPT

Mr. Randall Stephenson
CEO AT&T

I am a 3 year client of AT&T and a journalist with a reading list of over 3,000. Since May, my e-mail service has been surveilled and blocked for abuse on innumerable occasions. Two days ago, I called in an expert to trace the blockages. I have his reports. AT&T have blocked my reports for "content abuse." Only one address has been targeted, my third party server; netvision.net.il. All e-mails sent via netvision's internet site, bellsouth, or gmail go through uninterrupted.

When I signed my contract with AT&T, I did NOT agree to be censored. Your company is in violation of our contract. I have retained an attorney who will ask a federal court to stop the blockages based on two arguments:

1. There is no reason for the surveillance. I do not send pornography, slander or treasonous material. If I did, then report me to the police. He will seek compensation for the deleterious affects you have caused my career and my health.

2. Your actions oppose the guarantees of freedom of expression promised in the Bill Of Rights. He will argue constitutionally against AT&T.

IF this goes to court, all technical documents proving the blockages will be made available to you.

But billing harassment is an issue you can check. In the last two months, AT&T have sent me bills of $302. and $478, for an $81/mo. phone and internet service. Fortunately, your sales dept. has been working honestly to sort this issue.

I ask that the blockages stop immediately, and request an answer within two weeks.

Best, Barry Chamish

In response, a rep from AT&T phoned to assure me her company's Postmaster verifies that my account is "whitelisted," meaning the company blacklists other accounts. What AT&T actually does is monitor my account and block all letters from me to netvision that it doesn't like. They do not tell me when the mail is blocked. The mail disappears into thin air.
I traveled to my local post office to ask the branch manager a few questions, like can you stop a letter from being sent. She is adamant. Blocking mail is a federal offense, a felony. She considers e-mail to be no different. If AT&T is blocking correspondence, they are committing the same felony. My appeals on radio interviews for the testimony of fellow blockees has led to other AT&T customers who have the same experience as I. Most mail is allowed through, but political references ignite the key words to block their letters.
The attorney I work with sent me this summation of the situation at AT&T:

AT&T Censorship controversy
In August 2007, the band Pearl Jam performed in Chicago at Lollapalooza which was being web-broadcast by AT&T. The band, while playing the song "Daughter", started playing a version of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but with altered lyrics critical of president George Bush. These lyrics included "George Bush, leave this world alone!" and, "George Bush, find yourself another home!". Listeners to AT&T's web broadcast heard only the first line because the rest was censored[28] although, AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said that the silencing was "a mistake."[29]
In September 2007, AT&T changed[30] their legal policy to state that "AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice for conduct that AT&T believes"..."(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."[31] By October 10, 2007 AT&T had altered the terms and conditions for its Internet service to explicitly support freedom of expression by its subscribers, after an outcry claiming the company had given itself the right to censor its subscribers' transmissions.[32]
Section 5.1 of AT&T's new terms of service now reads "AT&T respects freedom of expression and believes it is a foundation of our free society to express differing points of view. AT&T will not terminate, disconnect or suspend service because of the views you or we express on public policy matters, political issues or political campaigns."[33][dubious – discuss]
On July 26, 2009 AT&T temporarily blocking access to certain sections of the image board 4chan, specifically /b/ and /r9k/.[34] However, by the morning of Monday, July 27, the block had been lifted and access to the affected boards was restored. AT&T's official reason for the block was that a distributed denial of service attack had originated from the img.4chan.org server, and access was blocked to stop the attack.[35] Major news outlets have reported that the issue may be related to DDoSing of 4chan and IP spoofing of 4chan and that the suspicions of 4chan users fell on the owner of Anontalk.com for doing this.[36] Alm has been reported in the past to have DDoSed 4chan.[37]
Privacy controversy
Further information: NSA call database, Mark Klein, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Hepting v. AT&T
In 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation lodged a class action lawsuit, Hepting v. AT&T, which alleged that AT&T had allowed agents of the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor phone and Internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants. If true, this would violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. AT&T has yet to confirm or deny that monitoring by the NSA is occurring. In April 2006, a retired former AT&T technician, Mark Klein, lodged anaffidavit supporting this allegation.[38][39] The Department of Justice has stated they will intervene in this lawsuit by means of State Secrets Privilege.[40]
In May 2006, USA Today reported that all international and domestic calling records had been handed over to the National Security Agency by AT&T, Verizon, SBC, and BellSouth for the purpose of creating a massive calling database.[41] The portions of the new AT&T that had been part of SBC Communications before November 18, 2005 were not mentioned.
On June 21, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that AT&T had rewritten rules on their privacy policy. The policy, which took effect June 23, 2006, says that "AT&T — not customers — owns customers' confidential info and can use it 'to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.' "[42]
On August 22, 2007, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell confirmed that AT&T was one of the telecommunications companies that assisted with the government's warrantless wire-tapping program on calls between foreign and domestic sources.[43]
On November 8, 2007, Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, told Keith Olbermann of MSNBC that all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office — to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access.[44]
Intellectual property filtering
In January 2008, the company reported plans to begin filtering all Internet traffic which passes through its network for intellectual propertyviolations.[45]
Commentators in the media have speculated that if this plan is implemented, it would lead to a mass exodus of subscribers leaving AT&T,[46] although this is misleading as internet traffic may go through the company's network anyway.[45] Internet freedom proponents used these developments as justification for government-mandated network neutrality.

I will not name the articles that have been blocked for fear that this message will get the same treatment. But after weeks of arguing with AT&T that I WAS being blocked, after weeks of them telling me that netvision was to blame, though the blockage notice was theirs and I send successfully at netvision's internet site, I invited my webmaster to my home to get the evidence. He used some fancy techniques including photographing AT&T's "blockage for abuse" notice, and proved beyond doubt that I was being monitored and censored by AT&T and only AT&T.
Last night, I sent my special newslist an article about the nation's president. It was again blocked and once again sent successfully by gmail. And again, I saved the letters attesting to the fact that the AT&T letter never arrived. This morning AT&T called wanting their bill paid. I delayed them. If I pay the bill, I'm a happy client. I am not. If I switch servers, it's because they made me. I won't go down without a fight. But I need your help.
If you care about your guarantees of freedom of expression, write AT&T's CEO Randall Stephenson and express yourself: rs2982@att.com or call his representative Irena at 404 986 8605. WE MUST DEMAND THE TRUTH FROM THEM, and end their policy of selective censorship.

**

I assume I will lose my service this week. If you need me, call 904 315 8079.
I am offering a nearly free book about the Croatian Holocaust with my DVDs, which I won't name because it might cause this letter to be blocked. Here is a recent comment from a reader:

From Croatia: The story of WWII in Yugoslavia is extremely complicated and violent since
part of the Croats supported the Ustasha and part the Partisans. The Serbs
had an occupation government but also several Tchetniks groups which as
war went on became undistinguishable from the fascists.
After the war the Ustasha left Croatia and did not disappear from history
like the nazi. They are presented in the book as waiting for "the day".
As it happens, this day did occur, it is the collapse of Yugoslavia
in the 90s and the creation in Croatia of the HDZ which is still the
leading party and has its origin in the communist party and the Ustasha
coming back to Croatia. How this was done remain a mystery but the
consequence are very visible today in Croatia, where I live. Unfortunately,
Avro Manhattan left us in 1990 so we won't know what he would have to say
about it.

OTHER COMMENTS:

The book was just horrific! I knew such things had happened, but the photos were just so shocking.

*

The book was worse than the Texas chain saw massacre. The dvd’s were excellent and surely show the designs of the papacy have not changed from the dark ages but just have been hidden from view.

*

I am almost done with the book. It is a very important work and should be required reading in America..
I have shared your DVDs with others.

Write me at chamishba@gmail.com if I'm cut off by AT&T, otherwise at chamish@netvision.net.il to order.
Join my inexpensive special news group and get cut off by AT&T twice as much.
Get my latest book The conPROMISED LAND by typing in my name at www.lulu.com

Censoring Continuing Counter Reformation?

2009-07-26T02:40:00.001-04:00

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Continuing Counter Reformation Censorship?

Why the last message of Douglas Willinger in his Continuing Counter Reformation blog, posted on Friday, 17 July, has not yet been putted in the blog's list of my blogs - "the Vatican crusade in the Balkans" and "Avles Beluskes Exposed"?

Why his message, I posted too in my blogs, is not yet on the Continuing Counter Reformation blogs' list?

The original darkened message of Douglas Willinger (till today the 26th July not yet appeared on my blogs' list):

At this moment, this phenomenon of the blogroll not showing my latest post at my blog Continuing Counter Reformation, AFAICT, is not occurring with my subsequent post "Wlodimir Ledochowski - WW 1 - 2 Culpability Is Being Exposed!"

However, immediately prior to this latest Continuing Counter Reformation post, the blogroll indicated that my most recent post there was "Obama - Columbia University Zbigniew Brzezinski: Romish-Masonic Tools for Papal War Against Russia?", just as indicated by Avles.

As of 3:24 AM Eastern US Time, the blogroll at ABE is not showing this article at Free Speech Beneath US Homeland Security.

LIBERALS DUCK REAL CIVIL LIBERTIES STRUGGLES

2009-07-21T16:03:00.000-04:00

Sam Smith - As Congress moves closer to expanding hate crime legislation, we find liberals leading an attack on the free speech provisions of the Constitution. Simply put, there can be no constitutional bar to hate - only to criminal offenses that stem from it. And you can not constitutionally increase the penalty for a crime simply because of someone's ideological or religious motivations, because that effectively criminalizes thought. It is the crime alone that must be judged.

Not only are the proposed new provisions unconstitutional, they are pointless. No one has showed how a hate crime might be prevented because of added punishment; that just isn't the way that criminally inclined haters operate.

Further, the liberals lined up behind this pointless and unconstitutional law include a large number who have been inactive as the government increasingly invades the privacy and freedoms of its citizens. Issues like the drug war, illegal wiretapping, and urban apartheid-style neighborhood blockades don't attract much attention. There is to be sure, a hardy band of progressives - led by groups like the ACLU, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and anti-drug war groups - who are still on the case, but many liberals seem almost bored by these matters.

Obama-Bush: More of the Same

2009-07-11T23:39:00.001-04:00

Doable: 911 Scenarios Author Targeted

2009-07-03T02:19:00.000-04:00

http://sfscope.com/2009/05/comics-artist-mark-sable-detai.html

Comics artist Mark Sable detained for Unthinkable

By Ian Randal Strock

Boom! Studios sends word that comics writer Mark Sable was detained by TSA security guards at Los Angeles International Airport this past weekend because he was carrying a script for a new issue of his comic miniseries Unthinkable. Sable was detained while traveling to New York for a debut party at Jim Hanley's Universe today.
Scenarios
The comic series follows members of a government think tank that was tasked with coming up with 9/11-type 'unthinkable' terrorist scenarios that now are coming true. (See this article for more on the series.)

