Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items tagged appeals

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
3More

US wants to withhold information on justification for using drones to kill Americans ov... - 0 views

www.greenfieldreporter.com/...US--Drone-Killing-Memo war & peace U.S.-foreign-policy drones FOIA litigation transparency
shared by Paul Merrell on 08 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • The U.S. government, citing possible "exceptionally grave harm to national security," told a federal appeals court it wants to give the public less information about its legal justification for using drones to kill Americans suspected of terrorism overseas. The Justice Department, Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency made the request in papers submitted late Thursday to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. The document outlining the justification was sought through a Freedom of Information request by The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union. In April, a three-judge panel of the court ordered the memo released.
  • Lawyers for the government said they were not appealing the order but instead were demanding additional redactions to protect national security and to prevent damage to the government's ability to engage in confidential deliberations and to seek confidential legal advice. It asked that the full 2nd Circuit consider the request if the three-judge panel turned it down. It also suggested that the request be sent to the lower court for further review of specific changes the government was requesting. Lawyers for the Times and ACLU said Friday that the government's continued delays regarding the document are cheating the public of a fully informed and fair debate over the highly classified "targeted-killing" program.
  • David E. McCraw, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times Co., said in an email: "The government raised all these points before and lost. After two and a half years of litigation, it's time for the delays to stop so the American people can fully participate in the debate on this important issue."
6More

Why Today's Landmark Court Victory Against Mass Surveillance Matters | American Civil L... - 0 views

www.aclu.org/...inst-mass-surveillance-matters surveillance state NSA litigation Patriot-Act ACLU 2nd-Circuit
shared by Paul Merrell on 08 May 15 - No Cached
  • In a landmark victory for privacy, a federal appeals court ruled unanimously today that the mass phone-records program exposed two years ago by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is illegal because it goes far beyond what Congress ever intended to permit when it passed Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The ruling in ACLU v. Clapper is enormously significant, and not only because the program in question — the first to be revealed by Edward Snowden — is at the heart of a legislative reform effort playing out right now, or because it sparked the most significant debate about government surveillance in decades. The decision could also affect many other laws the government has stretched to the breaking point in order to justify dragnet collection of Americans’ sensitive information. Under the program, revealed in the Guardian on June 5, 2013, telecommunications companies hand over to the NSA, on a daily basis, records relating to the calls of all of their customers. Those records include information about who called whom, when, and for how long. The ACLU sued the NSA over the program just days after it was revealed, and we took the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals after it was dismissed by a district court.
  • A few points on what makes the decision so important. 1. It recognizes that Section 215 of the Patriot Act does not authorize the government to collect information on such a massive scale.
  • 2. The decision’s significance extends far beyond the phone records program alone. It implicates other mass spying programs that we have learned about in the past two years and — almost certainly ­— others that the government continues to conceal from the public. For example, we know that the Drug Enforcement Administration, for decades, employed a similar definition of “relevance” to amass logs of every call made from the United States to as many as 116 different countries. The same theory was also used to justify the collection of email metadata. Both those programs have been discontinued, but the legal reasoning hasn’t, and it could very well be the basis for programs the government has never acknowledged to the public, including the CIA’s bulk collection of Americans’ financial records.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • 4. The importance of adversarial review. The court recognized that public, adversarial litigation concerning the lawfulness of this spying program was vitally important to its decision — and it drew a direct contrast to the secret, one-sided proceedings that occur in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
  • 3. Metadata is incredibly sensitive and revealing. The government has long argued that the phone records program doesn’t reveal the contents of calls, and as such, it is not an invasion of privacy. But metadata, especially in aggregate, can be just as revealing as content, painting a detailed picture of a person’s life. 
  • 5. The congressional reforms under consideration just don’t cut it. Ahead of Section 215’s sunset on June 1, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is trying to push through a straight reauthorization of the provision, extending its life by another five years. After today’s decision came down, he took to the floor to defend the program — a position altogether at odds with the appeals court decision, with the conclusions of multiple executive-branch review groups who found the program hasn’t been effective in stopping terrorism, and with the clear consensus that supports far-reaching surveillance reform. Another bill in play (which the ACLU neither supports nor opposes), the USA Freedom Act of 2015, doesn’t go nearly far enough, most notably in ensuring that the government cannot engage in broad collection of innocent Americans’ private information.
3More

With court approval, NSA resumes bulk collection of phone data - The Washington Post - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html surveillance state NSA phone-metadata bulk-collection resumption
shared by Paul Merrell on 01 Jul 15 - No Cached
  • The National Security Agency on Tuesday restarted its bulk collection of Americans’ phone records for a temporary period, following a federal court ruling this week that gave it the green light, U.S. officials said. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Monday ruled that the NSA could resume gathering millions of Americans’ phone metadata — call times, dates and durations — to scan for links to foreign terrorists. [Here’s the court’s opinion] But the resumption is good for only 180 days — or until Nov. 29, in compliance with the USA Freedom Act. That law, which President Obama signed June 2 after a contentious congressional debate, will end the government’s bulk collection of metadata. It provided, however, for a transition period to allow the NSA time to set up an alternative system in which the data is stored by the phone companies.
  • After the law took effect, the government immediately applied to the surveillance court to restart its collection. Because Congress passed the bill a day after the underlying statute authorizing the NSA program had expired, there was a question as to whether lawmakers had authorized the government’s temporary harvesting of phone records. “In passing the USA Freedom Act, Congress clearly intended to end bulk data collection of business records and other tangible things,” Judge Michael W. Mosman wrote in his opinion. “But what it took away with one hand, it gave back — for a limited time — with the other. . . . It chose to allow a 180-day transitional period during which such [bulk] collection could continue.”
  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said he saw no reason to resume collection, even on a temporary basis. “This illegal dragnet surveillance violated Americans’ rights for 14 years without making our country any safer,” he said. Mosman also ruled that FreedomWorks, a grass-roots libertarian organization, and its attorney, Ken Cuccinelli II, could submit “friend of the court” briefs that argue against the lawfulness of the metadata program. In May, a federal appeals court in New York held that the program was unlawful. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the program stretched the meaning of the statute — Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act — to enable data collection in “staggering” volumes in the chance that “at some future point” there might be a need to search for terrorist links.
3More

