Group items tagged

EU Court of Justice decision in regard to a Directive that required communications data retention by telcos/ISPs, finding the Directive invalid as a violation of the right of privacy in communications. Fairly read, paragraph 59 outlaws bulk collection of such records, i.e., it requires the equivalent of a judge-issued search warrant in the U.S. based on probable cause to believe that the particular individual's communications are a legitimate object of a search.  Note also that paragraph 67 effectively forbids transfer of any retained data outside the E.U. So a barrier for NSA sharing of data with GCHQ derived from communications NSA collects from EU communications traffic. Bye-bye, Big Data for GCHQ in the E.U. 

The case may well put the Gitmo hunger-strike policy on trial. All U.S. military officers are under a general order to disobey unlawful commands. Therefore, it is conceivable to me that the nurse's best defense may well be that the order to force-feed the prisoners was unlawful.

I've read the brief. I don't think the implied partial repeal of the War Powers Resolution argument should fly. The relevant provision establishes a rule of interpretation of later statutes and the appropriations bills neither reject the rule of interpretation nor specifically provide authorization for use of military force. They just authorize funding. On the standing issue, I think the DoJ position is correct; the oath of office applies only to senior officers who make the decision to initiate a war. But DoJ may have opened the door to a more compelling standing argument by arguing that the war does not constitute a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity under international law. DoJ did not need to make that argument because Smith had not alleged in his complaint that he was being ordered to commit such crimes, but by doing so DoJ waives any argument that such issues are beyond the scope of Smith's standing and the evidence that the Iraq and Syrian wars are illegal under international law is, to say the least, strong.

Optimistic news on the ISP data-retention law front. If the data retention directive is found unlawful in the E.U., the ability of law enforcement and the spy agencies to access retained data is limited to what is retained voluntarily by ISPs. 

These UK proceedings are under authority of the E.U. Convention on Human Rights, whose relevant provisions echo those of the UN Convention on Human Rights, which both the U.K. and the U.S. are party to.  The Brits' willingness to prosecute its own soldiers, senior officers, and figures in government for war crimes sharply contrasts to the U.S., where Barack Obama immediately upon taking office rejected calls for the Iraqi war crimes investigation and prosecution of U.S. military members and Executive Branch officials, saying that he wanted to look forward, not back.  This was a very thin answer to the nation's Nuremburg Prosecution principles later embodied in international law at the instigation of the U.S. Good on the Brits. Shame on the U.S.   

The Brits at least have the decency to attempt to make amends for its soldiers who tortured prisoners. Not so in the U.S. *Every* "war on terror" detainee who has filed a case for damages in the U.S. has been thrown out of court at the government's request, usually on grounds of the State Secrets privilege. It is a sad situation that our courts allow government secrecy about unlawful conduct to trump individual rights to redress for injury. 

Outstanding statement about what made America great, an dhow are government is destroying that greatness.  This is the full Text of Sen. Rand Paul's Tea Party Response to Obama's State of the Union Address: I speak to you tonight from Washington, D.C. The state of our economy is tenuous but our people remain the greatest example of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known. People say America is exceptional. I agree, but it's not the complexion of our skin or the twists in our DNA that make us unique. America is exceptional because we were founded upon the notion that everyone should be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. For the first time in history, men and women were guaranteed a chance to succeed based NOT on who your parents were but on your own initiative and desire to work. We are in danger, though, of forgetting what made us great. The President seems to think the country can continue to borrow $50,000 per second. The President believes that we should just squeeze more money out of those who are working. The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress or in this Administration seem to recognize that their actions are endangering the prosperity of this great nation. Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem. Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt. What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous. What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations. He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness. All that we are, all that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and ea

Very interesting article on property rights in Virgina, and the how local citizens are fighting against government politicians and their kleptocracy to protect those rights......... excerpt: "A previously apolitical organic farmer in Virginia has set off a property rights revolution that would make Founders Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and author of Virginia's Declaration of Rights George Mason proud. Martha Boneta had a business license for her tiny farm store in scenic Paris, Virginia, yet she was threatened with fines of up to $5,000 per violation per day for selling organic tea and wool products crafted from her rescued animals, and for hosting a birthday party for eight 10-year-old girls. Officials from Fauquier County using zoning ordinances to bully Mrs. Boneta never obtained a warrant nor set foot on her property to gather actual evidence.  Instead a county bureaucrat relied on unscrupulous, unlawful methods to make these charges against Mrs. Boneta.  Her store remains closed out of fear of further uncertain charges carrying even criminal penalties.  The bullying bureaucrat ignored due process of law and American rules of evidence because she thinks she is the law, which is a common phenomenon used to intimidate citizens into forfeiting their rights. The county also tried to cite Martha for having a boarding facility without a permit.  It appears that the county did not like the fact that she and Christian college students interning on Spring Break openly prayed over the crops and farm animals.  To cure this government lawbreaking and protect farm rights, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter introduced H.B. 1430, the Boneta Bill, to amend the Virginia Right to Farm Act.  As introduced, the bill would have done three things: (1) clarify that the flawed, toothless Right to Farm Act protects farmers' commerce, (2) expressly protect constitutional rights on farms, and (3) provide remedies against local government officials who violate the Right to Farm Act."

The lawyer who wrote the opinion is a QC, or Queen's Counsel. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Counsel This opinion *will* result in changes in UK law and oversight of GCHQ. And because much of it is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, the opinion will stoke the anti-spying sentiment in the European Community, which is already at fever-pitch. The ECHR is Europe's implementation of several U.N. treaties on human rights, so the blowback may well extend beyond the EU and UK.  

Stephen Lindman unwinds the mainstream media/U.S. political spin on the Iran/P5+1 interim agreement, summarizing and linking the actual text. As suspected, Iran got way more from the deal and gave up less than reported by mainstream media. My analysis: The spin is mainly based on provisions that are largely meaningless to Iran because it had and has no nuclear weapon ambitions. I now have a strong sniff that the P5+1 negotiation is aimed at removing Israel's excuse (Iranian nuclear weapon threat) for pushing the U.S. and NATO to commence war against Iran and that is the real reason for the War Party's rage against the interim deal. Obama is trying to do this as an executive agreement among the negotiation parties, rather than as a treaty that would require Senate super-majority approval.  But he may face a problem in that regard because of a single agreement provision: "The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions." That carefully crafted sentence would seem to leave Congress free to enact further sanctions if it can overcome an Obama veto, which requires a supermajority in both houses of Congress. The sentence is, however, susceptible to deliberate misportrayal as a provision tying the hands of Congress too in order to attack the agreement as requiring approval by the Senate, cries of outrage about Obama usurping the Congressional role, etc. But there is a body of case law holding that some classes of "executive agreements" do not rise to the level needed to invoke the Constitution's Treaty Clause. Personally, I think that body of case law constitutes unlawful judicial amendment of the Constitution, but it exists. So litigation over the issue in regard to this agreement is unlikely to get any traction.  

The renowned libertarian socialist historian Noam Chomsky speaks to "American exceptionalism" ("of course it's ludicrous"). Claims of American exceptionalism fall particularly flat in my mind because the U.S. is "the melting pot of humanity." Descended from all breeds of immigrants, how could we be exceptional except in our diversity. But our diversity does not seem to be exceptional. Ask the Afro-American or Latino young man who has just been stopped by the police for driving while black or driving while Latino how they feel about America's respect for diversity. American exceptionalism is nothing but another propaganda theme used to justify unlawful activities. E.g., "we are the world's only superpower; therefore, we must act as the world's police force." But notice in that particular application of the theme, there are neither international law granting our military the power to invade other nations or international norms that make our unilateral invasions of other nations lawful under any circumstance other than responding defensively to another nation's military attack on our own nation. Of course there has been no such attack since the War of 1812 (at the outset of World War II, Hawaii was a mere possession, not a state).

And of course it's only a hop from the video surveillance database to the facial recognition database. This is straight out of George Orwell's "1984" novel. Big Brother wants to watch you at all times, whether your conduct is legal or not. But note that because these measures do not discriminate between the lawful and unlawful conduct there's a strong argument that a prohibited Fourth Amendment search and seizure is involved, without particularized suspicion of a particular crime, i.e., without "probable cause." 

Absolutely unlawful under international law. Unfortunately, the U.S. judicial system turns a blind eye to kidnapping of criminal suspects in foreign nations.

The heart of the matter remains to be exposed, the answers to "central questions about *how* surveillance is conducted? We've been inundated with answers to those questions, although I am eager to hear more. But I'm even more interested in learning how we will fix this show-stopper bug in our government. Our fearless leaders in Washington, D.C. have so far taken a giant leap into inaction, with only cosmetic changes gaining traction. Which raises a strong suspicion that there is blackmail afoot on a massive scale, using the fruits of unlawful domestic military surveillance of our elected officials.  

Although directed at comments made by the UK Foreign Minister, similar statements were issued by the Obama Administration. What happened in the Ukraine was a coup, not a legitimate impeachment of its President.  Notice that the article's link to the Ukraine Constitution is now dead. Among the coup leader's other unlawful actions, post-coup the Ukraine Rada repealed the former constitution by simple majority and reinstated the Constitution of 2004. But the enacting legislation was never signed by Ukraine's President, who had fled into exile. Moreover, the 2004 constitution had already been declared void by Ukraine's Constitutional Court because of procedural violations, repeated in its re-enactment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine#2004_and_2010_amendments_and_alleged_2014_return_to_2004_amendments  It definitely was a coup, not a legitimate transfer of power.