Home » Posts tagged 'us constitution' (Page 3)

Tag Archives: us constitution

FROM THE START of the reporting based on Edward Snowden’s leaked document archive, government defenders insisted that no illegal behavior was revealed. That was always false: Multiple courts have now found the domestic metadata spying program in violation of the Constitution and relevant statutes and have issued similar rulings for other mass surveillance programs; numerous articles on NSA and GCHQ documented the targeting of people and groups for blatantly political or legally impermissible purposes; and the leak revealed that President Obama’s top national security official (still), James Clapper, blatantly lied when testifying before Congress about the NSA’s activities — a felony.

But illegality was never the crux of the scandal triggered by those NSA revelations. Instead, what was most shocking was what had been legalized: the secret construction of the largest system of suspicionless spying in human history. What was scandalous was not that most of this spying was against the law, but rather that the law — at least as applied and interpreted by the Justice Department and secret, one-sided FISA “courts” — now permitted the U.S. government and its partners to engage in mass surveillance of entire populations, including their own. As the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer put it after the Washington Post’s publication of documents showing NSA analysts engaged in illegal spying: “The ‘non-compliance’ angle is important, but don’t get carried away. The deeper scandal is what’s legal, not what’s not.”

Yesterday, dozens of newspapers around the world reported on what they are calling the Panama Papers: a gargantuan leak of documents from a Panama-based law firm that specializes in creating offshore shell companies. The documents reveal billions of dollars being funneled to offshore tax havens by leading governmental and corporate officials in numerous countries (the U.S. was oddly missing from the initial reporting, though journalists vow that will change shortly).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

One Nation Under Surveillance – U.S. Government Pushed Tech Companies to Hand Over Source Code

March 18, 2016

One Nation Under Surveillance – U.S. Government Pushed Tech Companies to Hand Over Source Code

Our founding fathers studied power structures over the millennia and knew exactly what they were doing when solidifying the Bill of Rights into the U.S. Constitution. All it took was a couple hundred years, an extraordinarily ignorant and apathetic American public, and a major terror attack to roll back this multi-generational gift.

For many years, I and countless others have been screaming from the rooftops that a society should never trade civil liberties for security. Life on earth has always been dangerous for us humans, and what has historically separated free and noble civilizations from stunted tyrannies is a willingness to acknowledge such a precarious existence while at the same time demanding and defending one’s dignity and liberty. In the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the American public has demonstrated no such strength of character or historical maturity, thus allowing a corrupt, deceptive and lawless government to run roughshod over freedom with very little resistance.

– From the post: War on Terror Turns Inward – NSA Surveillance Will Be Used Against American Citizens

Freedom? Liberty? Don’t be ridiculous.

It’s been a little while since I’ve updated readers on the shady, shameless surveillance practices of the U.S. government. As usual, it’s worse than we thought.

ZDNet reports:

NEW YORK — The US government has made numerous attempts to obtain source code from tech companies in an effort to find security flaws that could be used for surveillance or investigations.

The government has demanded source code in civil cases filed under seal but also by seeking clandestine rulings authorized under the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a person with direct knowledge of these demands told ZDNet. We’re not naming the person as they relayed information that is likely classified.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Wait a Minute–Who’s Fascist?

March 16, 2016

Wait a Minute–Who’s Fascist?

The core belief of the Establishment is the central state should run everything.

If you’re an Establishment insider, the mainstream media will give you plenty of column inches and airtime to label Donald Trump a “dangerous” fascist: for example, Democratic insider Robert Reich’s fear-mongering frenzy Donald Trump is a 21st century American fascist, in which Reich conveniently overlooks constitutional limits on any president, “fascist” or not.

In effect, Reich is announcing the Constitution is dead and powerless to limit the President. Well, if that’s the problem, then why not attack the real problem, which is the Imperial Presidency? Why not? Reich served an Imperial President as a loyal lackey, that’s why–and he remains an energetic supporter of the central state and its bread-and-circuses institutionalized serfdom.

If you’re an Establishment insider, you’ll get ample opportunities in the corporate media to label Bernie Sanders a “dangerous” socialist. You don’t even have to be a member of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (a staple of the Clintons’ attack strategy)–any insider can get airtime to label Sanders as “dangerous”–either because he’s socialist, or because he’s not radical enough. Any attack will do, and you’ll get plenty of opportunity to flesh out any attack, no matter how biased or nonsensical.