US withdraws Patriots despite Turkey's appeal to keep them - 0 views

www.todayszaman.com/ppeal-to-keep-them_401117.html war & peace U.S.-foreign-policy Turkey Patriot-missiles
shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • A day after Ankara urged NATO to keep up Patriot defense systems in Turkey following Russian incursions into Turkish airspace over the weekend, the US began withdrawing its Patriot batteries from the country, on Friday, in line with its earlier announcement of pulling out on technical grounds -- for updating its systems -- and its assessment of the downgrading threat level from Syria. Dozens of US trucks transported pieces of batteries and other systems to the port of İskenderun for shipment to the US on Friday. While the US made the decision to withdraw its Patriot systems for mere technical reasons and due to the decreasing threats from Syria, imminent threats in northern Syria precipitated by Russian air strikes against rebel-held areas and the Russian violation of Turkish airspace twice over the weekend expose a troubling reality for Turkey. Having lacked a genuine air defense system, Turkey solely relies on NATO's cover against any missile threat in its vicinity and several times over the course of the past two decades, Ankara has appealed to the alliance to deploy Patriots on its soil, first against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and then Bashar al-Assad's Syria.
  • Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgiç said NATO-member Turkey is continuing talks with the alliance and its bilateral partners on enhancing its defense capabilities, including Patriot missile systems, but has not made a request for NATO to send military forces to Turkey.
  • Paul Merrell on 11 Oct 15
     
    Looks like no-fly zones and "safe zones" in Syria are no longer in U.S. foreign policy plans.
7More

Data Transfer Pact Between U.S. and Europe Is Ruled Invalid - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...-union-us-data-collection.html surveillance state NSA-reform EUCJ litigation safe-harbor
shared by Paul Merrell on 06 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • Europe’s highest court on Tuesday struck down an international agreement that allowed companies to move digital information like people’s web search histories and social media updates between the European Union and the United States. The decision left the international operations of companies like Google and Facebook in a sort of legal limbo even as their services continued working as usual.The ruling, by the European Court of Justice, said the so-called safe harbor agreement was flawed because it allowed American government authorities to gain routine access to Europeans’ online information. The court said leaks from Edward J. Snowden, the former contractor for the National Security Agency, made it clear that American intelligence agencies had almost unfettered access to the data, infringing on Europeans’ rights to privacy. The court said data protection regulators in each of the European Union’s 28 countries should have oversight over how companies collect and use online information of their countries’ citizens. European countries have widely varying stances towards privacy.
  • Data protection advocates hailed the ruling. Industry executives and trade groups, though, said the decision left a huge amount of uncertainty for big companies, many of which rely on the easy flow of data for lucrative businesses like online advertising. They called on the European Commission to complete a new safe harbor agreement with the United States, a deal that has been negotiated for more than two years and could limit the fallout from the court’s decision.
  • Some European officials and many of the big technology companies, including Facebook and Microsoft, tried to play down the impact of the ruling. The companies kept their services running, saying that other agreements with the European Union should provide an adequate legal foundation.But those other agreements are now expected to be examined and questioned by some of Europe’s national privacy watchdogs. The potential inquiries could make it hard for companies to transfer Europeans’ information overseas under the current data arrangements. And the ruling appeared to leave smaller companies with fewer legal resources vulnerable to potential privacy violations.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • “We can’t assume that anything is now safe,” Brian Hengesbaugh, a privacy lawyer with Baker & McKenzie in Chicago who helped to negotiate the original safe harbor agreement. “The ruling is so sweepingly broad that any mechanism used to transfer data from Europe could be under threat.”At issue is the sort of personal data that people create when they post something on Facebook or other social media; when they do web searches on Google; or when they order products or buy movies from Amazon or Apple. Such data is hugely valuable to companies, which use it in a broad range of ways, including tailoring advertisements to individuals and promoting products or services based on users’ online activities.The data-transfer ruling does not apply solely to tech companies. It also affects any organization with international operations, such as when a company has employees in more than one region and needs to transfer payroll information or allow workers to manage their employee benefits online.
  • But it was unclear how bulletproof those treaties would be under the new ruling, which cannot be appealed and went into effect immediately. Europe’s privacy watchdogs, for example, remain divided over how to police American tech companies.France and Germany, where companies like Facebook and Google have huge numbers of users and have already been subject to other privacy rulings, are among the countries that have sought more aggressive protections for their citizens’ personal data. Britain and Ireland, among others, have been supportive of Safe Harbor, and many large American tech companies have set up overseas headquarters in Ireland.
  • “For those who are willing to take on big companies, this ruling will have empowered them to act,” said Ot van Daalen, a Dutch privacy lawyer at Project Moore, who has been a vocal advocate for stricter data protection rules. The safe harbor agreement has been in place since 2000, enabling American tech companies to compile data generated by their European clients in web searches, social media posts and other online activities.
  • Paul Merrell on 06 Oct 15
     
    Another take on it from EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/europes-court-justice-nsa-surveilance Expected since the Court's Advocate General released an opinion last week, presaging today's opinion.  Very big bucks involved behind the scenes because removing U.S.-based internet companies from the scene in the E.U. would pave the way for growth of E.U.-based companies.  The way forward for the U.S. companies is even more dicey because of a case now pending in the U.S.  The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is about to decide a related case in which Microsoft was ordered by the lower court to produce email records stored on a server in Ireland. . Should the Second Circuit uphold the order and the Supreme Court deny review, then under the principles announced today by the Court in the E.U., no U.S.-based company could ever be allowed to have "possession, custody, or control" of the data of E.U. citizens. You can bet that the E.U. case will weigh heavily in the Second Circuit's deliberations.  The E.U. decision is by far and away the largest legal event yet flowing out of the Edward Snowden disclosures, tectonic in scale. Up to now, Congress has succeeded in confining all NSA reforms to apply only to U.S. citizens. But now the large U.S. internet companies, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Dropbox, etc., face the loss of all Europe as a market. Congress *will* be forced by their lobbying power to extend privacy protections to "non-U.S. persons."  Thank you again, Edward Snowden.
2More