Sable wrote of his experiences: 'Flying from Los Angeles to New York for a signing at Jim Hanley's Universe Wednesday (May 13th), I was flagged at the gate for 'extra screening'. I was subjected to not one, but two invasive searches of my person and belongings. TSA agents then 'discovered' the script for Unthinkable #3. They sat and read the script while I stood there, without any personal items, identification or ticket, which had all been confiscated.'

'The minute I saw the faces of the agents, I knew I was in trouble. The first page of the Unthinkable script mentioned 9/11, terror plots, and the fact that the (fictional) world had become a police state. The TSA agents then proceeded to interrogate me, having a hard time understanding that a comic book could be about anything other than superheroes, let alone that anyone actually wrote scripts for comics.'

'I cooperated politely and tried to explain to them the irony of the situation. While Unthinkable blurs the line between fiction and reality, the story is based on a real-life government think tank where a writer was tasked to design worst-case terror scenarios. The fictional story of Unthinkable unfolds when the writer's scenarios come true, and he becomes a suspect in the terrorist attacks.'

'In the end, I feel my privacy is a small price to pay for educating the government about the medium.'

Obama to Empower Pentagon Subversion of Free Speech?

2009-05-29T11:13:00.000-04:00

I suspect this is to filter the internet to thwart/slow the spread of politically dangerous ideas, such as Wlodimir Ledochowski's Kulterkampf Revenge to the Vertriebenen (Expellees)

From The New York Times

Pentagon Plans New Arm to Wage Wars in Cyberspace
David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker
published May 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29cyber.html?th&emc=th
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, administration officials said Thursday, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare.
The military command would complement a civilian effort to be announced by President Obama on Friday that would overhaul the way the United States safeguards its computer networks.
Mr. Obama, officials said, will announce the creation of a White House office — reporting to both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council — that will coordinate a multibillion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers and protect systems that run the stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.
White House officials say Mr. Obama has not yet been formally presented with the Pentagon plan. They said he would not discuss it Friday when he announced the creation of a White House office responsible for coordinating private-sector and government defenses against the thousands of cyberattacks mounted against the United States — largely by hackers but sometimes by foreign governments — every day.
But he is expected to sign a classified order in coming weeks that will create the military cybercommand, officials said. It is a recognition that the United States already has a growing number of computer weapons in its arsenal and must prepare strategies for their use — as a deterrent or alongside conventional weapons — in a wide variety of possible future conflicts.
The White House office will be run by a “cyberczar,” but because the position will not have direct access to the president, some experts said it was not high-level enough to end a series of bureaucratic wars that have broken out as billions of dollars have suddenly been allocated to protect against the computer threats.
The main dispute has been over whether the Pentagon or the National Security Agency should take the lead in preparing for and fighting cyberbattles. Under one proposal still being debated, parts of the N.S.A. would be integrated into the military command so they could operate jointly.
Officials said that in addition to the unclassified strategy paper to be released by Mr. Obama on Friday, a classified set of presidential directives is expected to lay out the military’s new responsibilities and how it coordinates its mission with that of the N.S.A., where most of the expertise on digital warfare resides today.
The decision to create a cybercommand is a major step beyond the actions taken by the Bush administration, which authorized several computer-based attacks but never resolved the question of how the government would prepare for a new era of warfare fought over digital networks.
It is still unclear whether the military’s new command or the N.S.A. — or both — will actually conduct this new kind of offensive cyberoperations.
The White House has never said whether Mr. Obama embraces the idea that the United States should use cyberweapons, and the public announcement on Friday is expected to focus solely on defensive steps and the government’s acknowledgment that it needs to be better organized to face the threat from foes attacking military, government and commercial online systems.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has pushed for the Pentagon to become better organized to address the security threat.
Initially at least, the new command would focus on organizing the various components and capabilities now scattered across the four armed services.
Officials declined to describe potential offensive operations, but said they now viewed cyberspace as comparable to more traditional battlefields.
“We are not comfortable discussing the question of offensive cyberoperations, but we consider cyberspace a war-fighting domain,“ said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. “We need to be able to operate within that domain just like on any battlefield, which includes protecting our freedom of movement and preserving our capability to perform in that environment.”
Although Pentagon civilian officials and military officers said the new command was expected to initially be a subordinate headquarters under the military’s Strategic Command, which controls nuclear operations as well as cyberdefenses, it could eventually become an independent command.
“No decision has been made,” said Lt. Col. Eric Butterbaugh, a Pentagon spokesman. “Just as the White House has completed its 60-day review of cyberspace policy, likewise, we are looking at how the department can best organize itself to fill our role in implementing the administration’s cyberpolicy.”
The creation of the cyberczar’s office inside the White House appears to be part of a significant expansion of the role of the national security apparatus there. A separate group overseeing domestic security, created by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks, now resides within the National Security Council. A senior White House official responsible for countering the proliferation of nuclear and unconventional weapons has been given broader authority. Now, cybersecurity will also rank as one of the key threats that Mr. Obama is seeking to coordinate from the White House.
The strategy review Mr. Obama will discuss on Friday was completed weeks ago, but delayed because of continuing arguments over the authority of the White House office, and the budgets for the entire effort.
It was kept separate from the military debate over whether the Pentagon or the N.S.A. is best equipped to engage in offensive operations. Part of that debate hinges on the question of how much control should be given to American spy agencies, since they are prohibited from acting on American soil.
“It’s the domestic spying problem writ large,” one senior intelligence official said recently. “These attacks start in other countries, but they know no borders. So how do you fight them if you can’t act both inside and outside the United States?”
John Markoff contributed reporting from San Francisco.

Obama Continues Total Information Awareness

2009-03-31T23:39:00.002-04:00

Total Information Awareness Is Operational Under Obama!

Posted on January 26, 2009 by liberalicon

People who care about the privacy of their papers and their persons may remember the furor that arose during the early years of the presidency of George W. Bush about the development of Total Information Awareness in the Pentagon by Iran Contra conspirator John Poindexter. The Total Information Awareness program was intended to design a super database into which the government would pull all kinds of private information, using the powers of the Patriot Act. Everything from medical records to book purchases would be taken from commercial databases and compiled, so that the government could keep files on the details of every American’s private life.

Congress acted then to end the Total Information Awareness program. So what did the Bush Administration do? They just gave it a new name, and moved it to the National Security Agency, and thus was born the program to seize information and spy without a search warrant.

New revelations by former NSA employee Russell Tice confirm earlier reports by a former employee of AT&T: The NSA was gathering ALL electronic communications into a gigantic computer database, using the Patriot Act as a justification. That electronic spying dragnet was further justified by the passage of the FISA Amendments Act.

Your telephone calls, your emails, your text messages, your credit card use, your Internet habits are all being watched by the government. Secret physical searches of homes and offices without a search warrant are also allowed under the FISA Amendments Act. Big Brother is here. Total Information Awareness is alive.

The funny thing that very few people have bothered to mention is that this search and seizure of Americans’ persons and papers is completely unconstitutional. Read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Warrants are absolutely required for government searches and seizures, and the government has to be specific in applying for warrants about exactly who and where it wants the searches and seizures to apply to. The new Total Information Awareness program gives no such specification - it searches the electronic communications of the entire United States of America!

Don’t fool yourself into thinking that this is just a problem of the past, and that with the Bush Administration gone, the problem is solved. No, as a senator, Barack Obama voted to approve the FISA Amendments Act, and as President he is administering the program without acting to end the warrantless electronic spying at all. Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, confirms that the Obama Administration’s intention is to keep the NSA Total Information Awareness program in place.

If you care about freedom, you need to act now to put pressure on Barack Obama to change course, and to put an end to the Big Brother NSA spying program being used against the American people.

Filed under: FISA Fiasco | Tagged: animation, eric holder, eye, fisa amendments act, Fourth Amendment, national security agency, nsa, Obama, patriot act, pyramid, russell tice, spying, total information awareness, video

Obama Trying to Continue Bush Style Spying

2009-02-28T19:43:00.000-05:00

Bid to End Wiretap Suit Is Rejected

The Associated Press
Published February 27, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28brfs-BIDTOENDWIRE_BRF.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

The Obama administration has lost its argument that the state secrets privilege is a good enough reason to stop a lawsuit over the government’s program of wiretapping without warrants. A federal appeals court in San Francisco has rejected the Justice Department’s request for an emergency stay. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the American chapter of an Islamic charity was allowed to proceed. The case was brought by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a defunct charity with a chapter in Oregon.

Govt Wiretapping More Vast Then Commonly Acknowledged

2009-01-22T23:36:00.000-05:00

MSNBC INTERVIEW

Raw Story - Former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice, who helped expose the NSA's warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, has now come forward with even more startling allegations. Tice told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann that the programs that spied on Americans were not only much broader than previously acknowledged but specifically targeted journalists.

"The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications -- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications," Tice claimed. "It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."

Tice further explained that "even for the NSA it's impossible to literally collect all communications. . . What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata . . . and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected."

According to Tice, in addition to this "low-tech, dragnet" approach, the NSA also had the ability to hone in on specific groups, and that was the aspect he himself was involved with. However, even within the NSA there was a cover story meant to prevent people like Tice from realizing what they were doing.

"In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them," Tice told Olbermann. "What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year -- and it made no sense. . . I started to investigate that. That's about the time when they came after me to fire me."

When Olbermann pressed him for specifics, Tice offered, "An organization that was collected on were US news organizations and reporters and journalists."

"To what purpose?" Olbermann asked. "I mean, is there a file somewhere full of every email sent by all the reporters at the New York Times? Is there a recording somewhere of every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York?"

Tice did not answer directly, but simply stated, "If it was involved in this specific avenue of collection, it would be everything." He added, however, that he had no idea what was ultimately done with the information, except that he was sure it "was digitized and put on databases somewhere."

Tice first began alleging that there were illegal activities going on at both the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency in December 2005, several months after being fired by the NSA. He also served at that time as a source for the New York Times story which revealed the existence of the NSA's wireless wiretapping program.

Criminal Police Disable Video

2009-01-18T19:24:00.000-05:00

As happened with the criminal commonwealth of Virginia's criminal assault upon me in 2006, police in Prince Georges County Maryland cover up their criminal behavior by disabling the police video- even as the US Supreme Court excuses police 'blunders' designed to subvert the Constitution.