It is of course classic Orwellian Doublespeak to label any threat to one’s power “fascist,” and to laud one’s corrupt and venal allies as “freedom fighters,” but the Establishment’s panicked reliance on accusations of fascism is new and yes, dangerous. So let’s step back and ask–precisely who’s the fascist here?

It turns out that the definition of fascism widely attributed to Mussolini– “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power”–has no provenance: researchers cannot find this quote in any original source material.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The US Government Cannot Stop Telling Lies

March 11, 2016

The US Government Cannot Stop Telling Lies

The US Department of Justice (sic) is the worst threat to American Liberty. The DOJ will not be happy until the department has shredded every line of the US Constitution and burned the shredded pieces. The DOJ which falsely claims it is safeguarding our liberty has approved illegal and unconstitutional torture, war crimes, illegal and unconstitutional spying without warrants, illegal and unconstitutional indefinite detention without due process of law, illegal and unconstitutional murder of US citizens without due process of law. Americans have no worst enemy than the US Department of Justice (sic).

https://www.rt.com/usa/335177-doj-apple-technical-barriers/

Is Congress Declaring War on ISIS…or on You?

February 1, 2016

Is Congress Declaring War on ISIS…or on You?

Passage of Senator Mitch McConnell’s authorization for war against ISIS will not only lead to perpetual US wars across the globe, it will also endanger our civil and economic liberties. The measure allows the president to place troops anywhere he determines ISIS is operating. Therefore, it could be used to justify using military force against United States citizens on US territory. It may even be used to justify imposing martial law in America.

The President does not have to deploy the US military to turn America into a militarized police state, however. He can use his unlimited authority to expand programs that turn local police forces into adjuncts of the US military, and send them increasing amounts of military equipment. Using the threat of ISIS to justify increased police militarization will be enthusiastically supported by police unions, local officials, and, of course, politically-powerful defense contractors. The only opposition will come from citizens whose rights have been violated by a militarized police force that views the people as the enemy.

Even though there is no evidence that the government’s mass surveillance programs have prevented even a single terrorist attack, we are still continuously lectured about how we must sacrifice our liberty for security. The cries for the government to take more of our privacy will grow louder as the war party and its allies in the media continue to hype the threat of terrorism. A president armed with the authority to do whatever it takes to stop ISIS will no doubt heed these calls for new restrictions on our privacy.

Following last year’s mass shooting in California, President Obama called for restricting the Second Amendment rights of any American on the “terrorist watch list.” The president also used the attacks to expand the unconstitutional gun background check system via executive action.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Legal Reform – Learning From the Mistakes of the Past

January 31, 2016

Legal Reform – Learning From the Mistakes of the Past

Kings_Bench_(1808)

Typically, the first thing society addresses which sparks a revolution is the abuse of justice. Shakespeare’s famous quote about the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers is not actually about lawyers. You have to understand the context. Private individuals were not allowed to have lawyers in those days – only the king. It was not until the American Revolution that the Constitution gave you a right to counsel, which the Supreme Court has effectively taken away giving you court appointed counsel working for the court who have achieved a near perfect conviction rate of 99%. Court appointed lawyers are a joke to put it mildly. They are paid $90 and hour generally compared to $600-$1,000 for private lawyers. Shakespeare’s famous quote comes from a rebellion:

DICK: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

Cade: Nay, that I mean to do.

Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

Therefore, Shakespeare’s phase had nothing to do with killing general lawyers, it was the king’s PROSECUTORS who were corrupt. Jake Cade led the second Tax Revolt in England after the Black Death and the king’s “lawyers” (prosecutors) were the ones aggressively seizing homes and prosecuting people wrongly at that time. Hence, history repeats and all the Constitutional precautions have been eliminated by the Supreme Court.

The legal case which became the seminal beginning of the American Revolution was Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King’s Messengers, reported at length in 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029, was the start of the American Revolution also based upon abuse of the king’s agents. The action, dated November 1762, was for trespassing and interfering with the plaintiff’s dwelling by breaking open his desks and boxes and searching and examining his papers.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Propaganda “Has Rendered the Constitutional Right of Free Press Ineffectual”

January 19, 2016

Propaganda “Has Rendered the Constitutional Right of Free Press Ineffectual”

Americans’ trust of the media is at an all-time low.

But most Americans still don’t understand that the U.S. mass media is untrustworthy because it’s completely manipulated to promote propaganda.

Noam Chomsky points out that big status quo-loving corporations own the media, cater to other big status quo-loving advertisers, and filter out stories which question the status quo.

Extreme media consolidation has made the problem worse than ever before.