NY court restores Saudi Arabia in Sept. 11 lawsuit - Yahoo News - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/sept-11-lawsuit-003353192.html war & peace 9-11 Saudis litigation
shared by Paul Merrell on 21 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • (AP) — A federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated Saudi Arabia as a defendant in lawsuits claiming it provided support to al-Qaida before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said restoring Saudi Arabia was necessary to be consistent with a ruling by a different 2nd Circuit panel that allowed another lawsuit to go forward in which a man sued Afghanistan and other defendants for the death of his wife in the Sept. 11 attacks.The 2nd Circuit and a lower court had previously ruled that Saudi Arabia was protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can't be sued in American courts. But in its latest ruling, the 2nd Circuit said a legal exception existed that would allow Saudi Arabia to remain as a defendant, just as Afghanistan remained in the similar case."The procedural history of this case produced inconsistent results between two sets of plaintiffs suing for damages based on the same incident," the appeals court said in a decision written by Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub. "We conclude that the circumstances here are 'extraordinary' and warrant relief."
  • The lawsuits were brought in 2002 and afterward against countries, companies and organizations accused of aiding al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They sought billions of dollars in damages.In the lawsuits, lawyers argued that the Sept. 11 attacks, which destroyed the World Trade Center and killed thousands of people, had been planned for years by a network of Islamic militants with the assistance of banks, governments and individuals.Lawyers in the Sept. 11 cases have frequently cited the report by the Sept. 11 Commission. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said the commission supported their argument that Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding, while lawyers for Saudi Arabia have argued that the commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded al-Qaida.
5More

Report: Netanyahu Asks US Lawmakers To 'Help Israel Avoid War Crimes Charges'... - 0 views

washington.cbslocal.com/...srael-avoid-war-crimes-charges war & peace Israel Palestine Gaza ICC war crimes prosecution U.S.-foreign-policy
shared by Paul Merrell on 09 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly urging U.S. lawmakers to protect his country from Palestinian claims that Israel engaged in “war crimes” during recent Gaza fighting that left nearly 1,900 Palestinians dead. A top Israeli lawmaker told The New York Post that Netanyahu is urging U.S. lawmakers to “help Israel avoid war crimes charges.” The Israeli leader is reportedly appealing to American legislators to resist a seemingly global backlash against the Gaza fighting, saying that Israel took “extraordinary measures” to avoid civilian deaths in the recent month-long conflict.
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly urging U.S. lawmakers to protect his country from Palestinian claims that Israel engaged in “war crimes” during recent Gaza fighting that left nearly 1,900 Palestinians dead. A top Israeli lawmaker told The New York Post that Netanyahu is urging U.S. lawmakers to “help Israel avoid war crimes charges.” The Israeli leader is reportedly appealing to American legislators to resist a seemingly global backlash against the Gaza fighting, saying that Israel took “extraordinary measures” to avoid civilian deaths in the recent month-long conflict.
  • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly urging U.S. lawmakers to protect his country from Palestinian claims that Israel engaged in “war crimes” during recent Gaza fighting that left nearly 1,900 Palestinians dead. A top Israeli lawmaker told The New York Post that Netanyahu is urging U.S. lawmakers to “help Israel avoid war crimes charges.” The Israeli leader is reportedly appealing to American legislators to resist a seemingly global backlash against the Gaza fighting, saying that Israel took “extraordinary measures” to avoid civilian deaths in the recent month-long conflict. According to Gaza officials, three-quarters of the 1,900 Palestinians killed in the fighting were civilians, although Israeli Defense Forces have stressed that Hamas has intentionally used civilians as human shields. Three Israeli civilians and 64 Israeli soldiers have also been killed in the Gaza conflict. Netanyahu said that “90percent of the fatalities could have been avoided had Hamas not rejected the ceasefire it accepts now,” according to The Post.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., met with Netanyahu and other U.S. legislators to discuss the plans following the third day of a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. According to The Post, Netanyahu asked the group to help Israel stay out of the International Criminal Court. Netanyahu told reporters that the U.S. should put in perspective the attacks from Hamas, saying, “Let’s imagine your country was attacked by 3,500 rockets.” “The prime minister asked us to work together to ensure that this strategy of going to the ICC does not succeed,” Israel told The Post by phone from Tel Aviv. Israel continued, saying Netanyahu “wants the U.S. to use all the tools that we have at our disposal to, number one, make sure the world knows that war crimes were not committed by Israel, they were committed by Hamas. And that Israel should not be held to a double standard.”
  • Paul Merrell on 09 Aug 14
     
    The U.S. could help Israel on the war crimes issue only by indirect pressure; like Israel, the U.S. never signed the treaty to join the International Criminal Court so has no direct  voice there. 
6More

Israel Crosses the Threshold II: The Nixon Administration Debates the Emergence of the ... - 0 views