From the The Agitator:

Did the Cameras Go on Strike?
Sunday, January 18th, 2009
A jury has found that officers with the Prince George’s County, Maryland (where else?) police department used excessive force when they apprehended and arrested a TV reporter who was investigating possible improper use of public resources. I don’t know the much about the case other than what’s in the article, and from the article, it sound like the jury got it right–too much force, though the decision to puller her over may not have been out of bounds.

But it’s the last sentence of the article I found particularly interesting:
In all, nine police cars from Prince George’s and Cheverly responded. Although most of the squad cars were equipped with video cameras, police said none of them were working that day, Pavsner said.

So “most” squad cars in PG County have video cameras. Yet at the scene of a controversial arrest, with nine cars at the scene, not a single squad car camera was “working that day?”

Digg it | reddit | del.icio.us | Fark

U.S. SC to allow 'Barney Fife' 4th Amendment Subversion

2009-01-15T00:24:00.000-05:00

From The Washington Post:

Papist members vote to subvert 4th Amendment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011401409.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[excerpt]

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

So, as with such subversive police tactics as the [criminal-apostate] Commonwealth of Virginia's excuse that the police video was "just grey static", record keeping 'blunders' may be used to subvert the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against politically motivated searches.

In this case, the defendant-victim was given a 27 month prison sentence for "crimes" that the statutes violate the Constitution (drug and gun possession).

Decisions as this show where these Supreme Court 'justices' loyalities lay.

U.S. President Bush and Chief Justice Roberts with Cardinal Archbiship McCarrick

Cardinal Egan: 'My We Knows'

And a few links courtesy of Drug War Rant:

A number of people have been writing about Herring v. United States -- yet another incursion into the already decimated Fourth Amendment.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft: More Criticism of the Supreme Court's Herring Decision
Fourth Amendment.com: Yes Virginia, there is a Barney Fife exception to the exclusionary rule.
New York Times Editorial: The Fourth Amendment Diluted (see also this NY times article)

So They Say

2008-12-16T00:46:00.000-05:00

'Big Brother' has supposedly not won, says a media un-interested in examining stories of the possible use of warrant less surveillance to subvert the 1st Amendment

From The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/opinion/14keefe.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Big Brother Has Not Won

By PATRICK RADDEN KEEFE

Published: December 13, 2008

IF you thought the wiretapping controversy ended last summer, when Congress blessed the Bush administration’s warrantless-wiretapping program by passing a new surveillance law that greatly enhanced the powers of the National Security Agency, think again. The legacy of the illegal operation represents a serious problem for the Obama administration.
After a contentious hearing this month on the most controversial aspect of the new law — a blanket grant of immunity to the telecom giants like AT&T that secretly permitted the N.S.A. to siphon off their customers’ communications — a federal judge in San Francisco must decide whether Congress has the authority to bestow absolution on private companies that appear to have violated the law. One paradox is that Bush administration lawyers have claimed from the outset that the surveillance program was entirely legal, yet they remain desperate to prevent any court from testing that claim. Instead, they are in the odd position of advocating immunity for something that they insist is not a crime.
Another paradox, which Barack Obama surely appreciates, is that the real issue underlying the immunity debate is not whether the telecoms should pay damages; it is whether lawsuits against the companies can be used to answer a question that Congress and the press have not: Just how bad was the N.S.A. program, after all?
Mr. Obama says he does not want his first term to become bogged down in any sort of “partisan witch hunt.” Indeed, the sheer extent of executive lawlessness in Washington over the past eight years has left so many wrongs to right that, in the interests of triage, the new president may choose to let bygones be bygones where wiretapping is concerned.
But that would be a mistake. From 2001 to 2007, the United States government violated one of the signature prohibitions of the post-Watergate era by turning its formidable eavesdropping apparatus on its own citizens. The new law last summer resolved matters only by moving the goalpost, so that many of the N.S.A.’s more questionable activities simply became legal. But major questions remain about the legal grounds used to justify the program, and about how many innocent Americans were ensnared.
The Obama administration cannot enact the kind of thorough course correction on domestic surveillance that is needed without understanding how far off course the intelligence community got in the first place. Mr. Obama, who initially vowed to filibuster the immunity provision but, under pressure in the race against John McCain, backed down and reluctantly supported it, has committed “to have my attorney general conduct a comprehensive review” of N.S.A. surveillance.
That is a promising first step, but it is not enough. Nor is the prospect of reports due next summer from the inspectors general of the N.S.A. and the Justice Department. The good news for Mr. Obama, politically, is that the executive branch should not lead the charge in investigating the wiretapping. Congress should.
Provided that the Obama administration is willing to cooperate rather than stonewall in the Bush fashion, Congress can get to the bottom of the abuses while simultaneously reasserting itself as a coequal branch of government. To the extent possible, the hearings should be public, and if necessary, investigators should grant immunity to witnesses in exchange for candid testimony; this is no witch hunt, but an effort to establish an accurate historical record.
What details can actually be aired in public without violating national security? The number of Americans listened to and the broad contours of the program, for a start. For example, in March 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft threatened to resign over the program, backing down only when it was adjusted. What transgression was so appalling that it made John Ashcroft look like a civil libertarian? We still don’t know.
Even the legal opinions governing the program are still squirreled away in a safe in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. In recent months, the Senate Judiciary Committee and a Washington district judge have ordered them turned over, and the next attorney general should do so immediately.
Without some baseline understanding of what went wrong — and how wrong — in recent years, and without the establishment of some bright line rules of the road, it would be naïve to think that there won’t be future abuses. For aggressive intelligence agencies, legal ambiguity is an invitation to excess.
Wiretapping can sometimes seem forbiddingly complex, and many Americans just aren’t concerned that the government might monitor their calls. But what is at stake here is not mere personal privacy, but the bedrock American principles of separation of powers and the rule of law.
Jack Goldsmith, a former top Bush administration lawyer, pronounced the wiretapping program “the biggest legal mess” he had seen in his life. That sort of mess cannot simply be swept under the rug; it must be cleared up.
Patrick Radden Keefe, a fellow at the Century Foundation, is the author of “Chatter: Uncovering the Echelon Surveillance Network and the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping.”

RFID tracking 50 foot range admitted

2008-12-11T13:56:00.000-05:00

New ID Scanners at Borders Raise Privacy Alarm

Monday, December 1, 2008 6:19 PM

By: Dave Eberhart

The federal government has already deployed new detection machines that can scan citizens without their knowledge from as far as 50 feet away and "read" their personal documents such as passports or driver's licenses.

The Homeland Security Department touts the high-tech devices as increasing security at border crossings, but privacy advocates are raising all sorts of red flags.

Critics say the new machines, which read one's personal information right through a wallet or purse, do so without consent or a warrant and may set a worrisome precedent.

The devices, called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) machines, allow officials to read remotely any passports, pass cards, and driver's licenses that contain special chips with personal information.

The RFIDs are so sensitive that, even before a vehicle pulls up at a border checkpoint, agents already will have on their computer screen the personal data of the passengers, including each person's name, date of birth, nationality, passport or ID number, and even a digitized photo.

The new gadgets are in place, or soon will be, at five border crossings: Blaine, Wash.; Buffalo; Detroit; Nogales, Ariz.; and San Ysidro, Calif. They are slated to have a dramatically expanded presence in June.

Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that the technology could make Americans less secure because terrorists or other criminals may be able to steal the personal information off the ID cards remotely.

Tien and other critics warn that people up to no good can use their own RFID machines in a process called "skimming" to read the information from as far as 50 feet.

Indeed, consumer privacy expert Katherine Albrecht maintains that the chips create the "potential for a whole surveillance network to be set up." Among other abuses, she says police could use them to track criminals; abusive husbands could use the technology to find their wives; and stores could trail the shopping patterns of patrons.

Homeland Security, however, rebuts the criticism, arguing that the embedded chips surrender only a code to machine readers. That code is then broken in order to display the personal information on the border agents' screen.

Meanwhile, the same agencies that are issuing the newfangled IDs supply a sleeve that keep out all prying electronic eyes when not in use.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/privacy_security_terror/2008/12/01/156958.html?s=al&promo_code=725A-1

Posted by Arsenio A. Lembert Jr. at 9:11 AM Links to this post

Labels: DHS, FREEDOM, NWO, PRIVACY, RFID, SURVEILLANCE, technology

Bush EMail Cover Up Rejected by Judge

2008-11-11T15:34:00.000-05:00

For Immediate Release:
November 10, 2008
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20081110/index.htm
Court Rejects White House on Missing E-mails
Judge Kennedy sides with Archive and CREW on ability to sue
For more information contact:
Meredith Fuchs - 202/994-7000
John B. Williams/Sheila L. Shadmand [Jones Day] - 202/879-3939

Washington D.C., November 10, 2008 - A court ruled today that the National Security Archive may proceed with its effort to force the White House to recover millions of Bush Administration Executive Office of the President (EOP) e-mail records before the presidential transition. Rejecting the government’s motion to dismiss the Archive’s lawsuit, the Court ruled that the Federal Records Act permits a private plaintiff to bring suit to require the head of the EOP or the Archivist of the United States to notify Congress or ask the Attorney General to initiate action to recover destroyed or missing e-mail records.

“This ruling gives the public a clear voice in demanding preservation of our nation's history, even when that history is created at the White House,” explained Sheila Shadmand, an attorney at Jones Day who is representing the Archive. “We can now give positive action to that voice and protect these records before they get carted off or destroyed as the current administration packs its bags to leave. In that sense, the ruling itself is as historical as the records it will protect.”

“This is a major victory for the public interest in accountability at the White House,” added Archive General Counsel Meredith Fuchs. “Through this lawsuit we have preserved over 65,000 computer backup tapes. This decision means those tapes will survive the end of the Bush Administration so that Congress, the courts, and eventually the public will be able to learn about the decision-making that took place over the last 8 years.”

The National Security Archive originally filed its case against the Executive Office of the President and the National Archives and Records Administration to preserve and restore missing e-mail federal records in September 5, 2007. A subsequent lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has been consolidated with the Archive's lawsuit. A chronology of the litigation is available here.