As many have documented, the media presents a very tiny range of opinions, but then pretends that it is giving the full spectrum of opinions on topics … as a way to dumb down the population.

Lawrence Davidson – history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania – notes:

So well does this process work that it is probably the case that many news editors and broadcasters and most of the public taking in their reporting do not understand that their reductionism has rendered the constitutional right of free press ineffectual.

Really meaningful contrary opinion and reporting (particularly of the progressive persuasion) is so infrequent and marginalized that it stands little chance of competing with the orthodox point of view.

***

President Obama makes speeches critiquing foreign governments, such as that in Egypt, for limiting freedom of the press and speech. There is no doubt that the governments he targets are guilty of gross violations of these rights and many more besides.

But what is equally true is that the vast majority of Americans can listen to the President castigate these governments with no sense of cognitive dissonance. They do not know that they too are victims of propaganda and manipulation.

How could they? They are culturally conditioned to believe that their country is the foundation of freedom and truth. And, beyond their local area, they haven’t the knowledge, or often the interest, to fact-check what their leaders and media agents tell them. That is why it is accurate to describe the U.S. information environment as closed.

Government Agencies are Stockpiling Body Armor, Tactical Gear, Ammo

January 19, 2016

Government Agencies are Stockpiling Body Armor, Tactical Gear, Ammo

In recent years under President Obama, federal agencies have been stockpiling alarmingly huge amounts of military hardware, body armor, and riot gear. As concerns continue to mount over an increasingly bloated and powerful federal government, agencies whose primary function is administrative — such as the EPA, FDA, and IRS — have been progressively militarized. Since 2006, 44 federal agencies have spent an astounding $71 million on items such as guns, ammunition, body armor, and riot and tactical gear.

And citizens as well as watchdog agencies are taking due note of these alarming developments.

In a recent audit of the federal government by the nonprofit organization Open the Books, government waste and bloat takes a backseat to the issue of increasingly armed government agencies. Since 2006, nearly $330 million was spent on the same type of equipment by traditional law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA, and Secret Service.

The massive expenditures by agencies which are supposed to be administrative by nature have many people asking why, for instance, the Department of Veterans Affairs would need riot helmets, body armor, Kevlar blankets, and tactical gear. Or why the FDA needs ballistic vests.

As concerned Americans study the numbers in the watchdog audit, many are asking why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spent $200,000 on body armor during the Obama administration, or for what reason the Zoo Police at the Smithsonian Institution spent $28,000 for body armor during the fiscal year 2012.

Children and adults alike are taught to view police as the “good guys.” However, America’s local police force is increasingly being militarized. Simultaneously media outlets, congressmen, and President Obama are pressing the call for American citizens to be further disarmed and weakened through the systematic dismantling of the Second Amendment.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Snowden Vindicated as Judge Shuts Down NSA Bulk Spying in Epic Smackdown

November 12, 2015

Snowden Vindicated as Judge Shuts Down NSA Bulk Spying in Epic Smackdown

On Monday, a federal judge ordered a halt to the NSA’s bulk metadata collection program in a reiteration and confirmation of a previous ruling that found the practice “unconstitutional”— and even “Orwellian.”

“This court simply cannot, and will not, allow the government to trump the Constitution merely because it suits the exigencies of the moment,”stated Washington, D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon in his mordant 43-page ruling.

Edward Snowden immediately hailed the decision, pointing out significant passages from the court to his millions of Twitter followers. Of particular importance — and, indeed, at the heart of both known and potentially unknown domestic spy programs — remains the impossible reckoning between Fourth Amendment protections and the government’s claims of a national security imperative.

“Moved by whatever momentary evil has aroused their fears, officials — perhaps even supported by a majority of citizens — may be tempted to conduct searches that sacrifice the liberty of each citizen to assuage the perceived evil. But the Fourth Amendment rests on the principle that a true balance between the individual and society depends on the recognition of ‘the right to be let [sic] alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,’” the ruling stated, with emphasis added by Snowden.

In another tweet, the whistleblower summarized the ruling: “Judge rejects government claim that so long as you aren’t targeted individually, dragnet searches of your life are OK.”

Edward Snowden

✔@Snowden

Court affirmed 4th Amendment protections against NSA’s mass surveillance, defending “the right to be left alone.” pic.twitter.com/JSgf3vpEYb

Edward Snowden ✔@Snowden

Judge rejects govt claim that so long as you aren’t targeted individually, dragnet searches of your life are ok. pic.twitter.com/1tscV1hEXT

1:32 PM – 9 Nov 2015

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How Technology Kills Democracy

November 11, 2015

How Technology Kills Democracy

In shutting down whistleblowing and investigative journalism on national security issues, the U.S. government can use its technology to determine who is speaking to whom and then use that metadata as evidence of leaks, a chilling new reality is that endangers democracy, writes Norman Solomon.