www2.gwu.edu/...ebb485 war & peace U.S.-foreign-policy Israeli-nukes Nixon
shared by Paul Merrell on 13 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Washington, D.C., September 12, 2014 – During the spring and summer of 1969, officials at the Pentagon, the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the White House debated and discussed the problem of the emergence of a nuclear Israel. Believing that Israel was moving very close to a nuclear weapons capability or even possession of actual weapons, the Nixon administration debated whether to apply pressure to restrain the Israelis or even delay delivery of advanced Phantom jets whose sale had already been approved. Recently declassified documents produced in response to a mandatory declassification review request by the National Security Archive, and published today by the Archive in cooperation with the Nuclear Proliferation International History Project, show that top officials at the Pentagon were especially supportive of applying pressure on Israel. On 14 July 1969, Deputy Secretary of Defense (and Hewlett-Packard co-founder) David Packard signed a truly arresting memorandum to Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, arguing that failure to exert such pressure "would involve us in a conspiracy with Israel which would leave matters dangerous to our security in their hands." In the end, Laird and Packard and others favoring pressure lost the debate. While National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger supported some of their ideas, he also believed that, at the minimum, it would be sufficient for U.S. interests if Israel kept their nuclear activities secret. As he put on his draft memo to President Nixon on or around July 19, "public knowledge is almost as dangerous as possession itself." Indeed, Nixon opposed pressure and was willing to tolerate Israeli nuclear weapons as long as they stayed secret.
  • Earlier this year (2014), in response to a mandatory declassification review appeal filed by the National Security Archive in July 2009, the Interagency Security Classification Appeal Panel (ISCAP) declassified additional documents and information that shed brighter light on this highly sensitive policy debate. NSSM 40 is now declassified and published for the first time as is the formal interagency response to it. The intelligence reports prepared during the NSSM process remain classified, however. These along with other documents in the ISCAP release (including records that were declassified in 2007 and material published in 2006) elucidate the complexity and the enormous sensitivity of the internal debate over how far to apply pressure and what exactly the U.S. should ask of Israel. The interagency response revealed unanimity in goals-Israel should sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and halt its weapons program-but exposed significant divisions over how far Israel should be pressed and whether Washington should use military sales-in particular, withholding the delivery of Phantom jets, as leverage. There were also differences in how various officials assessed and conceptualized Israel's nuclear status at that time, and what commitments could realistically be asked of Israel. It might well be that the split of opinion between Defense and State allowed President Nixon even more freedom in making his own decision.
  • It appears now that a long memorandum written by Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke, a holdover from the Lyndon Johnson administration, to the new secretary of defense, Melvin Laird, was important element in the instigation of NSSM 40. Believing that it would be a danger to US interests if Israel acquired nuclear weapons, Warnke argued in his memo of 15 February 1969 that the United States must respond to the new Israeli nuclear reality and asked Laird to "consider another serious, concerted, and sustained effort to persuade Israel to halt its work on strategic missiles and nuclear weapons." Warnke believed that Washington must be ready to exert heavy pressure on Israel, starting with a presidential demarche. The view that it would be a danger to US security interests if Israel acquired nuclear weapons was at that time a largely non-partisan matter. Senior Democrats and Republicans within both the Johnson and Nixon administrations held that view, and both Laird and his deputy David Packard were responsive to Warnke's arguments that the US should apply pressure. To some extent, as Packard suggested in his July memorandum, even Kissinger seems at one time to have been part of that consensus, though his views were somewhat more subtle and variable. This nonpartisan consensus highlights how at the end independent-in fact, secretive and aloof-President Nixon was as he made his own decisions on the matter. Thus, he ruled against using the Phantoms as pressure and in doing so left the United States with no leverage whatsoever.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The historical picture is far from complete in other areas as well. Most intriguing, we still do not know much about President Nixon's direct involvement in the debate, in particular exactly how, when, and why he ultimately overruled strong advice from senior officials to use pressure against the Israeli government. A draft Kissinger memorandum, declassified in 2007 and included in today's publication, sheds some light on why Nixon may have concluded that keeping the Israeli nuclear program a secret was the optimum solution. Certainly the outcome of the Nixon-Meir secret understanding-which left the Israeli program in place and secret-was significantly different from the recommendations of his key officials (not withstanding National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger), but to this day we have almost no paper trail on the most important element in the policy puzzle: what exactly went on during the Nixon-Meir one-on-one meeting of 26 September 1969. Indeed, it appears that no record exists in the national archives of either country that reveals what was agreed to at the meeting
  • THE DOCUMENTS Except for documents 2, 8, and 10, the following documents are from a file, Israel 471.61, in the 1969 Top Secret records of Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and his deputy David Packard held at the Federal Records Center in Suitland, Maryland. The file was the subject of a 2006 mandatory declassification review request that led to a final appeal in 2009 by the National Security Archive to ISCAP, which released more information earlier this year.
  • Paul Merrell on 13 Sep 14
     
    An important step along the path toward Israel's current dictation of U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast. Once acquired, Israel let be known its Samson Option, its national policy to take out all Mideast major cities with nukes if Israel was attacked and was about to fall.  
7More

Feds operated yet another secret metadata database until 2013 | Ars Technica - 0 views

arstechnica.com/...t-metadata-database-until-2013 surveillance state DEA phone-metadata litigation
shared by Paul Merrell on 18 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • In a new court filing, the Department of Justice revealed that it kept a secret database of telephone metadata—with one party in the United States and another abroad—that ended in 2013. The three-page partially-redacted affidavit from a top Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) official, which was filed Thursday, explained that the database was authorized under a particular federal drug trafficking statute. The law allows the government to use "administrative subpoenas" to obtain business records and other "tangible things." The affidavit does not specify which countries records were included, but specifically does mention Iran. This database program appears to be wholly separate from the National Security Agency’s metadata program revealed by Edward Snowden, but it targets similar materials and is collected by a different agency. The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, reported Friday that this newly-revealed program began in the 1990s and was shut down in August 2013.
  • The criminal case involves an Iranian-American man named Shantia Hassanshahi, who is accused of violating the American trade embargo against Iran. His lawyer, Mir Saied Kashani, told Ars that the government has clearly abused its authority. "They’ve converted this from a war on drugs to a war on privacy," he said. "[Hassanshahi] is not accused of any drug crime but they used this drug enforcement information to gather information against him, that's contrary to the law, and we will revisit that. We will bring motions in the court and we will appeal if necessary." Neither the DEA nor the Department of Justice immediately responded to Ars' query as to whether this program is continuing under a different authority.
  • The story begins in 2011, when a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent received a tip about someone who might be in violation of American sanctions against Iran. The source provided an e-mail from an Iranian businessman, Manoucher Sheiki, who was involved in acquiring power grid equipment. A second Homeland Security agent, Joshua Akronowitz, wrote in a 2013 affidavit that he searched Sheiki’s Iranian phone number in this database, but declined to explain exactly what kind of database it was. Akronowitz found that the Iranian number came up exactly one time in the database, and was linked to an 818 number, based in Los Angeles County. That number turned out to be the Google Voice number of Hassanshahi. DHS then subpoenaed Google, and got Hassanshahi’s call log and later, metadata on his Gmail account. By early 2012, the agency found out that he was set to return to Los Angeles from Iran. At LAX Airport, customs agents seized his phone, laptop, thumb drives, camcorder, and SIM cards and sent them to Homeland Security. Last year, Kashani, Hassanshahi’s lawyer, argued that this evidence should be suppressed on account that it was the "fruit of the poisonous tree"—obtained via illicit means. In support of his arguments, Kashani cited an important ongoing NSA-related lawsuit, Klayman v. Obama, which remains the only instance where a judge has order the NSA metadata program to be shut down—that order was stayed pending an appeal. (Earlier this month, Ars explored Klayman and other pending notable surveillance cases.)
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • In a December 2014 opinion in the Hassanshahi case, US District Judge Rudolph Contreras allowed the evidence, but also required that the government provide a "declaration summarizing the contours of the law enforcement database used by Homeland Security Investigations to discover Hassanshahi’s phone number, including any limitations on how and when the database may be used." To comply with the judge’s order, Robert Patterson, the assistant special agent in charge of the DEA, wrote in the Thursday filing: As noted, this database was a federal law enforcement database. It could be used to query a telephone number where federal law enforcement officials had a reasonable articulable suspicion that the telephone number at issue was related to an ongoing federal criminal investigation. The Iranian number was determined to meet this standard based on specific information indicating that the Iranian number was being used for the purpose of importing technological goods to Iran in violation of United States law. Previously, the government had not revealed exactly how it began its investigation of Hassanshahi, and only referred cryptically to "[DHS]-accessible law enforcement databases," in Akronowitz’ 2013 and  2014 affidavits.
  • Similarly, other privacy-minded legal experts questioned the government’s tactics in this new revelation. "We just don’t know about the scope of these things, and that’s what’s disturbing," Andrew Crocker, a legal fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars. His colleague, Hanni Fakhoury, an EFF attorney who used to be a federal public defender, added that he was "not surprised." "Bulk surveillance technologies and the dangerous legal theories that are used to support them trickle down, and here's a prime example of that," he wrote by e-mail. "The DEA's mandate is of course important but not at the level of national security where as you know there are serious legal questions about the propriety of this collection of phone metadata. And if the DEA has a program like this, it wouldn't surprise me if other agencies do too for other sorts of records the government has claimed it can collect with a subpoena (like bank records)."
  • Patrick Toomey, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, chimed in to say that this indeed was a clear example of government overreach. "This disclosure underscores how the government has expanded its use of bulk collection far beyond the NSA and the national-security context, to rely on mass surveillance in ordinary criminal investigations," he said by e-mail. "It’s now clear that multiple government agencies have tracked the calls that Americans make to their parents and relatives, friends, and business associates overseas, all without any suspicion of wrongdoing," Toomey continued. "The DEA program shows yet again how strained and untenable legal theories have been used to secretly justify the surveillance of millions of innocent Americans using laws that were never written for that purpose."
  • Paul Merrell on 18 Jan 15
     