Maryland State Police Target Political Activists

2008-10-22T22:09:00.000-04:00

--PLEASE FORWARD FAR AND WIDE--

Dear Doug,

Since 2001, I have devoted my life entirely to the peaceful promotion of windmills and solar panels to solve global warming. Apparently not everyone liked my work, however. Believe it or not, the Maryland State Police - your state police - put my name in their criminal intelligence database as a "suspected terrorist" as part of their larger program of collecting information about political activists in 2005-2006. I was on this outrageous "watch" list apparently because of a single act of peaceful civil disobedience I participated in outside a coal-fired power plant in 2004. CCAN's former deputy director Josh Tulkin was also put in the database as was another former CCAN staffer who has chosen to remain anonymous. Neither of these people has ever been arrested for anything in their entire lives. (See background below)

So about one third of the entire Maryland CCAN staff - one of the largest environmental groups in the state - was officially spied on by the police while we peacefully promoted clean electricity and clean cars for Maryland. This is, of course, an outrage and a threat, not just to civil liberties in Maryland, but to the state's entire environmental community. When people who are trying SAVE the climate and SAVE the Bay are considered terrorists, the world has truly been turned upside down.

To fix this problem, we need your help right now in two simple ways. Please:

Send an email: Write an email to the Md. Gov. Martin O'Malley asking him to release all surveillance files kept on CCAN staff and other activists statewide. (Presently, the police want to destroy the files without releasing printed copies, another outrage!) And ask O'Malley to support comprehensive legislation to prevent similar abuses from happening again. Send an email>>

Attend a rally Thurs. (tomorrow) at 10:30 am: Attend an emergency rally in Silver Spring at 10:30 am Thursday and make your voice heard. We'll be gathering at the Silver Spring Metro station with the heads of leading environmental organizations as well as elected officials and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland. But we need you there too. We'll have signs and banners. Come have fun with us. Click here for details>>

Help end forever these police abuses in Maryland that threaten our climate/clean energy movement, and our right to organize for causes we believe in. Why has our state wasted precious resources creating a "terrorist" watch list of innocent people instead of devoting maximum resources to solving real environmental problems? The REAL terror in Maryland is the threat of 20 feet of sea-level rise. The REAL violence is the burning of coal to create electricity while wrecking the climate.

With your help we can end ALL of these abuses.

Sincerely,

Mike Tidwell
Executive Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Virginia Leads in Sanctioning Police State Cover Ups

2008-10-14T00:49:00.000-04:00

to increase government secrecy allowing criminal Federal-Local targeting of dissidents

See Virginia legislative conspiracing ...

http://epic.org/privacy/virginia_fusion/

http://privacy.org/archives/002243.html

Palin Omen?

2008-09-14T00:05:00.000-04:00

Where is Sarah Palin on the erosion of free speech via unchecked government power to snoop?

“Stop blogging, right now!”

by Exile on Ericsson St. on September 13, 2008 @ 4:37 pm · Filed under Exile, News

This is funny, from a [NY Times] profile of Sarah Palin’s leadership style:

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

In a less humorous note, does this sound familiar?

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Sherry Whitstine's blog

More Powers for FBI Intimidation Against Dissidents

2008-09-13T22:45:00.000-04:00

Inadequate oversite allows threat to subvert 1st amendment

Terror Plan Would Give FBI More Powers

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: September 13, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/washington/13justice.html?ref=us
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department made public on Friday a plan to expand the tools the Federal Bureau of Investigation can use to investigate suspicions of terrorism inside the United States, even without any direct evidence of wrongdoing.

Justice Department officials said the plan, which is likely to be completed by the end of the month despite criticism from civil rights advocates, is intended to allow F.B.I. agents to be more aggressive and pre-emptive in assessing possible threats to national security.
It would allow an agent, for instance, to pursue an anonymous tip about terrorism by conducting an undercover interview or watching someone in a public place. Such steps are now prohibited unless there is more specific evidence of wrongdoing.
The plan is the latest in a series of steps by the Bush administration to extend key aspects of its counterterrorism strategy beyond the end of President Bush’s tenure. An executive order from Mr. Bush in August rewrote the rules for the nation’s 16 spy agencies, and an administration legislative proposal before Congress would reaffirm that the country “remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda.”
The proposed guidelines combine several sets of procedures into a single document governing what F.B.I. agents can and cannot do in criminal and national security investigations.
The review of the guidelines generated intense interest and occasional criticism from lawmakers and others over the summer, and the Justice Department took the unusual step on Friday of holding briefings for reporters and for civil rights advocates and showing them the draft plan.
The draft is likely to be made final soon after Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, testifies on Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee and on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats have promised to question him closely about the new guidelines.
After they were shown the plan, civil rights leaders said they were troubled that the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to use racial and ethnic factors to focus on Middle Easterners and others. “Racial profiling by any other name is still unconstitutional,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
But Justice Department officials insisted that the new guidelines would not change standards in place since 2003 for the use of race or ethnicity, which can be considered as a factor — but not the sole factor — in terror investigations.
“It is simply not responsible to say that race may never be taken into account when conducting an investigation,” Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the department, said in a statement. “The reality is that a number of criminal and terror groups have very strong ethnic associations (e.g., the I.R.A. was Irish, La Cosa Nostra is Italian; Hezbollah is largely Lebanese).
“If the F.B.I. is charged with knowing whether there are elements of such groups present and operating within the United States, it cannot ignore those ethnic connections, any more than it would ignore the identification of a bank robber as a short white male when trying to solve the bank robbery.”
Under existing guidelines, F.B.I. agents cannot use certain investigative tools in conducting so-called threat assessments as a precursor to a preliminary or full inquiry. The revisions would allow agents to conduct public surveillance of someone, do “pretext” interviews — pose as someone other than an agent or disguise the purpose of the questions — or send in an undercover source to gather information.
Such steps are allowed in standard criminal investigations without specific evidence of wrongdoing, and officials say they want to authorize the same investigative steps in terrorism inquiries as well.

Criminal Jesuitical Department of 'Justice' Cover Up Sought

2008-08-02T11:30:00.000-04:00

DOJ Asks Wiretap Challenges To Be Kept Secret

07-30-2008
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_asks_co...pping_0730.html

In a little-reported brief filed late Tuesday with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Bush administration asked the court to keep any review of the warrantless wiretapping law passed earlier this year by Congress secret.

The administration also asked that the court refuse to accept legal briefs from anyone other than the Justice Department itself.

The filing, made by the Justice Department, comes in response to a motion filed by the American Civil Liberties Union earlier this month asking the court to ensure that any proceedings relating to the "scope, meaning or constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act" be as transparent as possible.

"The government is proposing that the intelligence court should consider the constitutionality of the new surveillance law in proceedings that will be entirely secret," Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, said in a release. "If the government's request is granted, the court won't hear arguments from anyone except the government and those arguments will be presented to the court in secret briefs. At the end of the process, the court will issue a ruling that is also secret. The process the government is proposing is completely unacceptable. Especially because the new surveillance law departs so significantly from the standards that have applied to government surveillance for the last 30 years, any proceedings relating to the new law's constitutionality should be adversarial and as informed and transparent as possible."

The ACLU is also seeking a court ruling declaring the law unconstitutional in the Southern District of New York.

Critics have bemoaned the law, which granted the telecommunications industry retroactive immunity for participating in a program that was at the time not authorized by law.

"This bill has quite literally no public value for citizens or civil liberties," constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley said earlier this year. "It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing the Bush Administration's famous for, and now the Democrats are doing--that is, to change the law to conform to past conduct.

"It's what any criminal would love to do," Turley added. "You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful."

ObUma FISA Flip Wrong Move

2008-07-16T18:15:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/politics/16web-seelye.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

(excerpt)

It was barely five years ago when the word netroots first surfaced as a description of grassroots activists who push their political agendas on the Internet, especially through blogs.
Now the word is becoming a bona fide entry in the new edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, and the netroots themselves are preparing for their third annual convention, starting Thursday in Austin, Tex.
The convention, formerly YearlyKos and now Netroots Nation, or NN08, bills itself as “the most concentrated gathering of progressive bloggers to date.” About 2,000 bloggers, activists, office-holders, vendors and others are expected to attend, with 200 members of the mainstream media tracking them (yes, roughly one old-media type for every 10 new-media hipsters.).
The convention comes just as some in the netroots are questioning Senator Barack Obama’s commitment to their values and whether their faith in him as a different kind of politician was misplaced.
Most of the discontent stems from his vote to give legal immunity to the telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrant-less wiretaps, after he had said he would filibuster it.

Of course with U.S. politics, the standard fall back would be that one must vote for ObUma to avoid a so-called "wasted vote" to prevent a victory by McCain (McSame).

The most plausible productive thing would be a vote instead for the Libertarian ticket of Barr-Root.

ObUma Sells Out on FISA

2008-07-11T21:47:00.000-04:00

Some good posts at Repeal FISA about the sell out by ObUma, other Democrats and Republicans on the FISA bill to effectively repeal the 4th Amendment.

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/filibuster-obama-on-big-brother-spying/

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/the-cremation-of-the-constitution/

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/obama-begging-me-to-not-vote-for-him/

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/fisa-bill-passes-as-expected/

A vote for ObUma is a wasted vote. That man was puffed not for being a good alternative, but rather just another lackey of the Romish-Masonic criminal apostate shadow government order that gave us 911 and the PATRIOT Act- aka Jesuit Order run Georgetown University. Note for instance the behavior of that disgrace from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski.

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/hold-barbara-mikulski-accountable-for-fisa-amendments-act/

Instead, vote the Libertarian Party ticket.

Criminal Telcons Bribe Politicians

2008-07-11T18:03:00.000-04:00

Subverting the 1st Through the 4th

2008-06-23T01:50:00.000-04:00

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/tim-russert-no-friend-of-4th-amendment.html

Democrats To Cave To Georgetown 'PATRIOT' Act Tel-Con Treason

2008-06-21T02:08:00.000-04:00

http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/06/statement-of-barack-obama-supporting.html

Statement of Barack Obama supporting Hoyer FISA bill

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2006/3327.shtml

Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA Compromise

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”

posted by Glenn Greenwald | 12:57 PM
Comments (21) | Trackbacks (2)

ACLU About Warrantless Wiretapping

2008-06-18T17:16:00.001-04:00

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35653prs20080613.html
Home : Safe and Free : Surveillance
ACLU Urges Congress Not to Legalize Warrantless Wiretapping (6/13/2008)

If Deal Includes Immunity It’s a Gift From Congress to Telecommunications Companies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union comments on a reported deal on gutting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office:

“This FISA deal looks like the unconstitutional Senate bill in sheep’s clothing. Whatever silk purse Hoyer tries to make of Bond's sow's ear and no matter how they try to sell it, the end result of all this negotiating will be exactly what the administration has wanted from the beginning — FISA rewritten to delete court oversight of surveillance and immunity for its pals at the telephone companies.”