Of all the excuses ladled out for the Obama administration’s shredding of the Fourth Amendment while assaulting press freedom and prosecuting “national security” whistleblowers, none is more pernicious than the claim that technology is responsible.

At first glance, the explanation might seem to make sense. After all, the capacities of digital tech have become truly awesome. It’s easy to finger “technology” as the driver of government policies, as if the president at the wheel has little choice but to follow the technological routes that have opened up for Big Brother.

Now comes New York Times reporter Charlie Savage, telling listeners and viewers of a Democracy Now interview that the surveillance state is largely a matter of technology: “It’s just the way it is in the 21st century.”

That’s a great way to depoliticize a crucial subject — downplaying the major dynamics of the political economy, anti-democratic power and top-down choices — letting leaders off the hook, as if sophistication calls for understanding that government is to be regulated by high-tech forces rather than the other way around.

In effect, the message is that — if you don’t like mass surveillance and draconian measures to intimidate whistleblowers as well as journalists — your beef is really with technology, and good luck with pushing back against that. Get it? The fault, dear citizen, is not in our political stars but in digital tech.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Majority Of U.S. College Students Now Support “Regulating” Free Speech

October 25, 2015

Majority Of U.S. College Students Now Support “Regulating” Free Speech

While the public’s attention has been largely focused on the Obama administration’s crusade against the Second Amendment, a more troubling development is taking place in the fight against free speech, and the First Amendment, a war waged far from D.C., on the campuses of America’s liberal colleges.

We read the following excerpt from the upcoming issue of the New Criterian, in which we find that 51% – or a majority – of college students favor “speech codes” (i.e., regulated “free speech”), with only 36% against, first with amusement (as we thought it has to be a joke) and then great concern (once we realized it is all too real) because it reveals that America’s best and brightest young minds have decided on their own that they don’t really need all those liberties enshrined by America’s founding fathers, especially if they “infringe” upon the current mania of “politically correct” everything.

From the WSJ:

A recent survey reported college students, by a margin of 51% to 36%, favor speech codes.

Williams College (Tuition and fees: $63,290) has undertaken an “Uncomfortable Learning” Speaker Series in order to provide intellectual diversity on a campus where (like most campuses) left-leaning sentiment prevails. What a good idea! How is it working out? The conservative writer Suzanne Venker was invited to speak in this series. But when word got out that an alternative point of view might be coming to Williams, angry students demanded her invitation be rescinded. It was.

Explaining their decision, her hosts noted that the prospect of her visit was “stirring a lot of angry reactions among students on campus.” So Suzanne Venker joins a long and distinguished list of people—including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, George Will, and Charles Murray—first invited then disinvited to speak on campus. It’s been clear for some time that such interdictions are not bizarre exceptions. On the contrary, they are perfect reflections of an ingrained hostility to free speech—and, beyond that, to free thought—in academia.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Can Obama Lecture Xi on Human Rights?

September 26, 2015

Can Obama Lecture Xi on Human Rights?

Exclusive: The Obama administration often scolds China over its human rights record – and President Obama is sure to hammer away at those themes in his summit with Chinese President Xi – but it’s hard for the United States not to look hypocritical given its own checkered history, writes Jonathan Marshall.

In summit discussions with President Xi Jinping of China, President Barack Obama might want to open lines of communication over human rights by reflecting on America’s own failings, following a script something like this:

I know you don’t like to hear about human rights from us. To your ears, it sounds like lecturing, even hectoring. Even so, I’ve instructed our ambassador to keep raising issues as merited. In our global society, we cannot close our eyes to human rights issues, wherever they occur.

I’m hoping that you won’t close your ears to what I have to say now. I thought I would try addressing human rights in a different way — a way that you Chinese are familiar with. I want to engage in a little self-criticism.

Since our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights, the United States has led the world in raising consciousness about the importance of human rights. But I’m only too well aware that our practice has often fallen short. Historically, in the case of slavery and the killing and uprooting of Native Americans, our practice has been downright criminal, verging on genocidal.