    The authorizing statute clearly limits the scope of the administrative subpoena authority to drug related criminal investigations. "In any investigation relating to his functions under this subchapter with respect to controlled substances, listed chemicals, tableting machines, or encapsulating machines, the Attorney General may subpena witnesses, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and require the production of any records (including books, papers, documents, and other tangible things which constitute or contain evidence) which the Attorney General finds relevant or material to the investigation."
6More

Never trust a corporation to do a library's job - The Message - Medium - 0 views

medium.com/...do-a-librarys-job-f58db4673351 Internet archives Google librarians
shared by Paul Merrell on 01 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • Google wrote its mission statement in 1999, a year after launch, setting the course for the company’s next decade:“Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”For years, Google’s mission included the preservation of the past.
  • In the last five years, starting around 2010, the shifting priorities of Google’s management left these archival projects in limbo, or abandoned entirely.After a series of redesigns, Google Groups is effectively dead for research purposes. The archives, while still online, have no means of searching by date.Google News Archives are dead, killed off in 2011, now directing searchers to just use Google.Google Books is still online, but curtailed their scanning efforts in recent years, likely discouraged by a decade of legal wrangling still in appeal. The official blog stopped updating in 2012 and the Twitter account’s been dormant since February 2013.
  • Even Google Search, their flagship product, stopped focusing on the history of the web. In 2011, Google removed the Timeline view letting users filter search results by date, while a series of major changes to their search ranking algorithm increasingly favored freshness over older pages from established sources. (To the detriment of some.)
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Two months ago, Larry Page said the company’s outgrown its 14-year-old mission statement. Its ambitions have grown, and its priorities have shifted.Google in 2015 is focused on the present and future. Its social and mobile efforts, experiments with robotics and artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles and fiberoptics.As it turns out, organizing the world’s information isn’t always profitable. Projects that preserve the past for the public good aren’t really a big profit center. Old Google knew that, but didn’t seem to care.
  • The desire to preserve the past died along with 20% time, Google Labs, and the spirit of haphazard experimentation.Google may have dropped the ball on the past, but fortunately, someone was there to pick it up.
  • Paul Merrell on 01 Feb 15
     
    So here's my plan. In the same legislation that abolishes the NSA, grant its funding and deed the NSA's enormous data center in Utah to the Internet Archives.  Require that the NSA's internet archives be turned over to Internet Archive in good working order. Put thousands of librarians and digital archaeologists to work preserving and making the history of the online global populattion accessible to all. Also require that the remainder of the NSA be used as combustibles for the first annual NSA Bonfire Ball. BYOB. 
2More

Deferential D.C. Circuit Upholds Genital Searches at Guantánamo | Just Security - 0 views

justsecurity.org/...ds-genital-searches-guantanamo war & peace Gitmo-detainees genital-searches litigation
shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • I’ve written before about the potential significance of the Guantánamo “counsel access” case–Hatim v. Obama–which raised the question of whether new and especially invasive search procedures at Guantánamo were invalid insofar as they interfered with the detainees’ right of access to counsel. Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld the procedures, while claiming to duck the far larger and more important constitutional question the district court had reached, i.e., whether the right of access to counsel in these cases is protected by the Suspension Clause. In the process, the Court of Appeals held that the deferential Turner v. Safley test does apply to challenges to conditions of confinement at Guantánamo–a very big win for the government, and a big setback for the detainees.
  • Paul Merrell on 05 Aug 14
     
    So according to a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel of three judges, if a Gitmo detainee wants to speak with his lawyer, even by telephone, it's okay to search his genitals, before and after the conversation, to prevent smuggling of contraband. This one is begging for reconsideration by all judges in the Circuit, and if upheld, by the Supreme Court.
3More

Mohamed Mohamud terrorism conviction upheld as judge rules data collection legal | Oreg... - 0 views

www.oregonlive.com/...ed_mohamud_terrorism_conv.html surveillance state NSA litigation Mohamud
shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • A federal judge has affirmed the legality of the U.S. government's bulk phone and email data collection of foreign nationals living outside the country in denying an Mohamed Mohamud's motion to dismiss his terrorism conviction. It was the first legal challenge to the government's bulk data-collection program of non-U.S. citizens living overseas after revelations about massive, warrantless surveillance were made public by former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden. The program also sweeps up information about U.S. citizens who have contact with overseas suspects, but such surveillance has been considered incidental. Lawyers for Mohamud tried to show the program violated his constitutional rights and was more broadly unconstitutional. U.S. District Court Judge Garr King on Tuesday denied that effort. The ruling also upheld Mohamud's conviction on terrorism charges. In his decision, King rejected the argument from Mohamud's attorneys that prosecutors failed to notify Mohamud of information derived under the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act until he was already convicted.
  • King held that Mohamud's most persuasive argument was that, even if the original surveillance were lawful, the subsequent use of that information on a U.S. citizen required a warrant. Previous federal appeals court rulings have said that the government needs a warrant to test pills seized in an unrelated search or to search a computer for more information that the warrant sought. Those rulings, the defense argued, meant King should apply the same standard to the evidence seized. But King disagreed. "I do not find any significant additional intrusion," King wrote. "Thus, subsequent querying of (collected data), even if U.S. person identifiers are used, is not a separate search and does not make (such surveillance) unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."
  • Paul Merrell on 29 Jun 14
     