“From the language we’ve seen, we’re back at square one, looking at a bill just like the old Senate bill that lacks meaningful judicial involvement. The Fourth Amendment requires prior and individual court review before the government digs into our private conversations. It is clear the next vote will be on a bill that fails this test — by permitting the government to conduct mass untargeted surveillance, sometimes without prior court review, and sometimes with prior court review — and then only when the government unilaterally decides that it is willing and able to answer to the judicial branch.”

“It is also clear that the deal is intentionally designed to grant immunity to companies that facilitated illegal wiretapping. If the only role for the court — be it District or a FISA court — is to determine whether the companies received a request from the Administration, and not to determine whether those requests were legal, it’s a sham review. The president has publicly acknowledged that the companies were repeatedly sent authorizations to turn over Americans phone calls and emails. It is absolutely guaranteed that current and future cases will never determine whether this administration and its friends in the telecom industry broke the law.”

“The ACLU urges Senators to vote against this deal if it is brought to a vote next week.”

To learn more about Senator Kit Bond's (R-Mo.) FISA proposal, go to: www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35652res20080613.html
For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/fisa

WordPress Censorship?

2008-06-13T03:11:00.000-04:00

Troy Space (reality research)
http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=57408

This blog is inactive.

Asha Music- Dick Cheney (political commentary)
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:GeqqRpivlTwJ:aishamusic.wordpress.com/category/dick-cheney/+http://aishamusic.wordpress.com/category/dick-cheney/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.

You can create your own free blog on WordPress.com.

Email Beneath US Homeland Security- Douglas Willinger email stopped

2008-06-10T15:55:00.000-04:00

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/douglas-willingers-email-deactivated.html

John McCain Criminally Apostate to 4th Amendment

2008-06-06T22:33:00.000-04:00

Republican Party Nominee for U.S. President Endorses Unlawful Wiretapping
Effectively Endorses G.W. Bush/Tel-Con Treason

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06mccain.html?ref=opinion

Oliver North Beneath U.S. Romeland Security

2008-06-02T01:50:00.000-04:00

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/310508_b_north.htm

Thug Police Commits Crime Against Cameraman

2008-05-30T20:42:00.000-04:00

Here's an example of where the U.S. is heading.

Felony assault?
Malicious Destruction of Property?

The U.S. appears to have a very low standard for its police.

Criminal Apostate US Govt Set To Subvert 1st Amendment

2008-05-21T15:54:00.000-04:00

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/20/main-core/

Criminal GW Bush's Idea of 'Sedition'

2008-04-27T18:18:00.000-04:00

From The New York Times
Editorial Laura Berg’s Letter
April 27, 2008
The PEN American Center, the literary organization committed to free expression, is honoring an American most people in this country have never read or even heard of: Laura Berg. She is a psychiatric nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital who was threatened with a sedition investigation after she wrote a letter to the editor denouncing the Bush administration’s bungling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war.
That’s right, sedition: inciting rebellion against the government. We suppose nothing should surprise us in these days of government zealotry. But the horror and the shame of that witch hunt should shock everyone.
Ms. Berg identified herself as a V.A. nurse when, soon after Katrina’s horrors, she sent her impassioned letter to The Alibi, a paper in Albuquerque. “I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government,” she wrote. “We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.”
Her superiors at the hospital soon alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and impounded her office computer, where she keeps the case files of war-scarred veterans she treats. Then she received an official warning in which a Veterans Affairs investigator intoned that her letter “potentially represents sedition.”
It took civil rights litigators and Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico to “act forcefully” in reminding the government of the Constitution and her right to free speech. The Department of Veterans Affairs retreated then finally apologized to the shaken Ms. Berg.
Even then, she noted, one superior told her it was preferred that she not identify herself as a V.A. nurse in any future letter writing. “And so I am saying I am a V.A. nurse,” Ms. Berg soon boomed out in a radio broadcast. “And some of my fire in writing this about Katrina and Iraq is from my experience as a V.A. nurse.” Thus declared Ms. Berg, well chosen to receive the new PEN/Katherine Anne Porter First Amendment Award.

GW Bush White House 'Micromanaged' Crime

2008-04-13T16:20:00.000-04:00

The GW Bush Administration 'micromanaged' criminal torture.

Perhaps they also so micromanaged unlawful surveillance of dissidents to subvert the 1st amendment?

Top Bush aides oversaw torture sessions 11 Apr 2008

According to an ABC report, top Bush aides, including Condi Rice, micromanaged the torture of terrorist suspects from the White House basement. Discussions on torture were so detailed, that some interrogation sessions were virtually choreographed by a White House advisory group, The torture advisory group included then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, then-CIA director George Tenet and then-attorney general John Ashcroft and Vice President [sic] Dick Cheney ABC's sources said.

GW Bush- the U.S.'s '1st Catholic President

Pentagon To Promote Subverting the 1st Amendment Against Independent Blog[ger]s

2008-04-05T22:07:00.000-04:00

http://prorev.com/2008/04/pentagon-study-suggests-illegal.html

(excerpt)

|||| There are certain to be cases where some blog, outside the control of the U.S. government, promotes a message that is antithetical to U.S. interests, or actively supports the informational, recruiting and logistical activities of our enemies. The initial reaction may be to take down the site, but this is problematic in that doing so does not guarantee that the site will remain down. As has been the case with many such sites, the offending site will likely move to a different host server, often in a third country. Moreover, such action will likely produce even more interest in the site and its contents. Also, taking down a site that is known to pass enemy EEIs (essential elements of information) and that gives us their key messages denies us a valuable information source. This is not to say that once the information passed becomes redundant or is superseded by a better source that the site should be taken down. At that point the enemy blog might be used covertly as a vehicle for friendly information operations. Hacking the site and subtly changing the messages and data-merely a few words or phrases-may be sufficient to begin destroying the blogger's credibility with the audience. Better yet, if the blogger happens to be passing enemy communications and logistics data, the information content could be corrupted. If the messages are subtly tweaked and the data corrupted in the right way, the enemy may reason that the blogger in question has betrayed them and either take down the site (and the blogger) themselves, or by threatening such action, give the U.S. an opportunity to offer the individual amnesty in exchange for information. ||||

Criminal GW Bush Adminstration Destruction of Evidence

2008-03-23T04:30:00.000-04:00

Behavior Suggestive of Cover- Ups from the Criminal President Who Ordered Illegal Wiretapping of Political Dissidents

ttp://www.examiner.com/a-1293960~White_House__Computer_Hard_Drives_Tossed.html

(excerpt)

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Older White House computer hard drives have been destroyed, the White House disclosed to a federal court Friday in a controversy over millions of possibly missing e-mails from 2003 to 2005.
The White House revealed new information about how it handles its computers in an effort to persuade a federal magistrate it would be fruitless to undertake an e-mail recovery plan that the court proposed.
"When workstations are at the end of their lifecycle and retired ... the hard drives are generally sent offsite to another government entity for physical destruction," the White House said in a sworn declaration filed with U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola.
It has been the goal of a White House Office of Administration "refresh program" to replace one-third of its workstations every year in the Executive Office of the President, according to the declaration.
Some, but not necessarily all, of the data on old hard drives is moved to new computer hard drives, the declaration added.
In proposing an e-mail recovery plan Tuesday, Facciola expressed concern that a large volume of electronic messages may be missing from White House computer servers, as two private groups that are suing the White House allege.
Facciola proposed the drastic approach of going to individual workstations of White House computer users after the White House disclosed in January that it recycled its computer backup tapes before October 2003. Recycling - taping over existing data - raises the possibility that any missing e-mails may not be recoverable.
At a House committee hearing last month, a computer expert who previously worked at the White House called the e-mail system "primitive" and said it was set up in a way that created a high risk that data would be lost from White House servers where it was being archived.
Under pressure to provide details about its computer system, the White House told the congressional committee that it never completed work that began in 2003 on a planned records management and e-mail archiving system. The White House canceled the project in late 2006 and says it is still working on a new version.

It was on August 5, 2006 that I suffered a criminal assault on my body and property by the criminal apostate/ criminal mercantilistic commonwealth of Virginia. This happened with the assistance of the criminal apostate U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency under the umbrella of the criminal apostate U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which plausibly illegally wiretapped my Verizon cell phone upon a time line suggestive of 1st Amendment subversion of revenge for my blog about the dirty deal to abort the Washington, D.C. South Capitol Frederick Douglass Mall.

Further Empowering Criminal Apostate Shadow Government

2008-03-08T01:38:00.000-05:00

From Truthseeker 24

Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Ellen Nakashima from the Washington Post at March 6, 2008 reported on a new federal government plan. This plan revolves around several thousand law enforcement agencies creating a foundation of domestic intelligence system via computer networks. As a result, it will analyze tons of information to "fight crime" and get rid of terror plots. They want to merge information into data warehouses. The government hopes that this network will be part of a fledgling Justice Department system called the National Data Exchange, or N-DEx. Even now, advanced systems exist called Coplink. Coplink is a commercial data mining system invovling about 1,600 law enforcement agencies. Coplink can find nicknames, height, wieght, color of hair, etc. of certain people in a matter of seconds. What's the purpose of this. Thomas McNamara, chief of the federal Information Sharing Environment office, said he wants regional systems to share information. This is of course the truth. This is about the integration of systems into a centralized database (i.e. Much of the advanced Big Brother are controlled and integrated into the Pentagon and its DARPA-like systems facilitating the military industrial complex). Some like Thomas may claim it doesn't infringe on our privacy, but our privacy is infringed all of the time with cameras everywhere, the Real ID Act, free speech zones, RFID chips in our vehicles and even our clothes, etc.

MSNBC Now Opposes Free Speech: 911 Truthers Belong in Concentration Camps

2008-03-06T23:46:00.000-05:00

Fascist Morning Joe: Tase, Take 911 Truthers to Concentration Camps

http://www.infowars.com/?p=584

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 4, 2008

In response to the arrest of a 9/11 demonstrator during a Bill Clinton appearance in Corpus Christi, corporate media shill and former Republican Congress critter Joe Scarborough and his co-hosts demanded 9/11 truthers be tasered and taken to detention camps. “Where’s the taser?” Joe wants to know as MSNBC runs footage of the man’s arrest. “Tase him!” His co-host adds: “Led away in handcuffs and hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in eastern Europe and never to be heard from again… I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.”
In other words, the corporate behemoth MSNBC believes people who disagree with the government not only do not deserve First Amendment rights and protection, but also believe demonstrators should be kidnapped by the CIA and taken to a “special prison” to be tortured and ultimately killed, as this is the fate of many who disappear suffer. Is it possible the United States is about to become like Pinochet’s Chile? In 1973, thanks to the CIA and U.S. corporations, Chile became a brutal police state. Chileans were subjected to systematic and massive violations of their most basic human rights. Official figures indicate that nearly 3,000 people were executed, disappeared or lost their lives as a result of torture and political violence. It would seem “Morning Joe” would enthusiastically welcome the installation of a fascist state where those he disagrees with are disappeared, tortured, and murdered.