We are still learning from our painful history and obviously have a long way to go. Almost every day I see reports or videos of unjustified police shootings, disproportionately against people of color. No other country in the world comes close to our record.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

“Representation” … and “Consent”

September 22, 2015

“Representation” … and “Consent”

Democracy is an incredibly successful long con. It works because of theillusion of consent. People actually believe they are “represented.”

And so, they accept impositions that would otherwise be intolerable, if imposed on them by a king or afuhrer or generalissimo.

But when the “people” have decided… .

Except of course, they’ve done no such thing. It is all an illusion, a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that deftly hides the reality that it is not the “people” who decideanything but rather a small handful of individuals who wield vast – almost unlimited – power by claiming to act on their behalf.

Which is a fine-sounding literary device but as a political actuality it is an atrocity.

Have you ever consented to anything the government does to you? Been offered the free choice to accept – or decline? And not subject to violent repercussions in the event you do decide to decline? What sort of contract is it that you’re never actually been presented with but which you’re presumed to have signed – and which you are bound by whether you’ve signed – or not?

It is very odd.

The courts have ruled that by dint of having applied for permission to travel – that is, having applied for a driver’s license – you gave given your implied consent to, well, pretty much anything the state decides to do to you. Even when in flagrant abuse of your alleged rights, as enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Yet few, if any of us, have actually consented to this abrogation of our rights.

We are simply told that we have, since we submitted (under duress) to the necessity of obtaining a driver’s license, so as to be able to travel semi-freely, under certain terms and conditions.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Dying Institutions Of Western Civilization

August 31, 2015

The Dying Institutions Of Western Civilization

nothing is left

Judiciary Branch Has Self-Abolished

The US no longer has a judiciary. This former branch of government has transitioned into an enabler of executive branch fascism.

Privacy is a civil liberty protected by the US Constitution. The Constitution relies on courts to enforce its prohibitions against intrusive government, but if the executive branch claims (no proof required) “national security,” courts kiss the Constitution good-bye.

Federal judges are chosen by the executive branch. The senate can refuse to confirm, but that is rare. The executive branch chooses judges who are friendly to executive power. This is especially the case for the appeals courts and the Supreme Court. The Justice (sic) Department keeps tabs on district court judges who rule against the government, and these judges don’t make it to the higher courts. The result over time is to erode civil liberty.

Recently a three-judge panel of the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Security Agency can continue its mass surveillance of the US population without showing cause. The panel avoided the constitutional question by ruling on procedural terms that NSA had a right to withhold the information that would prove the plaintiffs’ case.

By refusing to extend the section of the USA PATRIOT Act—a name that puts a patriotic sheen on Orwellian totalitarianism—that gave carte blanche to the NSA and by passing the USA Freedom Act, Congress attempted to give NSA’s spying a constitutional patina. The USA Freedom Act allows the telecom companies to spy on us and collect all of our communications data and for NSA to access the data by obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. The Freedom Act protects constitutional procedures by requiring NSA to go through the motions, but it does not prevent telecom companies from invading our privacy in behalf of NSA.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Reporter Wins Fifth Amendment Case

August 5, 2015

Reporter Wins Fifth Amendment Case

The U.S. government’s recurring threats to prosecute journalists who receive classified documents may have created an avenue for some reporters to evade testimony at least in civil cases – by asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, says Marcy Wheeler.

An appellate decision on the long-running dispute between a former prosecutor and the Department of Justice may provide a new way for journalists to protect their government sources. The decision came as a result of former prosecutor Richard Convertino’s effort to sue DOJ for Privacy Act violations tied to a 2004 leak to Detroit Free Press reporter David Ashenfelter, whoreported that Convertino was under investigation by DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility for misconduct on a terrorism trial.

There are no heroes in the underlying suit. Convertino claims DOJ investigated him not for prosecutorial misconduct, but instead to retaliate for criticism of their conduct under the “war on terror” and testimony provided under subpoena to Congress. … But Convertino’s alleged conduct — withholding evidence from defense attorneys — was also inexcusable.

The dispute has sucked Ashenfelter up in a long-running fight over whether he should have to testify about his sources. He first tried to refuse by invoking reporter’s privilege, which a judge rejected. But when, in 2008, Convertino tried to depose the reporter, Ashenfelter invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to each question.

To defend doing so, Ashenfelter pointed to Convertino’s own claims that he had conspired with criminals at DOJ, as well as to a series of cases (including those under the Espionage Act) and public statements suggesting DOJ might prosecute someone for using documents illegally obtained from the government to do reporting.

Tag Archives: us constitution

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Post navigation

Latest Posts