    A disappointing decision by an Oregon federal judge in a criminal case involving NSA surveillance, one of the FBI's invented terrorists. This decision has appeal written all over it. 
5More

Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them | Threat Leve... - 0 views

www.wired.com/...nsl-found-unconstitutional surveillance state NLS gag orders 1st Amendment constitutional law
shared by Paul Merrell on 16 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Ultra-secret national security letters that come with a gag order on the recipient are an unconstitutional impingement on free speech, a federal judge in California ruled in a decision released Friday. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop issuing so-called NSLs across the board, in a stunning defeat for the Obama administration’s surveillance practices. She also ordered the government to cease enforcing the gag provision in any other cases. However, she stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • “We are very pleased that the Court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” said Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a challenge to NSLs on behalf of an unknown telecom that received an NSL in 2011. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.” The telecommunications company received the ultra-secret demand letter in 2011 from the FBI seeking information about a customer or customers. The company took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it.
  • Illston found that although the government made a strong argument for prohibiting the recipients of NSLs from disclosing to the target of an investigation or the public the specific information being sought by an NSL, the government did not provide compelling argument that the mere fact of disclosing that an NSL was received harmed national security interests. A blanket prohibition on disclosure, she found, was overly broad and “creates too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted.” She noted that 97 percent of the more than 200,000 NSLs that have been issued by the government were issued with nondisclosure orders.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs over the years and has been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients. After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority. The move stunned EFF at the time.
  • NSLs are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and others to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, websites visited and more. NSLs are a powerful tool because they do not require court approval, and they come with a built-in gag order, preventing recipients from disclosing to anyone that they have even received an NSL. An FBI agent looking into a possible anti-terrorism case can self-issue an NSL to a credit bureau, ISP or phone company with only the sign-off of the Special Agent in Charge of their office. The FBI has to merely assert that the information is “relevant” to an investigation into international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
10More

It Can Happen Here: The Confiscation Scheme Planned for US and UK Depositors - 0 views

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34442.htm banksters confiscation financial-collapse FDIC
shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Confiscating the customer deposits in Cyprus banks, it seems, was not a one-off, desperate idea of a few Eurozone “troika” officials scrambling to salvage their balance sheets. A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland (discussed earlier here); and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds.  
  • Although few depositors realize it, legally the bank owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. (See here and here.) But until now the bank has been obligated to pay the money back on demand in the form of cash. Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.”  The bank will get the money and we will get stock in the bank. With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price? Most people keep a deposit account so they can have ready cash to pay the bills.
  • The 15-page FDIC-BOE document is called “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.”  It begins by explaining that the 2008 banking crisis has made it clear that some other way besides taxpayer bailouts is needed to maintain “financial stability.” Evidently anticipating that the next financial collapse will be on a grander scale than either the taxpayers or Congress is willing to underwrite, the authors state: An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company [meaning the depositors] into equity [or stock]. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities. In the U.K., the same approach could be used, or the equity could be used to recapitalize the failing financial company itself—thus, the highest layer of surviving bailed-in creditors would become the owners of the resolved firm. In either country, the new equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of being shareholders in a financial institution.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • No exception is indicated for “insured deposits” in the U.S., meaning those under $250,000, the deposits we thought were protected by FDIC insurance. This can hardly be an oversight, since it is the FDIC that is issuing the directive. The FDIC is an insurance company funded by premiums paid by private banks.
  • If our IOUs are converted to bank stock, they will no longer be subject to insurance protection but will be “at risk” and vulnerable to being wiped out, just as the Lehman Brothers shareholders were in 2008.  That this dire scenario could actually materialize was underscored by Yves Smith in a March 19th post titled When You Weren’t Looking, Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives.  She writes: In the US, depositors have actually been put in a worse position than Cyprus deposit-holders, at least if they are at the big banks that play in the derivatives casino. The regulators have turned a blind eye as banks use their depositaries to fund derivatives exposures. And as bad as that is, the depositors, unlike their Cypriot confreres, aren’t even senior creditors. Remember Lehman? When the investment bank failed, unsecured creditors (and remember, depositors are unsecured creditors) got eight cents on the dollar. One big reason was that derivatives counterparties require collateral for any exposures, meaning they are secured creditors. The 2005 bankruptcy reforms made derivatives counterparties senior to unsecured lenders.
  • One might wonder why the posting of collateral by a derivative counterparty, at some percentage of full exposure, makes the creditor “secured,” while the depositor who puts up 100 cents on the dollar is “unsecured.” But moving on – Smith writes: Lehman had only two itty bitty banking subsidiaries, and to my knowledge, was not gathering retail deposits. But as readers may recall, Bank of America moved most of its derivatives from its Merrill Lynch operation [to] its depositary in late 2011. Its “depositary” is the arm of the bank that takes deposits; and at B of A, that means lots and lots of deposits. The deposits are now subject to being wiped out by a major derivatives loss. How bad could that be? Smith quotes Bloomberg:
  • . . . Bank of America’s holding company . . . held almost $75 trillion of derivatives at the end of June . . . . That compares with JPMorgan’s deposit-taking entity, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which contained 99 percent of the New York-based firm’s $79 trillion of notional derivatives, the OCC data show. $75 trillion and $79 trillion in derivatives! These two mega-banks alone hold more in notional derivatives each than the entire global GDP (at $70 trillion).
  • Are you safe, then, if your money is in gold and silver? Apparently not – if it’s stored in a safety deposit box in the bank.  Homeland Security has reportedly told banks that it has authority to seize the contents of safety deposit boxes without a warrant when it’s a matter of “national security,” which a major bank crisis no doubt will be.
  • Another alternative was considered but rejected by President Obama in 2009: nationalize mega-banks that fail. In a February 2009 article titled “Are Uninsured Bank Depositors in Danger?“, Felix Salmon discussed a newsletter by Asia-based investment strategist Christopher Wood, in which Wood wrote: It is . . . amazing that Obama does not understand the political appeal of the nationalization option. . . . [D]espite this latest setback nationalization of the banks is coming sooner or later because the realities of the situation will demand it. The result will be shareholders wiped out and bondholders forced to take debt-for-equity swaps, if not hopefully depositors.
  • President Obama acknowledged that bank nationalization had worked in Sweden, and that the course pursued by the US Fed had not worked in Japan, which wound up instead in a “lost decade.”  But Obama opted for the Japanese approach because, according to Ed Harrison, “Americans will not tolerate nationalization.” But that was four years ago. When Americans realize that the alternative is to have their ready cash transformed into “bank stock” of questionable marketability, moving failed mega-banks into the public sector may start to have more appeal.