Last October, CNN host Glenn Beck called 9/11 truthers “insane” and “dangerous anarchists” in response to 9/11 truthers infiltrating the Real Time with Bill Maher show. “These truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation’s foundation, tear us apart and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us… [this is] the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would come from,” declared Beck, setting a precedence followed this morning by the scurrilous Joe Scarborough and his complaisant minions....

This is a part of a growing mainstream media trend. with a master design to provide the statutory justification for furthering the subversion of the 1st and 4th amendments of the U.S. constitution via targeting dissidents with placement in concentration camps- subjecting them to all sorts of opportunities to be murdered by constitutionally apostate government.

Mukasey: Free Pass to Bush Adminstration Crime

2008-03-01T16:32:00.000-05:00

MUKASEY REFUSED TO ENFORCE CONTEMPT LAW

AP - Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime. As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court. . . Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080301/D8V4C5HG5.html

G.W. Bush Continues to Express Fear of Exposure for Criminal Wiretaps of Dissidents

2008-02-23T23:11:00.000-05:00

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntget=2008/02/23/washington/23fisa.html&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin

Criminal Apostate U.S. Supreme Court Gives Free Pass to Criminal Surveillance

2008-02-20T13:57:00.001-05:00

Supreme Court won't review Bush domestic spying case 19 Feb 2008 The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President [sic] George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks. The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove [?] they had been affected by the program.

Supreme Court Refuses to Review Warrantless Wiretapping Case --Ruling Allows Executive Branch to Police Itself, Says ACLU (ACLU) 19 Feb 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review a legal challenge to the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients.

2008-02-18T18:35:00.000-05:00

Backbone, at Last

http://nestmannblog.sovereignsociety.com/2008/02/backbone-at-las.html
It's about time. The U.S. Congress finally mustered the political courage to slow down the War on Terror' stampede on civil liberties.

By failing to re-authorize the so-called "Protect America Act," Congress reinstated a deeply flawed legal framework for warrantless surveillance. Nonetheless, that framework is preferable to that developed by the Bush administration under this act, which expired on Feb. 16, 2008.

In the Protect America Act, enacted Aug. 6, 2007, Congress authorized the Bush administration to continue two electronic surveillance initiatives it authorized under a 2001 executive order:

Warrantless wiretaps of conversations originating in, or terminating in, the United States, of individuals allegedly connected to terrorist groups; and
With the cooperation of U.S. telecommunications companies, warrantless mining of data streams to analyze transactional records of telephone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorist suspects.

Despite the "terrorist" appellation, these initiatives weren't limited to terrorist-related intelligence gathering. Any activity, terrorist-related or not, was fair game if deemed of interest to intelligence officials. Vice-President Dick Cheney, for instance, apparently used Bush's 2001 executive order to eavesdrop on members of his staff he suspected of talking to the press without advance authorization.

The Protect America Act bypassed a legal procedure set up 30 years ago to review applications for national security and intelligence-related electronic surveillance. Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a secret federal court must review any application for electronic surveillance that has a "substantial likelihood" of monitoring the communications of a U.S. resident.

But with the Protect America Act, the definition of "electronic surveillance" subject to FISA become much narrower, in effect, legalizing the Bush administration initiatives. What's more, the FISA court played a much smaller role. Rather than a court, the act gave the attorney general—a political appointee—the responsibility to authorize FISA-related surveillance requests. The court merely reviewed surveillance already under way.

The Protect America Act also directed telecommunications companies to assist the government in implementing the Bush surveillance initiatives. In addition, it protected those companies from private lawsuits for alleged violations of FISA. Dozens of such lawsuits have been filed.

Despite warnings from the Bush administration of possibly grave consequences if the Protect America Act ever expired, Congress thankfully set a time limit on this authority—February 16, 2008.

That supposedly would give legislators enough time to come up with a framework that would give back the FISA court some of its oversight. In exchange, Congress would presumably permanently legalize the Bush surveillance initiatives.

The Bush administration, however, wanted more. It also demanded that telecom companies receive retroactive legal immunity for their participation in illegal surveillance prior to enactment of the Protect America Act.

Last week, the Senate caved in to Bush, and included telecom immunity in its amendments to FISA. However, the House didn't go along. It adjourned for three weeks on Feb. 16 without renewing the Protect America Act. In the process, it delivered a rare respite to greater privacy intrusions in the never-ending War on Terror.

This certainly isn't the last word, but as it stands now, the FISA court must once again approve any new applications for electronic surveillance under the "substantial likelihood" standard.

Despite my grave misgivings about the entire procedure being shrouded in secrecy, and with near-total lack of accountability, this procedure is far preferable to placing the final decision in the hands of the attorney general. It's hard to forget that only a few months ago, the now thankfully departed Alberto Gonzales occupied this post.

What's more, even though Congress didn't cave in to the Bush administration, the world didn't end on Feb. 16. No mushroom clouds appeared over Washington, D.C., or New York City. Now that Congress has displayed a little backbone in defending civil liberties, it will hopefully have the courage to do so again.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

U.S Halliburton Concentration Camps

2008-02-15T04:04:00.000-05:00

http://www.globalre search.ca/ index.php? context=va&aid=8067

Detention camps at undisclosed locations in the US? Rule by Fear or Rule by Law? by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
Global Research, February 13, 2008
San Francisco Chronicle

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943 Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees. According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists." Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people? Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies, " gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order." The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike. Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51. U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it. According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it. A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month. What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens? The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law. Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.
Global Research Articles by Lewis Seiler

Republican Party Slits its Wrists in Defending Criminal Government 4th Amendment Violations

2008-02-15T01:36:00.001-05:00

We Need to Know More About Criminal Wiretapping

2008-02-15T01:36:00.000-05:00

Conyers to White House: We Need to Know More about Wiretapping

By Paul Kiel - February 12, 2008, 3:55PM

Signaling the fight ahead when lawmakers get together to sort out the differences between the Senate and House surveillance bills, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) wrote White House counsel Fred Fielding today to deliver two messages: 1) from what he's seen of the documents relating to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, there's no reason to grant the telecoms retroactive immunity (he prefers the term "amnesty"), and 2) Congress needs to know more before it can be expected to consider granting that amnesty.

The administration suddenly gave Conyers, along with a limited number of members of his committee and the full House intelligence committee, access to documents relating to the program late last month. It was obviously part of the administration's drive to secure immunity for the telecoms. But Conyers says that hasn't worked for him:

...review and consideration of the documents and briefings provided so far leads me to conclude that there is no basis for the broad telecommunications company amnesty provisions advocated by the Administration and contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill being considered today in the Senate, and that these materials raise more questions than they answer on the issue of amnesty for telecommunications providers.

Beyond that, Conyers asks a list of questions about the scope and success of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, along with a slew of documents related to the program that he hasn't seen. Chief among the documents Conyers wants to see is the October, 2001 memo from John Yoo in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that originally authorized the warrantless wiretapping program.

He also wants the rest of the members on his committee to get a chance to see the documents already turned over; the administration only agreed to allow 19 (10 Dems, 9 GOPers) members to see the documents last month. In the letter, Conyers writes that the administration's reluctance to part with information about the program "belies its position on the importance of the legislation: rather than the Administration giving Congress all the information it needs, the Administration has provided a slow trickle of information to only selected members of Congress, almost assuring that Congress cannot adequately consider its requests."

You can read that letter below in its entirety.

Dear Mr. Fielding:
I am writing to follow up on previous letters and requests of January 5, 2006, February 8, 2006, July 30, 2007, September 11, 2007, October 15, 2007, and October 16, 2007, requesting information and documents from this Administration concerning the warrantless surveillance program, known as the terrorist surveillance program (TSP), first disclosed by the New York Times on December 16, 2005, and related matters. Although some of the requested materials have been provided to some Judiciary Committee members, much of the information has not, and it is crucial that this material be produced as promptly as possible so that Congress may fulfill its legislative and oversight responsibilities. Indeed, review and consideration of the documents and briefings provided so far leads me to conclude that there is no basis for the broad telecommunications company amnesty provisions advocated by the Administration and contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill being considered today in the Senate, and that these materials raise more questions than they answer on the issue of amnesty for telecommunications providers. In order to more fully understand and react to the Administration’s request for broad-based and retroactive amnesty for telecommunications firms, who may be in a position to divulge information concerning misconduct by Administration officials, it is imperative that your provide this information to us as promptly as possible, as we have been asking for many months on numerous occasions.

Throughout this past year, the Administration has sounded a drumbeat that Congress enact the Administration’s request for amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, during this same time, the Administration has denied to Congress essential documents and information that would permit Congress, in the exercise of its Article I responsibilities, to consider the proposed amendments to FISA in a prudent and careful manner. This Administration cannot be heard to complain about the unwillingness of Congress to enact legislation that the Administration claims to be so vital for the national security when the Administration at the same time has denied to Congress documents and information that are essential to its legislative responsibilities. Frankly, the Administration’s refusal to provide the requested information belies its position on the importance of the legislation: rather than the Administration giving Congress all the information it needs, the Administration has provided a slow trickle of information to only selected members of Congress, almost assuring that Congress cannot adequately consider its requests.

Once again, I have set forth below our request for documents and information. I further reiterate my request that all these materials, as well as those provided so far, be made available to the entire Judiciary Committee and, to the extent possible, to the American public via immediate and appropriate declassification. To assist the Administration in prioritizing its response, without altering our request for all the information below, I would stress three requests in particular:

First, please provide access to all Members of the House Judiciary Committee those briefings and materials you have made available to 19 Members as of now. Currently, it is my understanding that the entire membership of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been permitted to be “read in” to the TSP program. The only Committee of jurisdiction that has not been offered the same access is the House Judiciary Committee. This is unacceptable and serves little purpose but to impede our Members review of the program and understanding of your request for retroactive amnesty.

Second, please provide the Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States. It is believed that this Memorandum is dated either October 17, 2001, or October 23, 2001. Based on the title of this document, and based on the contents of similar memoranda issued at roughly the same time, it appears that a substantial portion of this Memorandum provides a legal determination and analysis as to the nature and scope of the Presidential war powers to accomplish specific acts within the United States. Congress is entitled to know the executive branch’s interpretation of its constitutional powers.

