Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

I'll be surprised if the gag order is granted. The European Court of Human Rights has already handled a prior case involving CIA extraordinary rendition of a German citizen, holding the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia liable for collaboration. That case was handled publicly and its public decision stands as a milestone indictment of the CIA's methods of waging War on Terror. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115621  

Lots of gruesome detail in the article and even more in the documents. Another major leaked disclosure from the Big Brother secret arm of U.S. government. A cautionary warning: these are merely documents. They are not regulations as that term is understood under the Administrative Procedures Act. There may or may not be one or more secret Executive Orders requiring Agency personnel to adhere to what the documents say.  Even with agencies that are far more open to public scrutiny, it is common for agency staff to ignore regulations and statutes. Every time someone wins a lawsuit pursuant to the combination of the Administrative Procedures Act and some other federal law or regulation, one of the most common types of lawsuits against federal agencies, it is because agency staff violated the law or the regulation. It's a common situation even with agencies that have to operate in the sunlight. An agency allowed to operate without any right of the public to challenge its actions has even less incentive to adhere to its formal procedures.   So particularly with an agency permitted to operate in secret, the existence of these documents does not mean that they get more than an occasional wink and a nod by agency staff. That said, this is pretty gruesome reading for a civil libertarian and is also rife with vagueness, ambiguity, and loopholes. Not surprisingly though for an experienced lawyer; those who deliberately trample on others' rights rarely write written confessions.

Can Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan take the oath of office required to serve on the Supreme Court?  Not if it means upholding the Constitution!  Come to think of it; no one in the Obama-Democratic regime can take that oath.  Including Professor Obama himself! One thing we can all agree on is that the Constitution is the foundation for our country, the main unifying element, what distinguishes us as America. It provides defined roles for the government, based on the profound recognition of the sinful tendency of mankind to abuse power. So why do liberal politicians have a problem when people bring it up? When Obama submitted his nominee to the Supreme Court, he didn't state the main qualification for any person who serves in government, the absence of which has lit a brushfire of discontent, fidelity to the Constitution. The bottom line of America's discontent and anger at Obama and the Democrats is their utter disregard for the Constitution. The concept of a limited government, restrained in what it can and should do, is foreign to them, while for most Americans it's in our DNA. This is what puts Obama at odds with so many Americans.

I have never forwarded action alerts to others by email. The typical action alert winds up sharing your email address with at least one other organization. The next thing you know you're getting donor solicitations from both the Republican and Democratic party central national coordinating committees. It's not just that I'm a political independent; it's an ongoing task to unsubscribe from unwanted mailing lists. Today I got an action alert from Move to Amend, only the second I have received from the organization. This group does not share your email address with anyone. If you choose to participate in this action alert, which is nearing 1 million messages sent, there is a send button near the bottom of the page to participate. That takes you to a page where you can read the message that will be sent. Move to Amend is a non-partisan organization that has been working toward a constitutional amendment for around 4 years that would clear the way for Congress to regulate campaign contributions, in light of Supreme Court decisions declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to make campaign contributions in any amount they desire. But their amendment would also abolish constitutional rights for all fictional legal "persons" other than human beings and government at the local, state, and national levels. Move to Amend has been going about the process the right way and to date has scored supporting resolutions in 16 state legislatures and hundreds of community governments. That's enough to get oligarchs worried. So there's a bill gathering steam in the U.S. Senate, SJR 19, that's a watered-down version. It grants Congress and the states power to regulate campaign contributions, but it does not speak to the problem of granting human constitutional rights to entities that have existence only in the eyes of the law. The Senate bill is here: http://goo.gl/Nkvfkg Our nation's Founders unmistakably did not contemplate that corporations would have constitution

Note that according to a leaked U.S. State Dept. cable on Wikileaks, Ms. Darshan-Leitner confessed to officials of the U.S. Embassy that Shurat HaDin has "accepted direction" from the Israeli government and works closely with Mossad. https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=07TELAVIV2636

Whereas if he were facing trial in an Article III court, the court would have jurisdiction to protect a prisoner's health and conditons of confinement. This is disgusting.

Australia, along with the UK, cotinues its steady march to the right on national security matters. The admissibility of secret evidence in judicial proceedings is antithetical to notions of Due Process and a fair trial, as well as to public oversight of judicial proceedings.  

I meant to post this link earlier in the month but I am working through a backlog. This ruling by a Pakistan court likely has a lot to do with Obama's announcement earlier this week that the use of drone strikes is being curtailed and the responsibility is being moved to DoD, getting the CIA out of that line of business. 

Shades of Operation Fast and Furious. 

Ooh. Reasserting the State Secrets privilege when Congress has already waived it and the judge has already ruled that it doesn't apply. That's the U.S. Justice Department in action. No argument to frivolous to raise.

Also deserving of notice: The Feds had the right to take an immediate appeal from the judge's order to declassify but chose not to do so. Also, the finding that the State Secrets privilege did not apply was limited to the FISA section 215 bulk metadata collection. It's still in play for the search of communication content. Perhaps the "reassertion" was not a reassertion but an assertion involving another class of records.