The Empire Takes a Hit: NSA Update - 2 views

started by Gary Edwards on 15 Jun 13 no follow-up yet
1More

PETITION URGING CONGRESS TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA - 0 views

www.wnd.com/...impeach-president-barack-obama Impeach-Obama articles-of-impeachment
shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Jun 13
     
    "PETITION URGENTLY REQUESTING THAT CONGRESS LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ON THE PART OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA To: All members of the U.S. Congress: Whereas, President Barack Obama not only failed to aid U.S. personnel under lethal and prolonged terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulting in the deaths of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but also led an outrageously deceitful cover-up for weeks afterward, rivaling the Watergate-era cover-up that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon; Whereas, the IRS under Obama - in accord with direct instructions from congressional Democrats - has engaged in the most egregious and widespread attack on conservative groups in modern history, with the knowledge of top agency officials; Whereas, the Obama Justice Department, on top of its many first-term scandals, has spied on and harassed journalists at Fox News and the Associated Press, prompting widespread, bipartisan condemnation of the DOJ for "criminalizing journalism"; Whereas, top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors"; Whereas, one of these offenses - that of illegally conducting war against Libya - has been deemed by a bipartisan panel of constitutional experts to be "clearly an impeachable offense" and "gross usurpation of the war power"; Whereas, Obama's policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process - including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner - is unanimously deemed by experts, both liberal and conservative, as "an impeachable offense"; Whereas, Obama's Justice Department has presided over the disastrous "Fast and Furious" operation in which approximately 2
3More

Feds May Have To Reveal FISA Phone Records In Murder Case | Techdirt - 0 views

www.techdirt.com/...hone-records-murder-case.shtml surveillance state NSA criminal discovery
shared by Paul Merrell on 14 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • There's been a lot of focus elsewhere concerning the FISA rulings that were leaked, showing that the government is scooping up the details of pretty much every phone call. However, a case concerning some guys who were trying to rob an armored truck may lead to some interesting revelations related to what the government collects. Daryl Davis, Hasam Williams, Terrance Brown, Toriano Johnson, and Joseph K. Simmons were charged with trying to rob a bunch of armored Brink's trucks, in which one of the robberies went wrong and a Brink's employee was shot and killed. As part of the case against the group, the DOJ obtained call records. However, during discovery, the government refused to hand over call records for July of 2010, claiming that when they sought them from the telco, the DOJ was told that those records had been purged. Terrance Brown's lawyer is now claiming that since it appears the NSA has sucked up all of this data for quite some time, it would appear that the government should, in fact, already have the phone records from July 2010, which he argues would show that he was nowhere near the robbery when it happened. Defendant Brown urges that the records are important to his defense because cell-site records could be used to show that Brown was not in the vicinity of the attempted robbery that allegedly occurred in July 2010. And, relying on a June 5, 2013, Guardian newspaper article that published a FISA Court order relating to cellular telephone data collected by Verizon,1 Defendant Brown now suggests that the Government likely actually does possess the metadata relating to telephone calls made in July 2010 from the two numbers attributed to Defendant Brown.
  • The court agrees that, under the law, the government may need to produce those records. Here, Defendant asserts that, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), due process requires the production of the July 2010 telephone records because they are anticipated to be exculpatory in that they are expected to show that Defendant Brown was not physically located at the scene of the alleged attempted Brink’s truck robbery in July 2010. In view of Defendant Brown’s Motion and the requirements of FISA, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Government shall respond to Defendant Brown’s Motion and, if desired, shall file an affidavit of the Attorney General of the United States. That order was actually issued Monday, only giving the government until yesterday to comply. At the time of posting, the government's reply has not yet shown up in PACER, though it may pop up soon. I'm guessing that they'll try to either get some sort of extension or explain why those records are somehow inaccessible -- but it could get interesting.
  • Paul Merrell on 14 Jun 13
     
    This is definitely one to watch. The Court's order is short but definitely enlightening. The defendant's trial is already under way, so the Court set a very short response time, and required the Feds to concurrently file the affidavit of the Attorney General if the Feds want to claim that disclosure would harm national security. She has also ordered that the Feds concurrently explain any belief that thre information was lawfully gathered, citing some specific portions of the FISA Act that are at the heart of the government's claim of right to compel telcos to disclose the information to the Feds.    Then the court decides whether the Feds must produce the records anyway. Tough position for the government because it would be extremely difficult to argue that the phone call metadata itself is classified, since they are by law "business records" of a private party, the telco.  And this sets the stage for a flood of habeas corpus petitions by persons already convicted seeking new trials with NSA surveillance records disclosed. Easiest way out for the Feds is to claim that the records do not exist, but someone will have to sign a statement under penalty of perjury file to that effect.  If the Court orders disclosure, the Feds have a right of immediate appeal. So this one could win up in the Supreme Court very quickly (days, not months). Reading the Court's order, the judge seems predisposed to order production of the records. So stay tuned to this channel. I'm reminded that about a week ago, an MSNBC reporter blogged that he didn't think that the PRISM story "has legs" that will keep it in the news very long. He was wrong. 
1More

Operation Sleeping Giant: "Breaking The Silver Manipulation Barrier" by Brandon Smith - 0 views

operationsleepinggiant.com Brandon-Smith GOLD Sir-Charles SiLVER Currency-basket Priced-in-Gold
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 13
     
    Written in August of 2011, this article continues to be an important guideline to understanding Gold and Silver prices, and the efforts of Banksters to manipulate these competing forms of monetary exchange to the US Dollar.  Good stuff.  And i did write Brandon a proposal for a mobile application connecting PayPal to the Storage Vault Depositories he sites in this article (based on the GOLD app design i provided to Tino in 2008). excerpt: China Competes With The Comex As of this summer China now has its own Comex, called the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange. The exchange opened for trade on May 18th (the CME's incredible margin hikes in silver began only weeks before, which suggests to me that they were trying to preempt the positive effects the HKMEX would have on metals). The HKMEX moved into action only five months after the Chinese Pan American Gold Exchange was instituted. The exchange issues its own ETF's in gold and silver. These securities, though, are not based on leverage or derivatives like most Comex based ETFs. The bottom line; the Comex global monopoly on commodities trade is over: How To Break The Barrier Methods for smaller investors to fight back against the market manipulations of large banks have been sparse, and often limited to desperate appeals to the CFTC and the government, who are bought and paid for, and who have no intention of ever stopping global financiers from dragging their unwashed behinds across the face of the planet. Relying on bureaucrats to mend the wounds they themselves encouraged or inflicted is foolhardy, to say the least. Top down solutions are NOT an option now, and I'm not sure if they ever were. This leaves us with only one other choice; to fix the problem with our own hands from the bottom up. This is, of course, easier said than done… In the case of silver manipulation, what we are faced with is an unprecedented effort to subvert and suppress an alternative system so that the mainstream system can continue to
42More

James Madison and the States Natural Right of Nullification ; Publius-Huldah's Blog - 0 views

publiushuldah.wordpress.com Publius-Huldah USA-Constitution Nullification States-Rights tenth-amendment
shared by Gary Edwards on 01 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?
  • The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional –  usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
  • The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey:  the act must order them to do something or not do something.
  • ...38 more annotations...
  • If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”
  • When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional and orders The States or The People to do – or not do – something, nullification is the proper form of interposition.
  • When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional, but doesn’t order The States or The People to do – or not do – something (the alien & sedition acts), nullification is not possible. The States may interpose by objecting, as in The Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
  • When the act of the federal government is constitutional, but unjust (the Tariff Act of 1828), the States may not nullify it; but may interpose by objecting and trying to get the Tariff Act changed.
  • Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell
  • Rights come from God;
  • People create governments;
  • The purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and
  • When a government We created seeks to take away our God given rights, We have the Right – We have the Duty – to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.
  • The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
  • The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
  • These enumerated powers concern: Military defense, international commerce & relations; Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens; Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights (for blacks, women, citizens who don’t pay taxes, and citizens 18 years and older).
  • It is only with respect to the enumerated powers that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People.
  • It is to secure our rights to life and liberty by:
  • Military defense (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11-16); Laws against piracy and other felonies committed on the high seas (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 10); Protecting us from invasion (Art IV, Sec. 4); Prosecuting traitors (Art III, Sec. 3); and Restrictive immigration policies (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1).
  • It is to secure our property rights by:
  • Regulating trade & commerce so we can produce, sell & prosper (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.3). The original intent of the interstate commerce clause is to prohibit States from levying tolls & taxes on articles of commerce as they are transported thru the States for buying & selling. Establishing uniform weights & measures and a money system based on gold & silver (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 5) – inflation via paper currency & fractional reserve lending is theft! Punishing counterfeiters (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 6); Making bankruptcy laws to permit the orderly dissolution or reorganization of debtors’ estates with fair treatment of creditors (Art I, Sec 8, cl. 4); and Issuing patents & copyrights to protect ownership of intellectual labors (Art I, Sec 8, cl 8)
  • It is to secure our right to liberty by:
  • Laws against slavery (13th Amendment); Providing fair trials in federal courts (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments); and          Obeying the Constitution!
  • The fourth Founding Principle in our Declaration is this: When government takes away our God given rights, We have the Right & the Duty to alter, abolish, or throw off such government. Nullification is thus a natural right of self-defense:
  • 1. As we have just seen, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton saw nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal government as a “natural right” – not a “constitutional right”. And since Rights come from God, there is no such thing as a “constitutional right”!
  • 2. The Right of Nullification, transcending as it does, the Constitution; and being nowhere prohibited by the Constitution to the States, is a reserved power.
  • The 10th Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
  • Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800)
  • Now! Note Well:  Madison actually says, in the same Report Barnett cites, that it is “a plain principle, founded in common sense” that The States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, Madison says:
  • “It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” [emphasis mine]
  • Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. 
  • This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:
  • …If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]
  • Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort”.
  • Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.
  • Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator.
  • but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” [boldface mine]
  • Application Today
  • When WE THE PEOPLE ratified our Constitution, and thereby created the federal government, WE did not delegate to our “creature” power to control our medical care, restrict guns and ammunition, dictate what is done in the public schools, dictate how we use our lands, and all the thousands of things they do WE never gave them authority in our Constitution to do.
  • Accordingly, each State has a natural right to nullify these unconstitutional dictates within its borders.  These dictates are outside the compact The Sovereign States made with each other –WE never gave our “creature” power over these objects.
  • To sum this up:
  • Nullification is a natural right of self-defense. Rights don’t come from the Constitution. Like all Rights, the right of self-defense comes from God (The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para). Nullification is a reserved power within the meaning of the 10th Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit States from nullifying, and We reserved the power to do it. God requires us to disobey civil authorities when they violate God’s Law. That’s why the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence says we have the duty to overthrow tyrannical government. See: The Biblical Foundation of our Constitution. Nullification is required by Oath of Office:  Article VI, cl. 3 requires all State officers and judges to “support” the federal Constitution. Therefore, when the federal government violates the Constitution, the States must smack them down.
  • Gary Edwards on 01 Feb 13
     
    Incredible and passionate argument concerning the States natural God given right to nullify and render unenforceable un-Constitutional actions of the Federal Government.  As "creators" of the Federal Government, the States are obligated to nullify un-Constitutional actions and interpose Constitutional alternatives.  Huldah sites Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton as the primary Constitutional authorities for her rock solid argument.   If ever you want to learn about the Constitution, Publius Huldah is clearly the place to go.  
1More

Muslim Americans win chance to sue NYPD for spying - Al Jazeera English - 0 views

www.aljazeera.com/...pd-spying-151015044346585.html liberties surveillance state NYPD Muslim-surveillance litigation
shared by Paul Merrell on 17 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • An appeals court in the US has given Muslim Americans another chance to sue the New York Police Department for its surveillance on them. Last year, a lower court had dismissed the case in which the police were accused of deliberately targeting Muslims because of their religion. However, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia reversed a lower court's decision, finding the plaintiffs had legal standing to assert claims that the country's so-called counterterrorism programme violated their rights.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 60 of 253 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page