Third, please provide copies of filings, correspondence or transcripts of colloquies with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about TSP or other warrantless or other electronic surveillance programs, containing legal analysis, arguments, or decisions concerning the interpretation of FISA, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted on September 18, 2001, or the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution.

In addition, as per our September 11, 2007, letter, we reiterate our requests for the following documents:

1. All documents from September 11, 2001, to the present, including e-mail, that reflect, discuss, or describe agreements or understandings between the White House, the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, or any other entity of the Executive Branch and telecommunications companies, internet service providers, equipment manufacturers, or data processors regarding criminal or civil liability for assisting with or participating in warrantless electronic surveillance program(s).

2. An unredacted copy of the notes or program log of FBI Director Mueller provided to the House Judiciary Committee on August 14, 2007, concerning the March 2004 hospital visit to former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other events that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey described in his May 15, 2007, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

3. All documents from December 1, 2005, to the present related to the investigation by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into the role of Department of Justice attorneys in the authorization and oversight of the warrantless electronic surveillance program, which was opened on January 11, 2006, and closed approximately three months later after OPR investigators were denied the necessary security clearances (OPR Investigation) that reflect, discuss, or describe the following:

a) consideration of the request for security clearances;

b) communications between White House personnel, including the President or the Vice President, and Department of Justice personnel about the OPR investigation or consideration of the request for security clearances; and

c) the reasons for suspending that investigation (since revived by the Attorney General).

4. Since September 11, 2001, all audits, reports, or evaluations of or concerning any warrantless surveillance program(s), whether conducted by government employees or private companies, including any reports as to the effectiveness of minimization standards to protect U.S. persons’ communications.

I would also again ask that you ensure that the appropriate entity in the Administration immediately provide written responses to the following questions, which we have previously submitted last year:

1. Since September 11, 2001, has the Administration conducted any warrantless surveillance in the United States, other than through the warrantless electronic surveillance program the President acknowledged in late 2005 (known now as the Terrorist Surveillance Program), or as explicitly authorized by FISA, or any other warrantless surveillance techniques such as physical searches of home or offices or opening of mail? Are such activities continuing? Is the Administration currently conducting any foreign intelligence surveillance in the United States, other than that explicitly authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)?

2. How many actionable leads have been referred to operational entities as a result of acquisitions of U.S. persons’ conversations or communications?

a) Please break down the response as follows: 1) between September 11, 2001, and October 25, 2001; 2) between October 25, 2001, and January 10, 2007; 3) between January 10, 2007, and August 5, 2007; and 4) since August 5, 2007.

b) Of the actionable leads referred to operational entities, what have been the results? Please differentiate between counter-terrorism, criminal investigations and prosecutions, counter-espionage, and in-theater combat operations. Please indicate with specificity whether any attacks have been averted.

3. How many conversations or communications (both incoming or outgoing) monitored under the programs have revealed a contact between a U.S. person and someone for whom there was probable cause to believe they were in or supporting al Qaeda? How many people in the U.S. have had email communications with someone considered to be in al Qaeda? How many of these conversations or communications have actually involved terrorist activity, as opposed to other topics of conversation? How many people have been charged with any wrongdoing as a result of such interceptions? How many terrorist activities have been disrupted as a result of such interceptions? How many people have been subjected to surveillance but not charged with any crime or otherwise detained?

4. How many persons whose conversations or communications were monitored under the programs have been subjected to any other surveillance techniques or searches, such as physical searches of home or offices, opening of mail, etc, whether subject to a warrant or not?

5. Have any U.S. persons whose conversations or communications were monitored under the programs been detained within the United States? Have any U.S. or foreign persons been interrogated or detained outside of the United States, whether by the United States or any other government, in significant part as a result of such monitoring?

6. Have journalists, lawyers, lawmakers (whether federal, state, or local), or aides had their conversations or communications monitored under the programs? If so, how many?

7. How many U.S. persons had conversations (voice or email content) or communications (call or email data) acquired through electronic surveillance programs? In how many of these acquisitions was the U.S. person the target of the acquisition? In how many of these acquisitions was the acquisition incidental? How many warrants for continued surveillance were sought after identification of someone as a U.S. person? How many such applications were denied? Please break down the response between warrantless and other electronic surveillance programs as to the following periods:

a) between September 11, 2001, and October 25, 2001;
b) between October 25, 2001, and January 10, 2007;
c) between January 10, 2007, and August 5, 2007; and
d) since August 5, 2007.

8. How many individuals have been targeted for surveillance under the Protect America Act that involved foreign intelligence generally, as opposed to terrorism or nuclear proliferation?

9. Please identify any telecommunication companies or internet service providers that refused to allow access to communication streams without Court sanction or questioned the terms of the requests or demands which were being made of them and, to the extent that discussions with such companies were conducted orally rather than through written dialogue, please authorize the relevant parties to discuss the content of those discussions with Committee staff and Members.

I am enclosing for your information copies of previous requests concerning these matters made to the Administration.

Bush Administration Seeks to Cover Up Criminal Surveillance of Dissidents

2008-02-11T17:45:00.001-05:00

Because the Said So

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10sun1.html

Even by the dismal standards of what passes for a national debate on intelligence and civil liberties, last week was a really bad week.

The Senate debated a bill that would make needed updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — while needlessly expanding the president’s ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and covering up the unlawful spying that President Bush ordered after 9/11.

The Democrat who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, John Rockefeller of West Virginia, led the way in killing amendments that would have strengthened requirements for warrants and raised the possibility of at least some accountability for past wrongdoing. Republicans declaimed about protecting America from terrorists — as if anyone was arguing the opposite — and had little to say about protecting Americans’ rights.

We saw a ray of hope when the head of the Central Intelligence Agency conceded — finally — that waterboarding was probably illegal. But his boss, the director of national intelligence, insisted it was legal when done to real bad guys. And Vice President Dick Cheney — surprise! — made it clear that President Bush would authorize waterboarding whenever he wanted.

The Catch-22 metaphor is seriously overused, but consider this: Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Congress there would be no criminal investigation into waterboarding. He said the Justice Department decided waterboarding was legal (remember the torture memo?) and told the C.I.A. that.

So, according to Mukaseyan logic, the Justice Department cannot investigate those who may have committed torture, because the Justice Department said it was O.K. and Justice cannot be expected to investigate itself.

As it was with torture, so it was with wiretaps.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the president decided to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and authorized wiretaps without a warrant on electronic communications between people in the United States and people abroad. Administration lawyers ginned up a legal justification and then asked communications companies for vast amounts of data.

According to Mr. Rockefeller, the companies were “sent letters, all of which stated that the relevant activities had been authorized by the president” and that the attorney general — then John Ashcroft — decided the activity was lawful. The legal justification remains secret, but we suspect it was based on the finely developed theory that the president does not have to obey the law, and not on any legitimate interpretation of federal statutes.

When Mr. Bush started his spying program, FISA allowed warrantless eavesdropping for up to a year if the president certified that it was directed at a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, and there was no real chance that communications involving United States citizens or residents would be caught up. As we now know, the surveillance included Americans and there was no “foreign power” involved.

The law then, and now, also requires the attorney general to certify “in writing under oath” that the surveillance is legal under FISA, not some fanciful theory of executive power. He is required to inform Congress 30 days in advance, and then periodically report to the House and Senate intelligence panels.

Congress was certainly not informed, and if Mr. Ashcroft or later Alberto Gonzales certified anything under oath, it’s a mystery to whom and when. The eavesdropping went on for four years and would probably still be going on if The Times had not revealed it.

So what were the telecommunications companies told? Since the administration is not going to investigate this either, civil actions are the only alternative.

The telecoms, which are facing about 40 pending lawsuits, believe they are protected by a separate law that says companies that give communications data to the government cannot be sued for doing so if they were obeying a warrant — or a certification from the attorney general that a warrant was not needed — and all federal statutes were being obeyed.

To defend themselves, the companies must be able to show they cooperated and produce that certification. But the White House does not want the public to see the documents, since it seems clear that the legal requirements were not met. It is invoking the state secrets privilege — saying that as a matter of national security, it will not confirm that any company cooperated with the wiretapping or permit the documents to be disclosed in court.

So Mr. Rockefeller and other senators want to give the companies immunity even if the administration never admits they were involved. This is short-circuiting the legal system. If it is approved, we will then have to hope that the next president will be willing to reveal the truth.

Mr. Rockefeller argues that companies might balk at future warrantless spying programs. Imagine that!

This whole nightmare was started by Mr. Bush’s decision to spy without warrants — not because they are hard to get, but because he decided he was above the law. Discouraging that would be a service to the nation.

This debate is not about whether the United States is going to spy on Al Qaeda, it is about whether it is going to destroy its democratic principles in doing so. Senators who care about that should vote against immunity.

Immunity means the U.S. government having full reign to target people for their political views, creating a climate subverting the 1st Amendment via subverting the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Congress to Empower Criminal Apostate Shadow Government to Target Dissidents, Subverting the 1st Amendment via Subverting the 4th Amendment

2008-02-07T04:34:00.000-05:00

Will Congress Vote "Yes" to More Bush Spying?

By Ari Melber, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2008.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/76094/

As the country focuses on the primaries, the Senate is poised for a FISA vote
This week Americans face a profound choice -- and it has nothing to do with the presidential election.
The Senate is about to vote on legislation, favored by President Bush, to strip American courts of their authority to supervise massive government surveillance. The Senate intelligence bill sidelines the U.S. intelligence court, established by a 1978 law, and grants Bush new spying powers. Under the proposal, the Administration merely needs to "certify" it will not abuse them.
Of course, Bush already has abused his spying powers. He conceded in 2005 that the Administration conducted massive surveillance without the warrants required by law. A judge resigned in protest; Bush's former attorney general, his deputy attorney general and the FBI director also threatened to resign; and one federal court found the warrantless spying illegal.
Yet the Senate's legislation fails to confront that history. Instead, Democratic leaders are poised to validate Bush's illegal surveillance -- giving even more ground than the Republican Congress ever did. Worse, the current bill would cover up Bush's abuse by granting retroactive amnesty to telecommunications companies accused of breaking the law, even if the people involved acted knowingly or maliciously.
The retroactive amnesty proposal is so extreme, in fact, it is hard to fathom how Congress, as a law-making body, can advance this blatantly lawless approach. This amnesty makes presidential pardons look tough. While pardons save convicted felons from jail, a controversial tack, they still require a full public trial. Retroactive amnesty just squashes entire cases. No investigation. No judicial fact-finding. And the public gets no information about these alleged crimes at the highest levels of American government and business. What if the spying was abused to distort elections or pad corporate profits? The bill would keep the public in the dark.
The intelligence bill is not just unpalatable; it is indefensible on the facts. That may be why the Senate is pushing the bill now, during the distractions of the busiest week in presidential politics. (The ACLU, MoveOn and liberal bloggers have also been fighting the bill, causing some delays and fortifying efforts by Senators Feingold and Dodd to amend it this week.) The Administration has also savaged the facts to bolster a weak hand. Bush officials have mischaracterized the bill, impugned the security credentials of their opponents and threatened to veto a temporary version so they could blame any ensuing intelligence problems on Democrats.
Bush's bad faith nearly derailed everything, because his veto threat enraged the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Bush ally on intelligence issues. Last week, in a showdown on the Senate floor, the normally mild-mannered Rockefeller even accused the White House of "political terrorism." Then Bush buckled, signing a temporary measure despite his veto threats, while reiterating his demand for amnesty in a final bill. Jacob Sullum, a conservative writer for the libertarian Reason magazine, described it as "the latest in a series of Bush administration reversals and self-contradictions" on intelligence legislation. "If the president and his men can't even get their public story about warrantless surveillance straight, how can we trust them to secretly exercise the unilateral powers they are seeking?" he asked.
We can't. And it's not just Bush, who has little time to exercise these unfettered powers, anyway. Spying abuse has bipartisan roots, from Democratic administrations infiltrating the anti-war movement to Nixon taping everyone from John Kerry to his own aides.
Surveillance is only more crucial and ubiquitous now, in an asymmetric war with elusive non-state actors. The core issue is whether Congress will ensure that our government conducts surveillance the American way, with oversight by American courts and public accountability for anyone who would exploit security concerns for illicit ends.
Proponents of warrantless surveillance like to say that "you have no problem if you have nothing to hide." Put aside the unconstitutional premise about individual rights, though, and that dare works in the other direction. Congress can confront Bush with a similar imperative: court oversight is no problem for you or the telecommunication companies, as long as you have nothing to hide.

See more stories tagged with: warrantless wiretapping, spying, fisa

Ari Melber is a regular contributor to The Nation magazine and writer for The Nation's Campaign '08 blog, and a contributing editor at the Personal Democracy Forum. He served as a Legislative Aide in the U.S. Senate and was a national staff member of the 2004 John Kerry Presidential Campaign.

U.S. Pentagon Seeks to Subvert Internet Free Speech

2008-02-06T00:59:00.000-05:00

Pentagon: The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system".

by Brent Jessop

Global Research, February 2, 2008
Knowledge Driven Revolution.com - 2007-11-19

Information Operation Roadmap Part 3 The Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap is blunt about the fact that an internet, with the potential for free speech, is in direct opposition to their goals. The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system".

The 2003 Pentagon document entitled the Information Operation Roadmap was released to the public after a Freedom of Information Request by the National Security Archive at George Washington University in 2006. A detailed explanation of the major thrust of this document and the significance of information operations or information warfare was described by me here.

Computer Network Attack

From the Information Operation Roadmap:

"When implemented the recommendations of this report will effectively jumpstart a rapid improvement of CNA [Computer Network Attack] capability." - 7

"Enhanced IO [information operations] capabilities for the warfighter, including: ... A robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack..." [emphasis mine] - 7

Would the Pentagon use its computer network attack capabilities on the Internet?

Fighting the Net

"We Must Fight the Net. DoD [Department of Defense] is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to "fight the net." " [emphasis mine] - 6

"DoD's "Defense in Depth" strategy should operate on the premise that the Department will "fight the net" as it would a weapons system." [emphasis mine] - 13

It should come as no surprise that the Pentagon would aggressively attack the "information highway" in their attempt to achieve dominance in information warfare. Donald Rumsfeld's involvement in the Project for a New American Century sheds more light on the need and desire to control information.

PNAC Dominating Cyberspace

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was founded in 1997 with many members that later became the nucleus of the George W. Bush administration. The list includes: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz among many other powerful but less well know names. Their stated purpose was to use a hugely expanded U.S. military to project "American global leadership." In September of 2000, PNAC published a now infamous document entitled Rebuilding America's Defences. This document has a very similar theme as the Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap which was signed by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

From Rebuilding America's Defenses:

"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies... are creating a dynamic that may threaten America's ability to exercise its dominant military power." [emphasis mine] - 4

"Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas - and the protection of international commerce - defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new "international commons" be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the "infosphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership." [emphasis mine] - 51

"Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and "combat" likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, "cyber-space," and perhaps the world of microbes." [emphasis mine] - 60

For more on Rebuilding America's Defences read this.

Internet 2

Part of the Information Operation Roadmap's plans for the internet are to "ensure the graceful degradation of the network rather than its collapse." (pg 45) This is presented in "defensive" terms, but presumably, it is as exclusively defensive as the Department of Defense.

As far as the Pentagon is concerned the internet is not all bad, after all, it was the Department of Defense through DARPA that gave us the internet in the first place. The internet is useful not only as a business tool but also is excellent for monitoring and tracking users, acclimatizing people to a virtual world, and developing detailed psychological profiles of every user, among many other Pentagon positives. But, one problem with the current internet is the potential for the dissemination of ideas and information not consistent with US government themes and messages, commonly known as free speech. [emphasis FSBUSHS] Naturally, since the plan was to completely dominate the "infosphere," the internet would have to be adjusted or replaced with an upgraded and even more Pentagon friendly successor.

In an article by Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet.com, he describes the emergence of Internet 2.

"The development of "Internet 2" is also designed to create an online caste system whereby the old Internet hubs would be allowed to break down and die, forcing people to use the new taxable, censored and regulated world wide web. If you're struggling to comprehend exactly what the Internet will look like in five years unless we resist this, just look at China and their latest efforts to completely eliminate dissent and anonymity on the web."

Conclusion The next article will examine the Pentagon's use of psychological operations or PSYOP and the final article in this series will examine whether or not there are any limits to using information operations on the American public or foreign audiences.
Brent Jessop is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Brent Jessop

Free Speech Beneath US Homeland Security

FOX Monsanto Cover Up

Indefinite Detention Law Hall of Shame - List of Senators Who Voted Yes on the NDAA bill (And a list of their twitter accounts)

Voted No

Here is a list of twitter IDs for senators who voted for S1867 Defense Authorization act. #NDAA

Senators who voted for the NDAA who do not have twitter accounts:

Following are the senators who voted *against* the act who are on twitter:

Senators who votes against who are *not* on twitter:

YAHOO Political E Mail Blockage

Wikipedia SELF-CENSORSHIP

Ex FOX Reporter ENABLING Political Censorship

FREE PASS for Police to Trash Video Evidence- According to Texas Judge Bob Pemberton

Internet Censorship Test

US 'NSA' Uses Cell Phones as Tracking Devices Without Search Warrants

Airbourne Assassination

Rand Paul On The "PATRIOT Act"

U.S. 7th Circuit Court Approves Warrantless GPS tracking

ObUma Worse Then Bush on 4th Amendment

ObUma Adminstration Embraces GW Bush Administration Position on Subverting the 4th Amendment

Right to Peaceably Assemble to Redress Grievances Undermined by Quantico Marine Command that Violates Soldier's Oath

26 Republicans Stall 3 Ways of Subverting the 4th and 1st Amendments

US Senators Lieberman & Collin's Treason Against Free Speech

Obama to Establish White House as Unreviewable Executioner

GPS Subversion of the 4th Amendment

Obama to Remove Oversight- Tool of the Continuing Inquisition

CPAC 2010 Debate: Does Security Trump Freedom?

The Right of Mobility

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Yahoo-Verizon Conspiracy Against the Public

Yahoo, Verizon: Our Spy Capabilities Would ‘Shock’, ‘Confuse’ Consumers

Censorship of Continuing Counter Reformation War

Friday, November 6, 2009

Barack Hussein Obama To Ban 'Blasphemy'?!

Just say no to blasphemy laws

Perhaps in an effort to rehabilitate the United States’ image in the Muslim world, the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech. This country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion.

Thomas Richards Censored by Jesuit Masonic Cyber Inquisition

1914 - 1945 Second Thirty Years War of the Jesuits in Eurasia:

From the last message of the SpirituallySmart blog of Thomas Richards where he enlists all the censorship to which his work online has been submitted:

Friday, August 28, 2009

AT&T IS CENSORING ME

Censoring Continuing Counter Reformation?

Saturday, July 25, 2009

LIBERALS DUCK REAL CIVIL LIBERTIES STRUGGLES

Obama-Bush: More of the Same

Doable: 911 Scenarios Author Targeted

Obama to Empower Pentagon Subversion of Free Speech?

Obama Continues Total Information Awareness

Obama Trying to Continue Bush Style Spying

Govt Wiretapping More Vast Then Commonly Acknowledged

Criminal Police Disable Video

U.S. SC to allow 'Barney Fife' 4th Amendment Subversion

So They Say

RFID tracking 50 foot range admitted

Bush EMail Cover Up Rejected by Judge

Maryland State Police Target Political Activists

Virginia Leads in Sanctioning Police State Cover Ups

Palin Omen?

More Powers for FBI Intimidation Against Dissidents

Criminal Jesuitical Department of 'Justice' Cover Up Sought

ObUma FISA Flip Wrong Move

ObUma Sells Out on FISA

Criminal Telcons Bribe Politicians

Subverting the 1st Through the 4th

Democrats To Cave To Georgetown 'PATRIOT' Act Tel-Con Treason

ACLU About Warrantless Wiretapping

WordPress Censorship?

Email Beneath US Homeland Security- Douglas Willinger email stopped

John McCain Criminally Apostate to 4th Amendment

Oliver North Beneath U.S. Romeland Security

Thug Police Commits Crime Against Cameraman

Criminal Apostate US Govt Set To Subvert 1st Amendment

Criminal GW Bush's Idea of 'Sedition'

GW Bush White House 'Micromanaged' Crime

Pentagon To Promote Subverting the 1st Amendment Against Independent Blog[ger]s

Criminal GW Bush Adminstration Destruction of Evidence

Further Empowering Criminal Apostate Shadow Government

MSNBC Now Opposes Free Speech: 911 Truthers Belong in Concentration Camps

Mukasey: Free Pass to Bush Adminstration Crime

G.W. Bush Continues to Express Fear of Exposure for Criminal Wiretaps of Dissidents

Criminal Apostate U.S. Supreme Court Gives Free Pass to Criminal Surveillance

Following are the senators who voted against the act who are on twitter:

Senators who votes against who are not on twitter: