|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 26, 2013 11:56:12 GMT -6
from LaRouchepac.com larouchepac.com/node/27464Obama Wants To Jail New York Times Reporter James Risen July 23, 2013 "Obama is again being accused of being worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in his assaults on freedom. In 2011, the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press reported that the Obama Administration had indicted more government employees under the 1917 Espionage Act for "sharing classified information with the press — than all previous administrations combined." Court gives Obama further powers to override 1st Amendment.Now, a decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia is giving Obama greater power to silence reporters in the case of CIA whistle-blower Jeffrey Alexander Sterling, who was indicted in 2010 under that 1917 Espionage Act for allegedly provided New York Times reporter James Risen information on Iran for Risen's 2006 book, State of War. On July 19 the Appeals Court overturned an important Federal District Court decision from February 2011 that quashed a subpoena for Risen to testify in Sterling's case. The Circuit Court ruled that Risen would not have to testify in the Sterling case, after Risen's lawyers had forcefully argued that it was Risen himself who was the target of DoJ abuse. People familiar with Risen's reporting know that the issue is indeed much broader than Risen's book and Sterling's information. Risen has been a thorn in the side of secret government surveillance operations for decades. In 1998, Risen exposed Al Gore's secret dealings with then-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin and Gore's fight with the CIA when the Agency uncovered Chernomyrdin's corruption; in early 2002, Risen put the spotlight on the neo-conservatives' Defense Policy Board and its role in sending its operatives around to find "proof" of Iraq and Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11, in order to justify going to war against Iraq. Now, in the two-to-one ruling, written by Chief Judge William Traxler, the 4th Circuit appeals court decision says that Risen must testify as "there is no first amendment testimonial privilege, absolute or qualified, that protects a reporter from being compelled to testify in criminal proceedings." But the third member of the Appeals Court, Judge Roger Gregory filed a strong dissenting opinion, reported Britain's Guardian. "A free and vigorous press is an indispensable part of a system of democratic government," Gregory wrote. "Public debate on American military and intelligence methods is a critical element of public oversight of our government." Risen's attorneys told the press that Risen is pursuing a number of further legal actions to fight the subpoenas. The decision has alarmed civil rights defenders because it comes in the midst of the NSA spying battle and Obama's global obsession to hunt down NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Lawyers for Sterling are also pointing out that the Obama Justice Dept. just published "guidelines" on July 12, 2013, to protect journalists against the use of subpoenas and investigations to interfere with First Amendment activities. The 4th Circuit Appeals Court decision comes one week after the guidelines were put out publicly."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 25, 2013 21:54:02 GMT -6
Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly clear that the Corporate-controlled American press's main agenda is protecting the Obama Administration, instead of protecting the American People from a secretive Government that often uses un-Constitutional means to control and surveill the American People.
Fortunately some foreign publications--like the UK Guardian and Germany's 'Der Spiegel'--have helped take up the slack left by the American media whoredom.
from der Spiegel:www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-spying-scandal-focus-on-edward-snowden-by-us-media-a-911185.htmlSnowden Backlash: US Media Get PersonalJuly 15, 2013 By Marc Pitzke "As the mainstream American press goes after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, the leakers' revelations are becoming an afterthought. Walter Pincus, 80, knows his way around a scandal. The columnist and former reporter at the Washington Post has written about Watergate and Iran-Contra, numerous intelligence-related affairs and has won the Pulitzer Prize. But he has been criticized, even by his colleagues, for being too close to the US government -- especially the CIA, for which he spied in his younger years. But now, Pincus has truly embarrassed himself: Last week the Washington Post had to add a three-paragraph-long correction to a two-day-old Pincus column, invalidating its core claims. This was an unprecedented measure in the 136-year history of the American capital's most lauded newspaper. Pincus had speculated that whistleblower Edward Snowden, as well as the two people centrally responsible for publicizing the NSA revelations, Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald and documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras, had a political agenda and were surreptitiously "directed" by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Pincus' "evidence" turned out to be demonstrably false, rendering the "corrected" column -- or what was left of it -- little more than malicious gossip. Greenwald, who has been caught in the US media crossfire for some time, immediately protested against the "baseless innuendo" in an open letter. The Washington Post waited over 48 hours before correcting its blunder without comment. A Growing Anti-Snowden Chorus In his broadside against Snowden and Snowden's press contacts, Pincus was going along with both the government and the zeitgeist. A growing number of mainstream media outlets have been focusing their criticism on the leakers -- Snowden in Moscow, Greenwald in Rio -- instead of the content of their leaks. American headlines aren't being dominated by the latest details of the seemingly endless scandal, but by the men who brought them to light. This began at the Post when Snowden, before contacting Greenwald, offered his secrets to security reporter Barton Gellman. Gellman quickly discredited Snowden as "capable of melodrama," partly because of his uncompromising terms. Since then Snowden hasn't provided any more revelations to the paper. And so it has continued. The financially struggling Post, which was responsible for exposing the Watergate scandal, derided the Guardian as "financially struggling" as well as "small and underweight even by British standards." "Why is a London-based news organization revealing so many secrets about the American government?", it griped, as if that were only permitted of American journalists. A recent Post editorial, that may as well have been written by the White House, argued that Snowden's leak harms "efforts to fight terrorism" and "legitimate intelligence operations." The leaks must immediately end, it argued -- a strange conclusion from the grandmother of leak journalism. Columnist Richard Cohen didn't hold back either: Snowden is "narcissistic," Greenwald is "vainglorious." He wasn't alone. In the New York Times David Brooks accused Snowden of having "betrayed honesty and integrity." Roger Simon, chief political columnist at the website Politico, referred to Snowden as "the slacker who came in from the cold." Jeffrey Toobin, a New Yorker essayist, called him a "narcissist who deserves to be in prison." And Melissa Harris-Perry, from the otherwise progressive cable channel MSNBC, critized Snowden's behavior as "compromising national security." In the Huffington Post, media critic Jeff Cohen called MSNBC the "official network of the Obama White House" -- a White House which, under president Obama, has famously declared war on whistleblowers. Guardian's American Triumph There's another reason for the united media front: The Guardian is becoming a competitive threat for American media outlets. The first Snowden video interview received almost seven million clicks on the newspaper's US website. "They set the US news agenda today," Associated Press star reporter Matt Apuzzo tweeted enviously. Why? Janine Gibson, the Guardian's American chief, told the Huffington Post that their competition has a "lack of skepticism on a whole" when it comes to national security. Critical scrutiny, she said, has been considered "unpatriotic" since 9/11. The greatest humiliation would be if the British usurper won a Pulitzer Prize. Only American media can apply for it, but the Prize committee accepted one submission by the Guardian last year. Its reasoning? The newspaper has an "unmistakable presence" in the United States."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 25, 2013 21:44:01 GMT -6
from der Spiegel: www.spiegel.de/international/world/obama-wages-war-on-whistleblowers-and-journalists-a-912852.htmlHas Obama Scrapped the 1st Amendment?By Marc Pitzke "President Obama is cracking down on leakers. Both Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning face prosecution under the Espionage Act, while a New York Times reporter was ordered to reveal his sources or risk jail time. Is Washington turning its back on freedom of the press? The New York Times published James Risen's most recent article last Wednesday. It focused on the bipartisan backlash President Barack Obama's administration faces in the wake of revelations about the domestic surveillance operations of America's National Security Agency (NSA). "Lawmakers from both parties called for the vast collection of private data on millions of Americans to be scaled back," it read. The comprehensive article, written by arguably one of the most distinguished investigative journalists in the United States, fails to mention the fact that Risen himself has become the subject of surveillance. For a number of years now, his telephone conversations and emails have come under scrutiny by the US government. Adding insult to injury, Risen learned last week that he could face jail time for contempt of court if he fails to give evidence at the criminal trial of a former CIA agent -- one of his most trusted sources. A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Risen would receive no First Amendment protection safeguarding the confidentiality of his sources -- in this case former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling. The matter relates to Risen's 2006 bestseller "State of War," which included classified information about CIA efforts to foil Iranian nuclear ambitions allegedly leaked by Sterling. The ruling could not have come at a more volatile time. In the midst of the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the Risen trial sheds further light on the Obama administration's unparalleled clampdown on official leakers. The 118-page judgment, which sets a precedent that could create significant hurdles for investigative journalism, has dealt a further blow to First Amendment protections for reporters in the US. Unrelenting Pursuit President Obama's war on the whistleblower is now being fought on multiple fronts -- in the Russian capital, where Snowden has been given temporary documents and is soon expected to leave the airport he has been holed up in for weeks, and in South America, where the American hopes to be granted asylum. The battle is also being waged in Maryland, where Bradley Manning, a former US Army private, currently faces military trial for passing documents to WikiLeaks. And last week it took hold in Virginia's fourth circuit appeals court, where Risen is likely to be compelled to give evidence. The fact that Risen is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner will do little to protect him from what many commentators have described as a "disappointing" ruling. In "State of War," Risen exposed the CIA's attempts in 2000 to channel flawed blueprints to Tehran's weapons designers. The abortive mission, dubbed Operation Merlin, misfired when a Russian double agent on the CIA payroll tipped off Iranian officials about the defects. In his book, Risen describes the mission as "grossly negligent," and brands it one of the most ridiculous gaffes in CIA history. When the Times decided not to publish the story, Risen decided to do so of his own accord. Shortly after the book's publication in 2006, the Bush administration embarked on an unrelenting pursuit of the leaker, with Obama reopening the case at the beginning of his first term by renewing the Risen subpoena. His decision to do so underscores the emphasis Obama's government is placing on the whistleblower crackdown. It also exposes the increasing tension between the US government and news organizations: In order to get to Sterling, Risen's phone calls, emails -- even his bank statements -- were scrutinized by intelligence services. Potential Jail Time Sterling was indicted in 2010. Risen was called to testify, but the New York Times reporter refused, citing the irreconcilable damage it would do to his work if he were to betray his sources. A district court judgement initially backed him up, granting Risen protection against being forced to testify. The appeal court judges, however, found that Risen was the "only witness" who could provide a "first-hand account of the commission of a most serious crime indicted by the grand jury." If Risen continues to ignore the subpoena, he could face jail time. A similar situation played out in 2007, when fellow Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days for refusing to testify about her sources in a scandal surrounding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. At the time, the scandal was widely perceived as a one-off. The same cannot be claimed in Risen's case -- against the backdrop of the Snowden revelations and the Manning trial, this latest judgment could be interpreted as part of a veritable crusade. The judgement does, however, include a dissenting opinion. Judge Roger Gregory argued that there was sufficient evidence to convict Sterling without Risen's testimony and took issue with the notion that a journalist should necessarily be compelled to reveal sources against his or her will in a criminal case. "The majority exalts the interests of the government while unduly trampling those of the press, and in doing so, severely impinges on the press and the free flow of information in our society," Gregory argues. Standing Strong The legal landscape now facing US journalists appears to be a bleak one. Senior reporters and media experts, most notably the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, expressed their disappointment over the ruling, arguing that the protection of sources was the most important of the fourth estate privileges for US reporters. The Justice Department, meanwhile, expressly supported the decision, with a spokesperson announcing that the next steps in the prosecution of the case were already being examined. Ironically, the statement comes shortly after the Justice Department published new guidelines for leak investigations designed to protect the interests of reporters. The revision was a response to public outcry over the department's aggressive investigative tactics, including subpoenaing Associated Press reporters' phone records. Despite the ruling, Risen has pledged to uphold his decision not to testify. "I remain as resolved as ever to continue fighting," he argued last week in a public statement. "I will always protect my sources." He previously said that he would not shy away from taking the appeal to the Supreme Court. Yet a reporter took a similar case to the country's highest court in 1972 -- and lost. The court invalidated the journalist's use of First Amendment freedoms as special protection from a summons to testify before a grand jury on a case related to the radical Black Panther movement." URL: www.spiegel.de/international/world/obama-wages-war-on-whistleblowers-and-journalists-a-912852.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 25, 2013 21:29:05 GMT -6
July 24, 2013 College Degree Outcomes Despite the high cost of college, most of the nation's parents still believe college is worth the cost, according to the 2013 Sallie Mae report, How America Pays for College. Eighty-five percent of parents with children enrolled in an undergraduate program think college is an investment in their child's future, and 65 percent say having a college degree is more important than it used to be.
They feel this way despite the fact that fewer than half of 21-to-24-year-olds who earned a bachelor's degree between 2003 and 2011 are employed in a job that requires a college degree. Here is the percent distribution of recent college graduates by their current employment status, according to a study by the Economic Mobility Project (How Much Protection Does a College Degree Afford?)... 42% are employed in a "college job"To me this means that 58% of college graduates wasted their time and money going to college. It also means that we have well over 2x as many college graduates as we need to fill available job openings for college graduates. Taking it a step further, we need LESS college graduates. What we really need are more JOBS for college graduates, not more college graduates themselves.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 25, 2013 20:53:10 GMT -6
Here's the actual vote:
Vote Details Download as CSV | XML | JSON Vote Party Representative District Alaska Aye R Young, Don AK
Alabama No R Bonner, Jo AL 1st No R Roby, Martha AL 2nd No R Rogers, Mike AL 3rd No R Aderholt, Robert AL 4th No R Brooks, Mo AL 5th Aye R Bachus, Spencer AL 6th No D Sewell, Terri AL 7th
Arkansas No R Crawford, Eric AR 1st Aye R Griffin, Tim AR 2nd No R Womack, Steve AR 3rd No R Cotton, Tom AR 4th
Arizona No D Kirkpatrick, Ann AZ 1st No D Barber, Ron AZ 2nd Aye D Grijalva, Raúl AZ 3rd Aye R Gosar, Paul AZ 4th Aye R Salmon, Matt AZ 5th Aye R Schweikert, David AZ 6th Aye D Pastor, Ed AZ 7th No R Franks, Trent AZ 8th No D Sinema, Kyrsten AZ 9th
California Aye R LaMalfa, Doug CA 1st Aye D Huffman, Jared CA 2nd Aye D Garamendi, John CA 3rd Aye R McClintock, Tom CA 4th No D Thompson, Mike CA 5th Aye D Matsui, Doris CA 6th No D Bera, Ami CA 7th No R Cook, Paul CA 8th No D McNerney, Jerry CA 9th No R Denham, Jeff CA 10th Aye D Miller, George CA 11th No D Pelosi, Nancy CA 12th Aye D Lee, Barbara CA 13th Aye D Speier, Jackie CA 14th Aye D Swalwell, Eric CA 15th No D Costa, Jim CA 16th Aye D Honda, Mike CA 17th Aye D Eshoo, Anna CA 18th Aye D Lofgren, Zoe CA 19th Aye D Farr, Sam CA 20th No R Valadao, David CA 21st No R Nunes, Devin CA 22nd No R McCarthy, Kevin CA 23rd Aye D Capps, Lois CA 24th No R McKeon, Buck CA 25th No D Brownley, Julia CA 26th Aye D Chu, Judy CA 27th Aye D Schiff, Adam CA 28th Aye D Cárdenas, Tony CA 29th Aye D Sherman, Brad CA 30th Aye R Miller, Gary CA 31st Aye D Napolitano, Grace CA 32nd Aye D Waxman, Henry CA 33rd Aye D Becerra, Xavier CA 34th No Vote D Negrete McLeod, Gloria CA 35th No D Ruiz, Raul CA 36th Aye D Bass, Karen CA 37th Aye D Sánchez, Linda CA 38th No R Royce, Ed CA 39th Aye D Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA 40th Aye D Takano, Mark CA 41st No R Calvert, Ken CA 42nd Aye D Waters, Maxine CA 43rd Aye D Hahn, Janice CA 44th No Vote R Campbell, John CA 45th Aye D Sanchez, Loretta CA 46th Aye D Lowenthal, Alan CA 47th Aye R Rohrabacher, Dana CA 48th No R Issa, Darrell CA 49th No R Hunter, Duncan CA 50th No D Vargas, Juan CA 51st No D Peters, Scott CA 52nd No D Davis, Susan CA 53rd
Colorado Aye D DeGette, Diana CO 1st Aye D Polis, Jared CO 2nd Aye R Tipton, Scott CO 3rd Aye R Gardner, Cory CO 4th Aye R Lamborn, Doug CO 5th Aye R Coffman, Mike CO 6th Aye D Perlmutter, Ed CO 7th
Connecticut Aye D Larson, John CT 1st Aye D Courtney, Joe CT 2nd Aye D DeLauro, Rosa CT 3rd No D Himes, James CT 4th No D Esty, Elizabeth CT 5th
Delaware No D Carney, John DE
Florida No R Miller, Jeff FL 1st Aye R Southerland, Steve FL 2nd Aye R Yoho, Ted FL 3rd No R Crenshaw, Ander FL 4th No D Brown, Corrine FL 5th Aye R DeSantis, Ron FL 6th Aye R Mica, John FL 7th Aye R Posey, Bill FL 8th Aye D Grayson, Alan FL 9th No R Webster, Daniel FL 10th Aye R Nugent, Richard FL 11th No R Bilirakis, Gus FL 12th No R Young, W. Bill FL 13th No D Castor, Kathy FL 14th Aye R Ross, Dennis FL 15th Aye R Buchanan, Vern FL 16th No R Rooney, Thomas FL 17th No D Murphy, Patrick FL 18th Aye R Radel, Trey FL 19th Aye D Hastings, Alcee FL 20th Aye D Deutch, Theodore FL 21st No D Frankel, Lois FL 22nd No D Wasserman Schultz, Debbie FL 23rd No D Wilson, Frederica FL 24th No R Diaz-Balart, Mario FL 25th No D Garcia, Joe FL 26th No R Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana FL 27th
Georgia Aye R Kingston, Jack GA 1st No D Bishop, Sanford GA 2nd No R Westmoreland, Lynn GA 3rd No D Johnson, Hank GA 4th Aye D Lewis, John GA 5th Aye R Price, Tom GA 6th No R Woodall, Rob GA 7th No R Scott, Austin GA 8th No R Collins, Doug GA 9th Aye R Broun, Paul GA 10th No R Gingrey, Phil GA 11th No D Barrow, John GA 12th No D Scott, David GA 13th Aye R Graves, Tom GA 14th
Hawaii No D Hanabusa, Colleen HI 1st Aye D Gabbard, Tulsi HI 2nd
Iowa Aye D Braley, Bruce IA 1st Aye D Loebsack, David IA 2nd No R Latham, Tom IA 3rd No R King, Steve IA 4th Idaho Aye R Labrador, Raúl ID 1st No R Simpson, Mike ID 2nd
Illinois Aye D Rush, Bobby IL 1st No D Kelly, Robin IL 2nd No D Lipinski, Daniel IL 3rd No D Gutierrez, Luis IL 4th No D Quigley, Mike IL 5th No R Roskam, Peter IL 6th Aye D Davis, Danny IL 7th No D Duckworth, Tammy IL 8th No D Schakowsky, Jan IL 9th No D Schneider, Bradley IL 10th No D Foster, Bill IL 11th No D Enyart, William IL 12th Vote Party Representative District Aye R Davis, Rodney IL 13th Aye R Hultgren, Randy IL 14th No R Shimkus, John IL 15th No R Kinzinger, Adam IL 16th No Vote D Bustos, Cheri IL 17th No Vote R Schock, Aaron IL 18th
Indiana No D Visclosky, Peter IN 1st No R Walorski, Jackie IN 2nd No R Stutzman, Marlin IN 3rd No Vote R Rokita, Todd IN 4th No R Brooks, Susan IN 5th No R Messer, Luke IN 6th Aye D Carson, André IN 7th No R Bucshon, Larry IN 8th No R Young, Todd IN 9th
Kansas Aye R Huelskamp, Tim KS 1st Aye R Jenkins, Lynn KS 2nd Aye R Yoder, Kevin KS 3rd No R Pompeo, Mike KS 4th
Kentucky No R Whitfield, Ed KY 1st No R Guthrie, Brett KY 2nd Aye D Yarmuth, John KY 3rd Aye R Massie, Thomas KY 4th No R Rogers, Hal KY 5th No R Barr, Andy KY 6th
Louisiana Aye R Scalise, Steve LA 1st Aye D Richmond, Cedric LA 2nd No R Boustany, Charles LA 3rd Aye R Fleming, John LA 4th No R Alexander, Rodney LA 5th Aye R Cassidy, Bill LA 6th
Massachusetts Aye D Neal, Richard MA 1st Aye D McGovern, Jim MA 2nd Aye D Tsongas, Niki MA 3rd No D Kennedy, Joseph MA 4th Aye D Tierney, John MA 6th Aye D Capuano, Michael MA 7th Aye D Lynch, Stephen MA 8th Aye D Keating, William MA 9th
Maryland Aye R Harris, Andy MD 1st No D Ruppersberger, A. Dutch MD 2nd Aye D Sarbanes, John MD 3rd Aye D Edwards, Donna MD 4th No D Hoyer, Steny MD 5th No D Delaney, John MD 6th Aye D Cummings, Elijah MD 7th No D Van Hollen, Chris MD 8th
Maine Aye D Pingree, Chellie ME 1st Aye D Michaud, Michael ME 2nd
Michigan No R Benishek, Dan MI 1st Aye R Huizenga, Bill MI 2nd Aye R Amash, Justin MI 3rd No R Camp, Dave MI 4th Aye D Kildee, Daniel MI 5th No R Upton, Fred MI 6th No R Walberg, Tim MI 7th No R Rogers, Mike MI 8th No D Levin, Sander MI 9th No R Miller, Candice MI 10th Aye R Bentivolio, Kerry MI 11th Aye D Dingell, John MI 12th Aye D Conyers, John MI 13th No D Peters, Gary MI 14th
Minnesota Aye D Walz, Timothy MN 1st No R Kline, John MN 2nd No R Paulsen, Erik MN 3rd Aye D McCollum, Betty MN 4th Aye D Ellison, Keith MN 5th No R Bachmann, Michele MN 6th No D Peterson, Collin MN 7th Aye D Nolan, Richard MN 8th
Missouri Aye D Clay, Lacy MO 1st No R Wagner, Ann MO 2nd No R Luetkemeyer, Blaine MO 3rd No R Hartzler, Vicky MO 4th Aye D Cleaver, Emanuel MO 5th No R Graves, Sam MO 6th No R Long, Billy MO 7th Aye R Smith, Jason MO 8th
Mississippi No R Nunnelee, Alan MS 1st Aye D Thompson, Bennie MS 2nd No R Harper, Gregg MS 3rd No R Palazzo, Steven MS 4th
Montana Aye R Daines, Steve MT
North Carolina No D Butterfield, G.K. NC 1st No R Ellmers, Renee NC 2nd Aye R Jones, Walter NC 3rd No D Price, David NC 4th No R Foxx, Virginia NC 5th No Vote R Coble, Howard NC 6th No D McIntyre, Mike NC 7th No R Hudson, Richard NC 8th No R Pittenger, Robert NC 9th Aye R McHenry, Patrick NC 10th Aye R Meadows, Mark NC 11th Aye D Watt, Mel NC 12th No R Holding, George NC 13th
North Dakota Aye R Cramer, Kevin ND
Nebraska No R Fortenberry, Jeff NE 1st No R Terry, Lee NE 2nd No R Smith, Adrian NE 3rd
New Hampshire Aye D Shea-Porter, Carol NH 1st No D Kuster, Ann NH 2nd
New Jersey No D Andrews, Rob NJ 1st No R LoBiondo, Frank NJ 2nd No R Runyan, Jon NJ 3rd Aye R Smith, Chris NJ 4th Aye R Garrett, Scott NJ 5th No Vote D Pallone, Frank NJ 6th No R Lance, Leonard NJ 7th No D Sires, Albio NJ 8th Aye D Pascrell, Bill NJ 9th No D Payne, Donald NJ 10th No R Frelinghuysen, Rodney NJ 11th Aye D Holt, Rush NJ 12th
New Mexico Aye D Lujan Grisham, Michelle NM 1st Aye R Pearce, Steve NM 2nd Aye D Luján, Ben NM 3rd
Nevada No D Titus, Dina NV 1st Aye R Amodei, Mark NV 2nd No R Heck, Joseph NV 3rd No Vote D Horsford, Steven NV 4th
New York No D Bishop, Timothy NY 1st No R King, Pete NY 2nd No D Israel, Steve NY 3rd No Vote D McCarthy, Carolyn NY 4th No D Meeks, Gregory NY 5th No D Meng, Grace NY 6th Aye D Velázquez, Nydia NY 7th Aye D Jeffries, Hakeem NY 8th Aye D Clarke, Yvette NY 9th Aye D Nadler, Jerrold NY 10th No R Grimm, Michael NY 11th Aye D Maloney, Carolyn NY 12th Aye D Rangel, Charles NY 13th Aye D Crowley, Joseph NY 14th Aye D Serrano, José NY 15th No D Engel, Eliot NY 16th No D Lowey, Nita NY 17th No D Maloney, Sean NY 18th Aye R Gibson, Christopher NY 19th Aye D Tonko, Paul NY 20th Aye D Owens, William NY 21st No R Hanna, Richard NY 22nd No R Reed, Tom NY 23rd Aye D Maffei, Daniel NY 24th No D Slaughter, Louise NY 25th No D Higgins, Brian NY 26th No R Collins, Chris NY 27th
Ohio Aye R Chabot, Steve OH 1st No R Wenstrup, Brad OH 2nd No Vote D Beatty, Joyce OH 3rd Aye R Jordan, Jim OH 4th No R Latta, Robert OH 5th Aye R Johnson, Bill OH 6th No R Gibbs, Bob OH 7th No R Boehner, John OH 8th No D Kaptur, Marcy OH 9th No R Turner, Michael OH 10th Aye D Fudge, Marcia OH 11th No R Tiberi, Pat OH 12th No D Ryan, Tim OH 13th No R Joyce, David OH 14th No R Stivers, Steve OH 15th No R Renacci, James OH 16th
Oklahoma Aye R Bridenstine, Jim OK 1st Aye R Mullin, Markwayne OK 2nd No R Lucas, Frank OK 3rd No R Cole, Tom OK 4th No R Lankford, James OK 5th
Oregon Aye D Bonamici, Suzanne OR 1st No R Walden, Greg OR 2nd Aye D Blumenauer, Earl OR 3rd Aye D DeFazio, Peter OR 4th Aye D Schrader, Kurt OR 5th
Pennsylvania Aye D Brady, Robert PA 1st Aye D Fattah, Chaka PA 2nd No R Kelly, Mike PA 3rd Aye R Perry, Scott PA 4th Aye R Thompson, Glenn PA 5th No R Gerlach, Jim PA 6th No R Meehan, Patrick PA 7th Aye R Fitzpatrick, Michael PA 8th No R Shuster, Bill PA 9th No R Marino, Tom PA 10th No Vote R Barletta, Lou PA 11th Aye R Rothfus, Keith PA 12th No D Schwartz, Allyson PA 13th Aye D Doyle, Mike PA 14th No R Dent, Charles PA 15th No R Pitts, Joseph PA 16th Aye D Cartwright, Matthew PA 17th No R Murphy, Tim PA 18th
Rhode Island Aye D Cicilline, David RI 1st No D Langevin, Jim RI 2nd
South Carolina Aye R Sanford, Mark SC 1st Aye R Wilson, Joe SC 2nd Aye R Duncan, Jeff SC 3rd Aye R Gowdy, Trey SC 4th Aye R Mulvaney, Mick SC 5th Aye D Clyburn, Jim SC 6th Aye R Rice, Tom SC 7th
South Dakota No R Noem, Kristi SD
Tennessee Aye R Roe, Phil TN 1st Aye R Duncan, John TN 2nd Aye R Fleischmann, Chuck TN 3rd Aye R DesJarlais, Scott TN 4th No D Cooper, Jim TN 5th Aye R Black, Diane TN 6th Aye R Blackburn, Marsha TN 7th Aye R Fincher, Stephen TN 8th Aye D Cohen, Steve TN 9th
Texas Aye R Gohmert, Louie TX 1st Aye R Poe, Ted TX 2nd No R Johnson, Sam TX 3rd Aye R Hall, Ralph TX 4th No R Hensarling, Jeb TX 5th Aye R Barton, Joe TX 6th No R Culberson, John TX 7th No R Brady, Kevin TX 8th No D Green, Al TX 9th No R McCaul, Michael TX 10th No R Conaway, Michael TX 11th No R Granger, Kay TX 12th No R Thornberry, Mac TX 13th Aye R Weber, Randy TX 14th No D Hinojosa, Rubén TX 15th Aye D O'Rourke, Beto TX 16th No R Flores, Bill TX 17th No D Jackson Lee, Sheila TX 18th No R Neugebauer, Randy TX 19th No D Castro, Joaquin TX 20th No R Smith, Lamar TX 21st No R Olson, Pete TX 22nd No D Gallego, Pete TX 23rd Aye R Marchant, Kenny TX 24th Aye R Williams, Roger TX 25th Aye R Burgess, Michael TX 26th Aye R Farenthold, Blake TX 27th No D Cuellar, Henry TX 28th Aye D Green, Gene TX 29th No D Johnson, Eddie TX 30th No R Carter, John TX 31st No R Sessions, Pete TX 32nd No D Veasey, Marc TX 33rd Aye D Vela, Filemon TX 34th Aye D Doggett, Lloyd TX 35th Aye R Stockman, Steve TX 36th
Utah Aye R Bishop, Rob UT 1st Aye R Stewart, Chris UT 2nd Aye R Chaffetz, Jason UT 3rd No D Matheson, Jim UT 4th
Virginia No R Wittman, Robert VA 1st No R Rigell, Scott VA 2nd Aye D Scott, Bobby VA 3rd No R Forbes, Randy VA 4th No R Hurt, Robert VA 5th No R Goodlatte, Bob VA 6th No R Cantor, Eric VA 7th Aye D Moran, Jim VA 8th Aye R Griffith, Morgan VA 9th No R Wolf, Frank VA 10th Aye D Connolly, Gerald VA 11th
Vermont Aye D Welch, Peter VT
Washington Aye D DelBene, Suzan WA 1st No D Larsen, Rick WA 2nd No Vote R Herrera Beutler, Jaime WA 3rd No R Hastings, Doc WA 4th Aye R McMorris Rodgers, Cathy WA 5th No D Kilmer, Derek WA 6th Aye D McDermott, Jim WA 7th No R Reichert, David WA 8th No D Smith, Adam WA 9th No D Heck, Denny WA 10th
Wisconsin No R Ryan, Paul WI 1st Aye D Pocan, Mark WI 2nd No D Kind, Ron WI 3rd Aye D Moore, Gwen WI 4th Aye R Sensenbrenner, James WI 5th Aye R Petri, Tom WI 6th Aye R Duffy, Sean WI 7th Aye R Ribble, Reid WI 8th
West Virginia No R McKinley, David WV 1st No R Capito, Shelley WV 2nd Aye D Rahall, Nick WV 3rd
Wyoming Aye R Lummis, Cynthia WY Notes
If there's any good news here, it's that the Congressional Black Caucus voted AGAINST the Obama Administration, in favor of ending the NSA's un-Constitutional, warrantless, blanket surveillance of ALL Americans, regardless of whether they've been charged with a crime or not.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 25, 2013 11:47:35 GMT -6
Below is the link to the vote on this Amendment, which failed to pass: www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h412"H.Amdt. 413 (Amash) to H.R. 2397: To end authority for the blanket collection of records under the Patriot Act. It would also bar the NSA and other agencies from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act to collect records, including telephone call records, Offered by Rep. Justin Amash [R-MI3] on July 24, 2013 " 94 Republicans voted in favor, 134 voted against. 111 Democrats voted in favor, 83 voted against. These results indicate that Republicans generally support continued NSA spying on Americans, while Democrats generally oppose the NSA's continued un-Constitutional wire taps. But there are still a lot of Dems who favor NSA spying on Americans, and a lot of Republicans who oppose it. This was a bipartisan vote IN FAVOR of continuing our current Police State surveillance.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 24, 2013 23:05:30 GMT -6
from LewRockwell.com www.lewrockwell.com/2011/10/paul-craig-roberts/america-was-assassinated/The Day America Was AssassinatedBy Paul Craig Roberts October 3, 2011 "September 30, 2011 was the day America was assassinated. Some of us have watched this day approach and have warned of its coming, only to be greeted with boos and hisses from "patriots" who have come to regard the US Constitution as a device that coddles criminals and terrorists and gets in the way of the President who needs to act to keep us safe. In our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Lawrence Stratton and I showed that long before 9/11 US law had ceased to be a shield of the people and had been turned into a weapon in the hands of the government. The event known as 9/11 was used to raise the executive branch above the law. As long as the President sanctions an illegal act, executive branch employees are no longer accountable to the law that prohibits the illegal act. On the president's authority, the executive branch can violate US laws against spying on Americans without warrants, indefinite detention, and torture and suffer no consequences. Many expected President Obama to re-establish the accountability of government to law. Instead, he went further than Bush/Cheney and asserted the unconstitutional power not only to hold American citizens indefinitely in prison without bringing charges, but also to take their lives without convicting them in a court of law. Obama asserts that the US Constitution notwithstanding, he has the authority to assassinate US citizens, who he deems to be a "threat," without due process of law. In other words, any American citizen who is moved into the threat category has no rights and can be executed without trial or evidence. On September 30 Obama used this asserted new power of the president and had two American citizens, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan murdered. Khan was a wacky character associated with Inspire Magazine and does not readily come to mind as a serious threat. Awlaki was a moderate American Muslim cleric who served as an advisor to the US government after 9/11 on ways to counter Muslim extremism. Awlaki was gradually radicalized by Washington's use of lies to justify military attacks on Muslim countries. He became a critic of the US government and told Muslims that they did not have to passively accept American aggression and had the right to resist and to fight back. As a result Awlaki was demonized and became a threat. All we know that Awlaki did was to give sermons critical of Washington's indiscriminate assaults on Muslim peoples. Washington's argument is that his sermons might have had an influence on some who are accused of attempting terrorist acts, thus making Awlaki responsible for the attempts. Obama's assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative. Having murdered its critic, the Obama Regime is working hard to posthumously promote Awlaki to a leadership position in Al Qaeda. The presstitutes and the worshippers of America's First Black President have fallen in line and regurgitated the assertions that Awlaki was a high-level dangerous Al Qaeda terrorist. If Al Qaeda sees value in Awlaki as a martyr, the organization will give credence to these claims. However, so far no one has provided any evidence. Keep in mind that all we know about Awlaki is what Washington claims and that the US has been at war for a decade based on false claims. But what Awlaki did or might have done is beside the point. The US Constitution requires that even the worst murderer cannot be punished until he is convicted in a court of law. When the American Civil Liberties Union challenged in federal court Obama's assertion that he had the power to order assassinations of American citizens, the Obama Justice (sic) Department argued that Obama's decision to have Americans murdered was an executive power beyond the reach of the judiciary. In a decision that sealed America's fate, federal district court judge John Bates ignored the Constitution's requirement that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law and dismissed the case, saying that it was up to Congress to decide. Obama acted before an appeal could be heard, thus using Judge Bates' acquiescence to establish the power and advance the transformation of the president into a Caesar that began under George W. Bush. Attorneys Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley point out that Awlaki's assassination terminated the Constitution's restraint on the power of government. Now the US government not only can seize a US citizen and confine him in prison for the rest of his life without ever presenting evidence and obtaining a conviction, but also can have him shot down in the street or blown up by a drone. Before some readers write to declare that Awlaki's murder is no big deal because the US government has always had people murdered, keep in mind that CIA assassinations were of foreign opponents and were not publicly proclaimed events, much less a claim by the president to be above the law. Indeed, such assassinations were denied, not claimed as legitimate actions of the President of the United States. The Ohio National Guardsmen who shot Kent State students as they protested the US invasion of Cambodia in 1970 made no claim to be carrying out an executive branch decision. Eight of the guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury. The guardsmen entered a self-defense plea. Most Americans were angry at war protestors and blamed the students. The judiciary got the message, and the criminal case was eventually dismissed. The civil case (wrongful death and injury) was settled for $675,000 and a statement of regret by the defendants. The point isn't that the government killed people. The point is that never prior to President Obama has a President asserted the power to murder citizens. Over the last 20 years, the United States has had its own Mein Kampf transformation. Terry Eastland's book, Energy in the Executive: The Case for the Strong Presidency, presented ideas associated with the Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers that works to reduce legislative and judicial restraints on executive power. Under the cover of wartime emergencies (the war on terror), the Bush/Cheney regime employed these arguments to free the president from accountability to law and to liberate Americans from their civil liberties. War and national security provided the opening for the asserted new powers, and a mixture of fear and desire for revenge for 9/11 led Congress, the judiciary, and the people to go along with the dangerous precedents. As civilian and military leaders have been telling us for years, the war on terror is a 30-year project. After such time has passed, the presidency will have completed its transformation into Caesarism, and there will be no going back. Indeed, as the neoconservative "Project For A New American Century" makes clear, the war on terror is only an opening for the neoconservative imperial ambition to establish US hegemony over the world. As wars of aggression or imperial ambition are war crimes under international law, such wars require doctrines that elevate the leader above the law and the Geneva Conventions, as Bush was elevated by his Justice (sic) Department with minimal judicial and legislative interference. Illegal and unconstitutional actions also require a silencing of critics and punishment of those who reveal government crimes. Thus Bradley Manning has been held for a year, mainly in solitary confinement under abusive conditions, without any charges being presented against him. A federal grand jury is at work concocting spy charges against Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange. Another federal grand jury is at work concocting terrorists charges against antiwar activists. "Terrorist" and "giving aid to terrorists" are increasingly elastic concepts. Homeland Security has declared that the vast federal police bureaucracy has shifted its focus from terrorists to "domestic extremists." It is possible that Awlaki was assassinated because he was an effective critic of the US government. Police states do not originate fully fledged. Initially, they justify their illegal acts by demonizing their targets and in this way create the precedents for unaccountable power. Once the government equates critics with giving "aid and comfort" to terrorists, as they are doing with antiwar activists and Assange, or with terrorism itself, as Obama did with Awlaki, it will only be a short step to bringing accusations against Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU. The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, is a regime that does not want to be constrained by law. And neither will its successor. Those fighting to uphold the rule of law, humanity's greatest achievement, will find themselves lumped together with the regime's opponents and be treated as such. This great danger that hovers over America is unrecognized by the majority of the people. When Obama announced before a military gathering his success in assassinating an American citizen, cheers erupted. The Obama regime and the media played the event as a repeat of the (claimed) killing of Osama bin Laden. Two "enemies of the people" have been triumphantly dispatched. That the President of the United States was proudly proclaiming to a cheering audience sworn to defend the Constitution that he was a murderer and that he had also assassinated the US Constitution is extraordinary evidence that Americans are incapable of recognizing the threat to their liberty. Emotionally, the people have accepted the new powers of the president. If the president can have American citizens assassinated, there is no big deal about torturing them. Amnesty International has sent out an alert that the US Senate is poised to pass legislation that would keep Guantanamo Prison open indefinitely and that Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) might introduce a provision that would legalize "enhanced interrogation techniques," an euphemism for torture. Instead of seeing the danger, most Americans will merely conclude that the government is getting tough on terrorists, and it will meet with their approval. Smiling with satisfaction over the demise of their enemies, Americans are being led down the garden path to rule by government unrestrained by law and armed with the weapons of the medieval dungeon. Americans have overwhelming evidence from news reports and YouTube videos of US police brutally abusing women, children, and the elderly, of brutal treatment and murder of prisoners not only in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prisons abroad, but also in state and federal prisons in the US. Power over the defenseless attracts people of a brutal and evil disposition. A brutal disposition now infects the US military. The leaked video of US soldiers delighting, as their words and actions reveal, in their murder from the air of civilians and news service camera men walking innocently along a city street shows soldiers and officers devoid of humanity and military discipline. Excited by the thrill of murder, our troops repeated their crime when a father with two small children stopped to give aid to the wounded and were machine-gunned. So many instances: the rape of a young girl and murder of her entire family; innocent civilians murdered and AK-47s placed by their side as "evidence" of insurgency; the enjoyment experienced not only by high school dropouts from torturing they-knew-not- who in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but also by educated CIA operatives and Ph.D. psychologists. And no one held accountable for these crimes except two lowly soldiers prominently featured in some of the torture photographs. What do Americans think will be their fate now that the "war on terror" has destroyed the protection once afforded them by the US Constitution? If Awlaki really needed to be assassinated, why did not President Obama protect American citizens from the precedent that their deaths can be ordered without due process of law by first stripping Awlaki of his US citizenship? If the government can strip Awlaki of his life, it certainly can strip him of citizenship. The implication is hard to avoid that the executive branch desires the power to terminate citizens without due process of law. Governments escape the accountability of law in stages. Washington understands that its justifications for its wars are contrived and indefensible. President Obama even went so far as to declare that the military assault that he authorized on Libya without consulting Congress was not a war, and, therefore, he could ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the power of the President to commit the US to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. Americans are beginning to unwrap themselves from the flag. Some are beginning to grasp that initially they were led into Afghanistan for revenge for 9/11. From there they were led into Iraq for reasons that turned out to be false. They see more and more US military interventions: Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and now calls for invasion of Pakistan and continued saber rattling for attacks on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. The financial cost of a decade of the "war against terror" is starting to come home. Exploding annual federal budget deficits and national debt threaten Medicare and Social Security. Debt ceiling limits threaten government shut-downs. War critics are beginning to have an audience. The government cannot begin its silencing of critics by bringing charges against US Representatives Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. It begins with antiwar protestors, who are elevated into "antiwar activists," perhaps a step below "domestic extremists." Washington begins with citizens who are demonized Muslim clerics radicalized by Washington's wars on Muslims. In this way, Washington establishes the precedent that war protestors give encouragement and, thus, aid, to terrorists. It establishes the precedent that those Americans deemed a threat are not protected by law. This is the slippery slope on which we now find ourselves. Last year the Obama Regime tested the prospects of its strategy when Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, announced that the government had a list of American citizens that it was going to assassinate abroad. This announcement, had it been made in earlier times by, for example, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, would have produced a national uproar and calls for impeachment. However, Blair's announcement caused hardly a ripple. All that remained for the regime to do was to establish the policy by exercising it. Readers ask me what they can do. Americans not only feel powerless, they are powerless. They cannot do anything. The highly concentrated, corporate-owned, government-subservient print and TV media are useless and no longer capable of performing the historic role of protecting our rights and holding government accountable. Even many antiwar Internet sites shield the government from 9/11 skepticism, and most defend the government's "righteous intent" in its war on terror. Acceptable criticism has to be couched in words such as "it doesn't serve our interests." Voting has no effect. President "Change" is worse than Bush/Cheney. As Jonathan Turley suggests, Obama is "the most disastrous president in our history." Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who stands up for the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are too unconcerned with the Constitution to appreciate him. To expect salvation from an election is delusional. All you can do, if you are young enough, is to leave the country. The only future for Americans is a nightmare."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 24, 2013 22:42:48 GMT -6
I never pick up a phone unless I recognize the number.
And if someone won't leave a message, it must not have been important anyway.
This is another area of de-evolution.
15 years ago you could block all calls that didn't identify themselves with caller ID block.
But no more. That ability has long-since been removed by the greedy telecoms (the same ones that facilitate the Government's monitoring of your calls.)
Best advice now is to never answer a call from a number you don't recognize, and never return a call unless someone leaves a message.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 24, 2013 16:25:23 GMT -6
The House is today considering the Defense re-authorization act, HR 2397, which would include the allowance of continued warrantless collection of phone information of ALL Americans, regardless of whether charged with a crime or not. Amendment 101 has been submitted--which would end the ability of the NSA and FBI to collect such information on Americans without a search warrant and without being charged with any crime. amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml2718131717181718.pdfA MENDMENT TO H.R. 2397, AS R EPORTED O FFERED BY M R . A MASH OF M ICHIGAN At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following new section: SEC.ll . None of the funds made available by this 1 Act may be used to execute a Foreign Intelligence Surveil- 2 lance Court order pursuant to section 501 of the Foreign 3 Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) 4 that does not include the following sentence: ‘‘This Order 5 limits the collection of any tangible things (including tele- 6 phone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming 7 calls, and the duration of calls) that may be authorized 8 to be collected pursuant to this Order to those tangible 9 things that pertain to a person who is the subject of an 10 investigation described in section 501 of the Foreign Intel- 11 ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861).’’
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 24, 2013 11:45:28 GMT -6
On Monday night, July 22, PBS broadcasting announced its Tuesday broadcast would feature 2 NSA Whistleblowers.
Accordingly, I watched the Tuesday night broadcast. (July 23, 2013)
No Whistleblower story.
The Whistleblower story was omitted--likely by directive from the Obama administration.
Interestingly enough, on Wednesday July 24, a vote on a Defense appropriation bill was scheduled. The bill included re-authorization and funding of the NSA's un-Constitutional phone surveillance.
Do you suppose that had anything to do with forcing PBS not to air a story on 2 NSA whistleblowers ??
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 24, 2013 11:34:02 GMT -6
biz.yahoo.com/c/ec/201330.htmlNew Home Sales came in at 4.97 million annualized for June. However, the previous month's numbers were revised downward by -15,000. Still a far cry from the 1.37 million in June 2005.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 23, 2013 23:45:12 GMT -6
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Survey, Total Employment has increased only +686K over the last 12 months. That's only a little more than 50K per month-- far less than the 120-140K needed to keep up with population growth. Meanwhile, the working age population has increased +2.3 million over the last 12 months.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 23, 2013 22:56:23 GMT -6
from the guardian.co.uk www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/20/press-freedoms-manning-risenThis week in press freedoms and privacy rightsThe travesty calling itself "the Bradley Manning court-martial", the kangaroo tribunal calling itself "the FISA court", and the emptiness of what the Obama DOJ calls "your constitutional rights" July 20, 2013 by Glenn Greenwald "I'm on a (much-needed) quick vacation until Sunday, so I'll just post a few brief items from what has been a busy and important week of events, particularly when it comes to press freedom and privacy: (1) In the utter travesty known as "the Bradley Manning court-martial proceeding", the military judge presiding over the proceeding yet again showed her virtually unbreakable loyalty to the US government's case by refusing to dismiss the most serious charge against the 25-year-old Army Private, one that carries a term of life in prison: "aiding and abetting the enemy". The government's theory is that because the documents Manning leaked were interesting to Osama bin Laden, he aided the enemy by disclosing them. Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler explained in the New Republic in March why this theory poses such a profound threat to basic press freedoms as it essentially converts all leaks, no matter the intent, into a form of treason. At this point, that seems to be the feature, not a bug. Anyone looking for much more serious leaks than the one that Manning produced which ended up attracting the interest of bin Laden should be looking here. The Obama White House yesterday told Russia that it must not persecute "individuals and groups seeking to expose corruption" - as Bradley Manning faces life in prison for alerting the world to the war abuses and other profound acts of wrongdoing he discovered and as the unprecedented Obama war on whistleblowers rolls on. That lecture to Russia came in the context of White House threats to cancel a long-planned meeting over the Russian government's refusal to hand over NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to the US to face espionage charges. (2) The kangaroo tribunal calling itself "the FISA court" yesterday approved another government request (please excuse the redundancy of that phrase: "the FISA court approved the government's request"). Specifically, the "court" approved the Obama administration's request for renewal of the order compelling Verizon to turn over to the NSA all phone records of all Americans, the disclosure of which on June 6 in this space began the series of NSA revelations. This ruling was proudly announced by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which declassified parts of that program only after we published the court ruling. In response, the ACLU's privacy expert Chris Soghoian sarcastically observed: "good thing the totally not a rubberstamp FISA court is on the job, or we might turn into a surveillance state"; the Wall Street Journal's Tom Gara noted: "Reminder: The style guide for mentioning the FISA court is that it's written 'court' with scare quotes." (3) In response to our NSA reporting, several groups, including the ACLU and EFF, filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the US government's spying programs. A federal court yesterday heard arguments in the suit brought by the ACLU, and the Obama DOJ asked the court to dismiss it on several grounds, including that it "cannot be challenged in a court of law". (4) Speaking of the Obama DOJ attempting to block judicial adjudication of the legality of its actions: a different federal judge heard a lawsuit yesterday challenging the constitutionality of Obama's extra-judicial killings by drones of three American citizens, including the 16-year-old American-born Abdulrahaman Awlaki, whose grandfather wrote this powerful Op-Ed in the New York Times this week under the headline "The Drone That Killed My Grandson". The judge repeatedly expressed incredulity at the DOJ's argument that courts had no role to play in reviewing the legality of these killings, which then led to this exchange: "'Are you saying that a US citizen targeted by the United States in a foreign country has no constitutional rights?' she asked Brian Hauck, a deputy assistant attorney general. 'How broadly are you asserting the right of the United States to target an American citizen? Where is the limit to this?' "She provided her own answer: 'The limit is the courthouse door' . . . . "'Mr. Hauck acknowledged that Americans targeted overseas do have rights, but he said they could not be enforced in court either before or after the Americans were killed.'" Re-read that last line, as it's the Obama administration in a nutshell: of course you have those pretty rights, dear citizens. It's just that nobody can enforce them or do anything to us when we violate them. But you do have them, and they're really, really important, and we do value them so very highly, and President Obama will deliver another really majestic speech soon in front of the Constitution about how cherished and valued they are. (5) The Obama DOJ obtained what it considers an important victory: an appellate court in Virginia rejected the argument from New York Times reporter Jim Risen that, as a journalist, he cannot be compelled to testify about the identity of his sources. I wrote last year about the reasons the Obama DOJ's pursuit of Risen is so pernicious and threatening to press freedom and gave the background to the case: here. As he set forth in his affidavit, Risen believes, with good reason, that the DOJ's pursuit of him is in retaliation for his prior reporting, including his having exposed the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program in 2005. (6) In 2003, two dozen or so CIA agents kidnapped an Egyptian citizen from a street in Milan where he was living after Italy granted him asylum from persecution by the US-allied Mubarak regime. The CIA then rendered their kidnapped victim back to Egypt where he was interrogated and tortured. Italian authorities criminally charged the CIA agents with kidnapping, and after the US refused to turn them over for trial, they were convicted in abstentia. One of them, Milan CIA station chief Robert Lady, was sentenced to several years in prison. I wrote about that case, and US behavior in it, several months ago: here. Lady ended up in Panama, and when the Italians learned of this, they requested his extradition to Italy. The US government intervened and applied significant pressure to Panamanian officials, who, yesterday, predictably released Lady and put him on a plane back to the US. The next time the US lectures the world about the rule of law and need for accountability, I'm sure this incident will be on many people's minds. It should be. Also: for those in official Washington - including its press corps - who have been demanding that Edward Snowden come and "face the music" of the charges against him, will you be demanding the same of CIA official Robert Lady, who - unlike Snowden - has committed serious crimes (kidnapping) and has been convicted of those crimes? (7) For a glimpse into the mind of the National Security State when it comes to transparency and press freedoms, do read this unhinged screed published by CNN from Bush-era CIA and NSA chief Gen. Michael Hayden about the NSA stories in which, among other things, he says that I am "far more deserving of the Justice Department's characterization of a co-conspirator than Fox's James Rosen ever was". What makes that so ironic is that I've been arguing for many years now that Hayden and the other Bush officials who implemented the illegal warrantless eavesdropping program aimed at American citizens should be criminally prosecuted. Speaking of glimpses into the minds of the US National Security State, do read this remarkable exchange between AP's excellent reporter Matt Lee and a State Department spokesman over Russia and Snowden. (8) I'm going to write more about this next week, but Rep. Rush Holt is running for the New Jersey Senate seat that became vacant when Democrat Frank Lautenberg died. The special election is on August 13. Holt has long been one of the best members of Congress: a genuine stalwart on civil liberties and privacy and vehement opponent of the crony capitalism that governs DC. A physicist by profession, he's incredibly smart, independent, and unique. Here was Holt on the House floor in 2008 expressing his vehement opposition to the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, the bill enacted with a bipartisan majority (including the support of President Obama) that legalized much of the massive surveillance state that now plagues us: The favorite in the race is a typical Democratic establishment candidate, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who will be a loyal party member and is drowning in Wall Street cash. Having Rush Holt in the Senate would be a substantial boost to all sorts of issues that I write about here most.... Those interested can (and I hope will) read about, support and donate to his candidacy here."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 23, 2013 22:36:28 GMT -6
from Paul Craig Roberts.org www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/13/coup-detat-paul-craig-roberts/Coup d’etatJuly 13, 2013 by Paul Craig Roberts "The American people have suffered a coup d’etat, but they are hesitant to acknowledge it. The regime ruling in Washington today lacks constitutional and legal legitimacy. Americans are ruled by usurpers who claim that the executive branch is above the law and that the US Constitution is a mere “scrap of paper.” An unconstitutional government is an illegitimate government. The oath of allegiance requires defense of the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” As the Founding Fathers made clear, the main enemy of the Constitution is the government itself. Power does not like to be bound and tied down and constantly works to free itself from constraints. The basis of the regime in Washington is nothing but usurped power. The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, has no legitimacy. Americans are oppressed by an illegitimate government ruling, not by law and the Constitution, but by lies and naked force. Those in government see the US Constitution as a “chain that binds our hands.” The South African apartheid regime was more legitimate than the regime in Washington. The apartheid Israeli regime in Palestine is more legitimate. The Taliban are more legitimate. Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were more legitimate. The only constitutional protection that the Bush/Obama regime has left standing is the Second Amendment, a meaningless amendment considering the disparity in arms between Washington and what is permitted to the citizenry. No citizen standing with a rifle can protect himself and his family from one of the Department of Homeland Security’s 2,700 tanks, or from a drone, or from a heavily armed SWAT force in body armor. Like serfs in the dark ages, American citizens can be picked up on the authority of some unknown person in the executive branch and thrown in a dungeon, subject to torture, without any evidence ever being presented to a court or any information to the person’s relatives of his/her whereabouts. Or they can be placed on a list without explanation that curtails their right to travel by air. Every communication of every American, except face-to-face conversation in non-bugged environments, is intercepted and recorded by the National Stasi Agency from which phrases can be strung together to produce a “domestic extremist.” If throwing an American citizen in a dungeon is too much trouble, the citizen can simply be blown up with a hellfire missile launched from a drone. No explanation is necessary. For the Obama tyrant, the exterminated human being was just a name on a list. The president of the united states has declared that he possesses these constitutionally forbidden rights, and his regime has used them to oppress and murder US citizens. The president’s claim that his will is higher than law and the Constitution is public knowledge. Yet, there is no demand for the usurper’s impeachment. Congress is supine. The serfs are obedient. The people who helped transform a democratically accountable president into a Caesar include John Yoo, who was rewarded for his treason by being accepted as a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt school of law. Yoo’s colleague in treason, Jay Scott Bybee was rewarded by being appointed a federal judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We now have a Berkeley law professor teaching, and a federal circuit judge ruling, that the executive branch is above the law. The executive branch coup against America has succeeded. The question is: will it stand? Today, the executive branch consists of liars, criminals, and traitors. The evil on earth seems concentrated in Washington. Washington’s response to Edward Snowden’s evidence that Washington, in total contravention of law both domestic and international, is spying on the entire world has demonstrated to every country that Washington places the pleasure of revenge above law and human rights. On Washington’s orders, its European puppet states refused overflight permission to the Bolivian presidential airliner carrying President Morales and forced the airliner to land in Austria and be searched. Washington thought that Edward Snowden might be aboard the airliner. Capturing Snowden was more important to Washington than respect for international law and diplomatic immunity. How long before Washington orders its UK puppet to send in a SWAT team to drag Julian Assange from the Ecuadoran embassy in London and hand him over to the CIA for waterboarding? On July 12 Snowden met in the Moscow airport with human rights organizations from around the world. He stated that the illegal exercise of power by Washington prevents him from traveling to any of the three Latin American countries who have offered him asylum. Therefore, Snowden said that he accepted Russian President Putin’s conditions and requested asylum in Russia. Insouciant americans and the young unaware of the past don’t know what this means. During my professional life it was Soviet Russia that persecuted truth tellers, while America gave them asylum and tried to protect them. Today it is Washington that persecutes those who speak the truth, and it is Russia that protects them. The American public has not, this time, fallen for Washington’s lie that Snowden is a traitor. The polls show that a majority of Americans see Snowden as a whistleblower. It is not the US that is damaged by Snowden’s revelations. It is the criminal elements in the US government that have pulled off a coup against democracy, the Constitution, and the American people who are damaged. It is the criminals who have seized power, not the American people, who are demanding Snowden’s scalp. The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, has no legitimacy. Americans are oppressed by an illegitimate government ruling, not by law and the Constitution, but by lies and naked force. Under the Obama tyranny, it is not merely Snowden who is targeted for extermination, but every truth-telling American in the country. It was Department of Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, recently rewarded for her service to tyranny by being appointed Chancellor of the of the University of California system, who said that Homeland Security had shifted its focus from Muslim terrorists to “domestic extremists,” an elastic and undefined term that easily includes truth-tellers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden who embarrass the government by revealing its crimes. The criminals who have seized illegitimate power in Washington cannot survive unless truth can be suppressed or redefined as treason."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 23, 2013 11:49:11 GMT -6
from the Guardian.co.uk www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/22/edward-snowden-no-traitorEdward Snowden is no 'traitor'Far from aiding our enemies, the NSA whistleblower has exposed our own government's subversion of Americans' rights Mon, July 22, 2013 from Phillip Giraldi of the American Conservative "There are a number of narratives being floated by the usual suspects to attempt to demonstrate that Edward Snowden is a traitor who has betrayed secrets vital to the security of the United States. All the arguments being made are essentially without merit. Snowden has undeniably violated his agreement to protect classified information, which is a crime. But in reality, he has revealed only one actual secret that matters, which is the United States government's serial violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution through its collection of personal information on millions of innocent American citizens without any probable cause or search warrant. That makes Snowden a whistleblower, as he is exposing illegal activity on the part of the federal government. The damage he has inflicted is not against US national security, but rather on the politicians and senior bureaucrats who ordered, managed, condoned, and concealed the illegal activity. First and foremost among the accusations is the treason claim being advanced by such legal experts as former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Senator Dianne Feinstein. The critics are saying that Snowden has committed treason because he has revealed US intelligence capabilities to groups like al-Qaida, with which the United States is at war. Treason is, in fact, the only crime that is specifically named and described in the US constitution, in article III: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Whether Washington is actually at war with al-Qaida is, of course, debatable since there has been no declaration of war by Congress as required by article I of the constitution. Congress has, however, passed legislation, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), empowering the president to employ all necessary force against al-Qaida and "associated" groups; this is what Cheney and the others are relying on to establish a state of war. But even accepting the somewhat fast and loose standard for being at war, it is difficult to discern where Snowden has been supporting the al-Qaida and "associated groups" enemy. Snowden has had no contact with al-Qaida and he has not provided them with any classified information. Nor has he ever spoken up on their behalf, given them advice, or supported in any way their activities directed against the United States. The fallback argument that Snowden has alerted terrorists to the fact that Washington is able to read their emails and listen in on their phone conversations – enabling them to change their methods of communication – is hardly worth considering, as groups like al-Qaida have long since figured that out. Osama bin Laden, a graduate in engineering, repeatedly warned his followers not to use phones or the internet, and he himself communicated only using live couriers. His awareness of US technical capabilities was such that he would wear a cowboy hat when out in the courtyard of his villa to make it impossible for him to be identified by hovering drones and surveillance satellites. Attempts to stretch the treason argument still further by claiming that Snowden has provided classified information to Russia and China are equally wrong-headed, as the US has full and normally friendly diplomatic relations with both Moscow and Beijing. Both are major trading partners. Washington is not at war with either nation and never has been apart from a brief and limited intervention in the Russian civil war in 1918. Nor is there any evidence that Snowden passed any material directly to either country's government or that he has any connection to their intelligence services. Then there is the broader "national security" argument. It goes something like this: Washington will no longer be able to spy on enemies and competitors in the world because Snowden has revealed the sources and methods used by the NSA to do so. Everyone will change their methods of communication, and the United States will be both blind and clueless. Well, one might argue that the White House has been clueless for at least 12 years, but the fact is that the technology and techniques employed by the NSA are not exactly secret. Any reasonably well-educated telecommunications engineer can tell you exactly what is being done, which means the Russians, Chinese, British, Germans, Israelis, and just about everyone else who has an interest is fully aware of what the capabilities of the United States are in a technical sense. This is why they change their diplomatic and military communications codes on a regular basis and why their civilian telecommunications systems have software that detects hacking by organizations like the NSA. Foreign nations also know that what distinguishes the NSA telecommunications interception program is the enormous scale of the dedicated resources in terms of computers and personnel, which permit real time accessing of billions of pieces of information. The NSA also benefits from the ability to tie into communications hubs located in the continental United States or that are indirectly accessible, permitting the US government to acquire streams of data directly. The intelligence community is also able to obtain both private data and backdoor access to information through internet, social networking, and computer software companies, the largest of which are American. Anyone interested in more detail on how the NSA operates and what it is capable of should read Jim Bamford's excellent books on the subject. The NSA's capabilities, though highly classified, have long been known to many in the intelligence community. In 2007, I described the Bush administration's drive to broaden the NSA's activities, noting that: The president is clearly seeking open-ended authority to intercept communications without any due process, and he apparently intends to do so in the United States … House Republican leader John Boehner (OH), citing 9/11, has described the White House proposal as a necessary step to 'break down bureaucratic impediments to intelligence collection and analysis.' It is not at all clear how unlimited access to currently protected personal information that is already accessible through an oversight procedure would do that. 'Modernizing' Fisa would enable the government to operate without any restraint. Is that what Boehner actually means? It was clear to me that in 2007 Washington already possessed the technical capability to greatly increase its interception of communications networks, but I was wrong in my belief that the government had actually been somewhat restrained by legal and privacy concerns. Operating widely in a permissive extralegal environment had already started six years before, shortly after 9/11, under the auspices of the Patriot Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The White House's colossal data-mining operation has now been exposed by Edward Snowden, and the American people have discovered that they have been scrutinized by Washington far beyond any level that they would have imagined possible. Many foreign nations have also now realized that the scope of US spying exceeds any reasonable standard of behavior, so much so that if there are any bombshells remaining in the documents taken by Snowden, they would most likely relate to the specific targets of overseas espionage. Here in the United States, it remains to be seen whether anyone actually cares enough to do something about the illegal activity while being bombarded with the false claims that the out-of-control surveillance program "has kept us safe". It is interesting to observe in passing that the revelations derived from Snowden's whistleblowing strongly suggest that the hippies and other counter-culture types who, back in the 1960s, protested that the government could not be trusted actually had it right all along."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 22, 2013 22:43:01 GMT -6
It's interesting to see all the 'negative' daily changes in Gold prices on the Corporatist media's web pages. To say they're a gross (and deliberate) deception of gold prices is an understatement.
In fact, gold has increase in price by +$113/oz since July 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 22, 2013 11:59:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 21, 2013 10:35:00 GMT -6
Denninger's video was interesting and informative, to say the least.
The most significant part was about Bernanke's putting $1 trillion into economy each year, which is a 6.5% growth of credit/money supply (in Current Dollar terms) (~1 trillion/15.5 trillion
I agree with Denninger that this would cause a 6.5% GDP increase by itself. This is exactly what it calculates out to.
As Denninger stated, GDP would have to grow 6.5% just to break even.
I have to differ a little with Denninger's final calculation, however.
Though Denninger states actual growth is less than 2%, this refers to real GDP growth (i.e., inflation-adjusted)
Current-dollar figures, not real figures, should be used to measure the effect of $1 trillion of Fed monetary expansion.
Over the last 4 quarters, this has been roughly $524 billion. Total GDP expanded from $15.478 trillion in Q1 2012 to $16.004 trillion in Q1 2013.
That's roughly a +3.4% real dollar expansion.
Again, as Denninger stated, the Fed's $1 trillion expansion would amount to roughly +6.5% GDP growth.
So if it's only 3.4%, then we've actually lost -3.1% of our GDP (i.e., our economy contracted 3.1%)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 20, 2013 22:38:44 GMT -6
It's interesting to see how much of this involved the Steel industry.
The steel industry was particularly hard hit by Outsourcing.
And that IS a Federal problem, since the Federal Government loaned money and/or guaranteed loans that made much outsourcing possible.
And the Government refused to impose Tariffs to prevent American jobs from being destroyed from cheap-labor fueled foreign production, thus directly contributing to American Industrial bankruptcies and mass layoffs.
Since the Federal Government played a large role in steel industry bankruptcies, it should play a large role in insuring the pensions of those American workers it helped put out of work.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 20, 2013 12:03:38 GMT -6
from the Huffington Post www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/jimmy-carter-edward-snowden_n_3616930.htmlJimmy Carter Defends Edward Snowden, Says NSA Spying Has Compromised Nation's Democracy July 18, 2013 by Nick Wing "Former President Jimmy Carter announced support for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden this week, saying that his uncovering of the agency's massive surveillance programs had proven "beneficial." Speaking at a closed-door event in Atlanta covered by German newspaper Der Spiegel, Carter also criticized the NSA's domestic spying as damaging to the core of the nation's principles. "America does not have a functioning democracy at this point in time," Carter said, according to a translation by Inquisitr. No American outlets covered Carter's speech, given at an Atlantic Bridge meeting, which has reportedly led to some skepticism over Der Spiegel's quotes. But Carter's stance would be in line with remarks he's made on Snowden and the issue of civil liberties in the past. In June, while Snowden was scrambling to send out asylum requests from an airport in Russia, Carter appeared to back the former NSA contractor's efforts to remain out of U.S. custody. "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible, but I think the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far," he told CNN, saying that nations were within their right to offer asylum to Snowden. "I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial." Snowden has been hard-pressed to find support among U.S. politicians. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have declared Snowden a traitor who deserves to be prosecuted for his leaks. The White House has also been persistent in its attempts to bring him into custody. Last week, the administration criticized Russia for facilitating a meeting between Snowden and human rights activists. Snowden has since applied for temporary asylum in the nation, following complications surrounding transit to the Latin American nations that he'd been considering."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 20, 2013 11:26:19 GMT -6
from Der Spiegel: Journalist Says Explosive Reports Coming from Snowden DataJuly 19, 2013 by Glenn Greenwald Journalist Glenn Greenwald says new reports from the trove of NSA data supplied by whistleblower Edward Snowden can be expected in the next few days. Speaking on a German talkshow, he said they would be even "more explosive in Germany" than previous reporting. "Are new revelations from the NSA data trove going to drop in the next few days? Speaking on a political talk show on German public broadcaster ARD on Thursday night, Glenn Greenwald said he expected stories to appear in the coming days that would be even "more explosive" in Germany than reports previously published about cooperation between the National Security Agency and German intelligence authorities. ANZEIGE Greenwald is the journalist who broke the original story about former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden's data trove, revealing how the intelligence agency taps tech giants' user data to facilitate its mass-scale surveillance. Since then, additional reporting on the documents by SPIEGEL has exposed how the American intelligence agency spies on both the European Union and a half-billion communications connections in Germany each month. The reports sparked a massive political debate in Germany over how much the German government knew about the spying -- an egregious violation of the country's privacy laws -- and whether it was actively cooperating with the Americans. He told host Reinhold Beckmann that he and journalist Laura Poitras had obtained full sets of the documents during a trip to Hong Kong, with around 9,000 to 10,000 top secret documents in total. Greenwald said they had been in possession of the data for around seven weeks and had not had a chance to analyze all the material, noting that some of the documents were extremely complicated. "We're working on it," he said. Greenwald Carries Data with Him Asked by the host about his own security, Greenwald said he felt "threatened in the sense that there are very prominent American politicians and even American journalists who have called for my arrest, who have called me a criminal." He added, "There's a very robust CIA presence where I work, in Rio de Janeiro," and when you have very secret documents from the world's most powerful government, "you definitely think about your security." He told Beckmann he carries the data with him at all times, but also that other copies have been stored on the Internet. Greenwald said he maintains regular contact with Snowden using encrypted chat technologies. Snowden, he said, "knew that the choice he was making" when he leaked the data "would submit him to serious risks and would make him the most wanted man in the world." Still, he said Snowden is convinced "it was the right choice." Snowden is currently in the transit area of Moscow's international airport awaiting a decision on his application for temporary asylum in Russia. Describing German intelligence cooperation with the NSA, he said that Germany wasn't partnering at the same level as Britain, Australia, Canada or New Zealand, but that it was "sort of in the next tier where they exchange information all the time.""
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 20, 2013 9:40:40 GMT -6
Below is a link to a 2 minute video from the ACLU about license plate scanning--and how many, if not most Americans automobile travel habits are being monitored and recorded in police data bases. www.examiner.com/topic/aclu?cid=PROG-TagPage-NewsHotTopic1-ACLU----------------------------- ACLU Report on License Plate Scanners and Tracking"If you’ve never seen an automatic license plate reader, it’s probably because you didn’t know what to look for. The devices have been proliferating around the country at worrying speed. Mounted on patrol cars or placed on bridges or overpasses, license plate readers combine high-speed cameras that capture photographs of every passing license plate with software that analyzes those photographs to identify the plate number.
License plate reader systems typically check each plate number against “hot lists” of plates that have been uploaded to the system and provide an instant alert to a law enforcement agent when a match or “hit” appears.
License plate readers would pose few civil liberties risks if they only checked plates against hot lists and these hot lists were implemented soundly. But these systems are configured to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location where all vehicles are seen — not just the data of vehicles that generate hits. All of this information is being placed into databases, and is sometimes pooled into regional sharing systems. As a result, enormous databases of motorists’ location information are being created. All too frequently, these data are retained permanently and shared widely with few or no restrictions on how they can be used.
The implementation of automatic license plate readers poses serious privacy and other civil liberties threats. More and more cameras, longer retention periods, and widespread sharing allow law enforcement agents to assemble the individual puzzle pieces of where we have been over time into a single, high-resolution image of our lives. The knowledge that one is subject to constant monitoring can chill the exercise of our cherished rights to free speech and association. Databases of license plate reader information create opportunities for institutional abuse, such as using them to identify protest attendees merely because these individuals have exercised their First Amendment-protected right to free speech. If not properly secured, license plate reader databases open the door to abusive tracking, enabling anyone with access to pry into the lives of his boss, his exwife, or his romantic, political, or workplace rivals.
In July 2012, American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in 38 states and Washington, D.C., sent 587 public records act requests to local police departments and state agencies to obtain information on how these agencies use license plate readers. We also filed requests with the U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Transportation to learn how the federal government has used grants to encourage the widespread adoption of license plate readers, as well as how it is using the technology itself....
We received over 26,000 pages of documents from the law enforcement agencies that responded to our requests, about their policies, procedures, and practices for using license plate readers.
This report provides an overview of what we have learned about license plate readers: what their capabilities are, how they are being used, and why they raise privacy issues of critical importance. We close by offering specific recommendations designed to allow law enforcement agencies to use license plate readers for legitimate purposes without subjecting Americans to the permanent recording of their every movement.
The potential privacy harms discussed in this report are not merely theoretical. In August 2012, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a map displaying the location, obtained via a public records request, of the 41 times that Mayor R.T. Rybak’s car had been recorded by a license plate reader in the preceding year.1 The Star Tribune also reported that of the 805,000 plate scans made in June, less than one percent were hits.2 Yet for as long as the information was retained, the other 99 percent of scans were also vulnerable to the risk that they might be released, used by the police to track innocent people, or otherwise abused. The alarming fact that a law-abiding citizen’s sensitive location history could be revealed so easily was not lost on this exposed mayor. In response to the Star Tribune’s reporting, he directed the city’s chief of police to recommend a new policy on data retention.3 We hope the findings of our report spur similar policy changes.
THE TECHNOLOGY
Automatic license plate readers are made up of high-speed cameras designed to capture a photograph of each and every passing license plate, combined with software that analyzes those photographs to identify the license plate number.4 These systems store extensive location information about each automobile.5
License plate reader cameras can be placed almost anywhere, from mobile vehicles like patrol cars to fixed objects like bridges and overpasses.7 There are even apps that allow law enforcement agents on foot to scan license plates with their smartphones.8 On taking a photograph, license plate reader systems quickly: • Identify any license plates within the photograph • Convert each license plate number into machine readable text • Check each license plate number against manually entered plate numbers and “hot lists” of plates that have been uploaded to the system • Provide an instant alert to a law enforcement agent when a match or hit appears • Store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location where the automobile was seen.
Prices for license plate reader systems have decreased markedly in recent years and are continuing to fall.10 State and federal grants can further lower the cost law enforcement agencies must pay out of pocket to purchase license plate reading equipment.11 The cost of storing data collected from license plate readers is also dropping. Between 2000 and 2010, the inflation-adjusted cost to purchase one gigabyte of hard drive storage fell from about $10 to less than ten cents.1
As license plate readers become increasingly widespread, they are being put to a variety of uses. Perhaps the most common law enforcement use of license plate readers is, as described above, to check plates against “hot lists,” including the National Crime Information Center vehicle file (which includes stolen vehicles and vehicles used in the commission of a crime). Other common hot lists include the plate numbers of those who are the subject of an AMBER Alert or felony arrest warrant, and people who have been required to register as sex offenders or are on supervised release.
Data collected from license plate readers can also be pooled in centralized databases. Software can then be used to plot all of the plate reads associated with a particular vehicle to trace a person’s past movements.The systems can also plot all vehicles at a particular location, such as the location where a crime — or a political protest — took place.
Additional uses for license plate readers are arising as the cameras become more affordable and widespread.
VEHICLE VERIFICATION Photographs captured by license plate readers may contain more than simply the license plate, and sometimes include a substantial part of a vehicle, its occupants, and its immediate vicinity. Law enforcement can use captured photographs to verify witness descriptions of vehicles and confirm identifying features. Photographs of cars and drivers can also be printed and distributed to the press and public.
GEOFENCING Law enforcement or private companies can construct a virtual fence around a designated geographical area, to identify each vehicle entering that space.
NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT License plate readers can also be used for non-law enforcement purposes, such as repossession of vehicles and parking enforcement.
LICENSE PLATE READERS POSE PRIVACY RISKS Tens of thousands of license plate readers are now deployed throughout the United States. Unfortunately, license plate readers are typically programmed to retain the location information and photograph of every vehicle that crosses their path, not simply those that generate a hit. The photographs and all other associated information are then retained in a database, and can be shared with others, such as law enforcement agencies, fusion centers, and private companies.23 Together these databases contain hundreds of millions of data points revealing the travel histories of millions of motorists who have committed no crime.
Longer retention periods and more widespread sharing allow law enforcement agents to assemble the individual puzzle pieces of where we have been over time into a single, high-resolution image of our lives. This constant monitoring and permanent recording violates our privacy in a number of respects.
Chilling effects
In many places in America, license plate readers were initially deployed relatively sparsely, for example, at the entry and exit points of various towns. But as license plate readers have proliferated, they no longer capture individuals’ movements at only a few points. Increasingly, they are capturing drivers’ locations outside church, the doctor’s office, and school, giving law enforcement and private companies that run the largest databases the ability to build detailed pictures of our lives.
Location data can reveal extremely sensitive information about who we are and what we do. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit explained in a recent GPS tracking case:
And license plate readers can be used for tracking people’s movements for months or years on end, chilling the exercise of our cherished rights to free speech and association.
While police departments and government agencies argue that the data they collect will be used only for proper purposes, even the International Association of Chiefs of Police has recognized that pervasive surveillance can have negative chilling effects regardless of its purpose. As it has explained, “The risk is that individuals will become more cautious in the exercise of their protected rights of expression, protest, association, and political participation because they consider themselves under constant surveillance.”26 Psychologists have confirmed through multiple studies that people do in fact alter their behavior when they know they are being watched.27 In one such study, the mere presence of a poster of staring human eyes was enough to significantly change the participants’ behavior.28
Abusive tracking
When police departments lack policies limiting access to license plate data and monitoring its use, abuse of the technology can occur. Other location tracking technologies, such as attachment of GPS devices to vehicles and tracking people through their cell phones, are now regularly utilized to facilitate stalking. There is no reason to believe that license plate readers will prove an exception.
License plate reader systems allow law enforcement agents to enter license plate numbers manually and then receive automated alerts on those plates in the same way they would any plate listed in an approved hot list. This method enables misuse: Anyone with access to these systems could track his boss, his ex-wife, his romantic or workplace rivals, friends, enemies, neighbors, family, and so forth. An agent could target the owners of vehicles parked at political meetings, gay bars, gun stores, or abortion clinics.
Institutional abuse
In addition to abuse by individual law enforcement agents, license plate readers can be subject to larger-scale institutional abuse as a matter of policy. For decades of the 20th century, the FBI and other federal agencies illegally targeted activists in the civil rights, anti-war, and labor movements. Today, law enforcement agencies are again carrying out systematic surveillance of peaceful political protesters. And in other countries, political protesters have already been subjected to surveillance through license plate reader systems.
In the United Kingdom, John Catt, a retiree and anti-war protester, was pulled over by an anti-terror unit based on a license plate reader hit. The BBC reports that his license plate was put on a hot list after an anti-war protest.
Discriminatory targeting
License plate reader systems can also facilitate discriminatory targeting. An agent who manually enters plates into a license plate reader system based on discriminatory rationales could check far more plates than he could without the technology. Also, discrimination can exist in deciding where to place the cameras. Whole communities may be targeted based on their religious, ethnic, or associational makeup. In the U.K., law enforcement agents installed over 200 cameras and license plate readers in predominantly Muslim suburbs of Birmingham.33 Public outrage was such that the agents dismantled the cameras, stating that cultivating the trust of the community was the more effective approach.34 In New York City, police officers have reportedly driven unmarked vehicles equipped with license plate readers around local mosques in order to record each attendee.35 Police departments in other parts of the country could easily do the same thing to Tea Party groups, anti-abortion protesters, or the political opposition of a sheriff running for re-election.
LICENSE PLATE READERS ARE WIDELY USED BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
License plate readers are already a common tool in the arsenals of many local police departments. In a 2011 survey, almost three-quarters of police agencies included in the survey reported using license plate readers — and a full 85 percent of agencies planned on increasing their use of license plate readers over the next five years.36 Even more strikingly, the same report found that although police departments today typically only have license plate readers installed on a few vehicles, in five years these departments anticipate that, on average, plate readers will be installed on 25 percent of all patrol cars.37 One major license plate reader manufacturer, ELSAG, states that its machines are operating in close to 1,200 agencies in all 50 states38 and more than 5,000 agencies worldwide.39 Another manufacturer, PIPS Technology, claims that it has deployed 20,000 machines to agencies worldwide.
Not only are license plate readers widely deployed, but few police departments place any substantial restrictions on how automatic license plate readers can be used. The approach of the Pittsburg Police Department in California is typical: It states that license plate readers can be used for “any routine patrol operation or criminal investigation.”41 It makes clear that “[r]easonable suspicion or probable cause is not required.”42 While many police departments do prohibit police officers from using license plate readers for their own personal uses (tracking friends and loved ones, for example), these are the only restrictions. As the Scarsdale Police Department in New York puts it, the use of license plate readers “is only limited by the officer’s imagination.”
License plate readers collect vast quantities of data on innocent people
While it is legitimate to use license plate readers to identify those who are alleged to have committed crimes, the overwhelming majority of people whose movements are monitored and recorded by these machines are innocent, and there is no reason for the police to be keeping records on their movements. Ordinary people going about their daily lives have every right to expect that their movements will not be logged into massive government databases.
The vast majority of license plate data are collected from people who have done nothing wrong at all. Often, only a fraction of 1% of reads are hits — and an even smaller fraction result in an arrest.
In our records requests, documents from Maryland illustrate this point. Approximately 3/4 of Maryland’s law enforcement agencies are networked into Maryland’s state data fusion center, which collected more than 85 million license plate records in 2012 alone. According to statistics compiled by the fusion center for that year to date through May: • Maryland’s system of license plate readers had over 29 million reads. Only 0.2% of those license plates, or about 1 in 500, were hits. That is, only 0.2% of reads were associated with any crime, wrongdoing, minor registration problem, or even suspicion of a problem. • Of the 0.2% that were hits, 97% were for a suspended or revoked registration or a violation of Maryland’s Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program.
While these vehicles perhaps should not be on the road, they are not the dangers to society that law enforcement agencies routinely describe when justifying their use of license plate readers.
For every 1,000,000 plates read in Maryland, only 47 were potentially associated with more serious crimes—a stolen vehicle or license plate, a wanted person, a violent gang or terrorist organization, a sex offender, or Maryland’s warrant-flagging program. Furthermore, even these 47 alerts may not have helped the police catch criminals or
prevent crimes. While people on the violent gang, terrorist, and sex offender lists are under general suspicion, they are not necessarily wanted for any present wrongdoing.46 In short, Maryland’s license plate readers collect massive amounts of data, almost none of which are tied to any known or even suspected wrongdoing. Even the vast majority of hits are for minor regulatory violations. While Maryland provided us with the clearest data on this practice, we found similar patterns across the country:
TOWN/CITY COLLECTION PERIOD PLATE READS STORED HIT RATE Burbank, IL i August 2011– July 2012 -- 706,918 -- 0.3% Rhinebeck, NY ii January– March 2012 -- 99,771 -- 0.01% High Point, NC iii August 2011– June 2012 -- 70,289 -- 0.08%
The above information reflects the hit rate, which is the best evidence of efficacy most agencies provided but is imperfect because hits are not always accurate or even generated based upon the suspicion that someone is violating the law. A more helpful statistic is provided by the Minnesota State Patrol. Of the 1,691,031 plates scanned between 2009-2011, just 852 citations were issued and 131 arrests were made. 47 That is 0.05% of plate reads.
Again, there is no problem with the use of license plate readers to identify individuals suspected of violating the law. But the above data provide a striking illustration of the wide dragnet that license plate readers often cast. Because they snap pictures of every passing vehicle, they generate millions of data points on the movements of individuals whom no one suspects of violating any law.
Many agencies retain data on innocent Americans for long periods of time There is no reason for law enforcement agencies to retain data on the comings and goings of innocent Americans. While holding onto “hit” data while an investigation or case is ongoing is legitimate, law enforcement agencies should not be storing data about people who have done nothing wrong.
Some law enforcement agencies delete non-hit data rapidly, proving that such privacyprotective practices are workable: • The Ohio State Highway Patrol’s license plate reader policy states that “all ‘non-hit’ [license plate reader] captures shall be deleted immediately.” It further specifies that license plate reader “captures shall not be collected, stored, or shared with the intent of data mining.” • The Minnesota State Patrol keeps license plate data for 48 hours before deleting it, keeping data longer only when there are “extenuating circumstances.” Some other police departments, while not as quick to delete as the departments above, also keep data for relatively short periods of time: • Brookline, Mass., retains data for 14 days. • Police in Tiburon, Calif., delete all license plate reader data after 30 days or less.
Deleting data quickly prevents license plate reader systems from compiling huge storehouses of our location information. The Minnesota State Patrol, for example, scans tens of thousands of license plates per month — a total of almost 1.7 million plates over 3 years. However, in the absence of “extenuating circumstances,” the agency has a policy of deleting all license plate data 48 hours after it is collected. As a result, the amount of data in the agency’s possession, according to a document we obtained, “depends on the day.” Given that records show the daily number of plate scans rarely exceeds 10,000, it is unlikely that the number of records would be more than 20,000 in a 48-hour period.
In the absence of tight retention time limits, police departments rapidly accumulate vast stores of location tracking data — again, nearly all of it on innocent people. For example: • The Piedmont Police Department in California produced records showing that it had accumulated 1,641,841 scanned records in the time period between August 2011 and August 2012. These records were still in storage as of Aug. 8, 2012. • In September 2012, Grapevine, Texas (a city in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area) reported scanning on average 14,547 plates a day and had nearly 2 million plates in its database. • Jersey City, N.J., collected 2.1 million plate reads in 2012. Because a New Jersey attorney general directive compels all law enforcement agencies in the state to ensure that license plate reader data is retained for 5 years, assuming that 2012 is representative, it is likely that there are approximately 10 million plate reads stored at any given time....
All the pieces are lining up for widespread sharing of license plate reader data The mass collection and retention of plate data about innocent Americans is alarming in and of itself, but it is all the more worrying because these data are increasingly being fed into larger regional databases. These databases can be in the possession and control of other government jurisdictions. Once a law enforcement agency shares data, it can lose any say about how these data are used, stored, and shared.
That said, today many law enforcement agencies share license plate reader data on a case-by-case basis in response to specific requests from other law enforcement agencies (and a few report no sharing).60 Requiring a case-by-case demonstration of need is preferable to wholesale sharing because it ensures that data about innocent people isn’t needlessly spread to additional government computer systems, a step that increases the risk of its being misused or wrongfully disclosed.
However, there are already examples of license plate reader data being systematically pooled into large regional databases: • Greenbelt, Md., feeds plate information into the state fusion center, the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center (MCAC), and also participates in a regional database called the National Capital Region LPR Project (NCR), which collects plate information from police departments in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland. Although Greenbelt’s policy is to purge data from its local hard drive after 30 days, its sharing practices undercut that policy.
MCAC stores all license plate data for 1 year, no matter what the retention policies are of the police department that collected it. It is unclear what NCR’s retention policy is, or whether it even has one, but when license plate information is shared via NCR’s system, the receiving agency may store and use that data “in compliance with [its own] data retention policy.” Accordingly, any law enforcement agencies obtaining Greenbelt’s data through NCR may retain it indefinitely.
• License plate data are widely shared in California’s Bay Area through the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), although the full extent of sharing is not publicly known. According to a May 2012 document, this fusion center’s goal is to collect license plate information from approximately 22 police departments, and grant access to several more.68 NCRIC maintains a broad mandate for its use of license plate information — in addition to law enforcement, NCRIC maintains that it may use license plate information for the “protection of special events; protection of critical infrastructure; and responding and mapping the license plate landscape of critical events.”
• Very little was known about the use of automatic license plate readers in Vermont before the ACLU of Vermont joined with other ACLU affiliates across the country in public records requests for information. The ACLU of Vermont learned that police departments in all parts of the state were using them, data was being uploaded to a centralized computer database and retained for four years, and no statutes or rules were in place to govern their use. A new law sets statewide regulations. 70 The law shortens to 18 months the length of time data may be retained (with longer preservation of data allowed with a court order), clearly defines who can have access to the data and under what circumstances, and requires annual reporting on the use of automatic license plate readers and data requests.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FUELING STATE AND LOCAL USE OF LICENSE PLATE READERS
Federal funding has fueled the spread of license plate readers among state and local law enforcement agencies. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2012 that, over the past 5 years, the Department of Homeland Security distributed over $50 million in grants to fund the acquisition of license plate readers. Company materials corroborate the major role that federal funding plays. According to a government “grant guide” on the website of license plate reader manufacturer ELSAG North America, the Department of Homeland Security has distributed “billions of dollars in grants” through the Homeland Security Grant Program and the Infrastructure Protection Program.
ELSAG’s website also states that the Justice Department is the “lead Federal funding agency.” Federal money plays such a critical role in supporting the purchase of license plate readers that PIPS Technology, another major manufacturer, maintains Grant Assistance Coordinators on staff to work directly with police departments applying for government funds. Documents obtained by the ACLU are replete with examples of local and state agencies building license plate reader networks with federal grant money. Police departments that would otherwise be limited by local budgets have received tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars from the federal government to establish or expand license plate reader programs. To provide just a few examples: • Many police departments received grants from the Department of Homeland Security. For example, San Rafael, Calif., purchased 4 license plate reader cameras with a grant of $19,040.75 El Paso County, Texas, purchased license plate readers with $90,000 out of a $2.5 million grant to improve security at the U.S. border. • The Department of Justice was also a key source of funding. For example, New Castle County, Del., purchased a system that included 8 license plate readers with a grant of $200,000.77 Hutchinson, Kan., purchased a system that included four license plate readers with a grant of $24,000.78 The Maryland Transportation Authority Police purchased a system that included 14 license plate readers with a grant of $161,000.79 Edison, N.J., purchased one license plate reader with $20,223 out of a $22,076 grant.80 Cheyenne, Wyo., purchased a system that included two license plate readers with $19,017.63 out of a $48,472 grant.
TOO LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S OWN USE OF LICENSE PLATE READERS
In addition to funding state and local purchases of license plate readers, some federal agencies maintain their own networks of license plate readers across the United States, and engage in data-sharing on a national level. Unfortunately, too little is known about how the federal government uses license plate data. As part of our public records initiative we filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Transportation, but received few voluntary responses and have had to file a federal lawsuit to force the departments to respond. As of this writing, that litigation is ongoing (we will update this report once we obtain responsive documents). For now, here is what we do know: • Customs and Border Protection uses license plate readers to scan the license plates of almost every car entering the United States, as well as many cars leaving the country. • Immigration and Customs Enforcement has experimented with operating license plate readers as well. It has also looked into purchasing access to private repositories of plate data. • The Drug Enforcement Administration had deployed cameras in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California as of 2012,85 and was working to expand its network of license plate readers throughout the northern and southern borders, as well as in “hub cities and the high-traffic corridors.”86
PRIVATE COMPANIES COLLECT LICENSE PLATE DATA WITH NO OVERSIGHT
License plate readers are used not only by law enforcement agencies but also by private companies. This has led to the emergence of numerous privately owned databases containing the location information of vast numbers of Americans.
License plate readers are used in a variety of non-law enforcement roles. Private companies use license plate readers to monitor airports, control access to gated communities, enforce payment in parking garages, and even help customers find their cars in shopping mall parking lots.87 While these uses in and of themselves are not objectionable, private companies can scan thousands of plates each day and store information indefinitely, creating huge databases of Americans’ movements.
Perhaps the largest private users of license plate readers are repossession agents who have recognized the value of license plate location information and built enormous private databases with data from all over the country. MVTrac, one of the biggest companies in this industry, claims to have photographs and location data on “a large majority” of registered vehicles in the United States,88 while the Digital Recognition Network (DRN) boasts of “a national network of more than 550 affiliates.”89 These affiliates, most of whom are repossession agents, are located in every major metropolitan area of the United States. DRN fuels rapid growth of its database by offering to fully finance up to five automatic license plate readers for affiliates located in major metropolitan areas, such as New York, Los Angeles, Orlando, Boston, and Washington, D.C., which guarantee they will provide DRN with a minimum of 50,000 aggregate plate scans per month.90 DRN affiliates feed location data on up to 50 million vehicles each month (nearly all of which are not wanted for repossession) into DRN’s national database.91 This database now contains over 700 million data points on where American drivers have been.
Private companies have partnerships with law enforcement. Police departments can purchase license plate reader data from private corporations. For example, law enforcement agencies can access MVTrac’s database and search through data collected by private repossession agencies.93 DRN contributes its affiliate-generated data to the National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS), which is run by Vigilant Solutions, a partner of DRN. NVLS aggregates DRN’s data with data received from other private sources, such as access control and parking systems, and from law enforcement agencies.94 According to Vigilant, NVLS “is the largest [license plate] data sharing initiative in the United States.”95 The database holds over 800 million license plate reader records,96 and is used by over 2,200 law enforcement agencies and 25,000 United States law enforcement investigators.97 Each month, the system adds roughly 1,000 new users98 and grows by 35 to 50 million license plate reader records.99 Law enforcement agencies that use or have used NVLS include the Milpitas Police Department in California,100 police in Port Arthur, Texas,101 and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
These private databases raise serious privacy concerns. Their massive size suggests that they contain a great deal of information about our movements. These huge databases of plate information are not subject to any data security or privacy regulations governing license plate reader data. These companies decide who can access license plate data and for what purposes.
Last year, California considered a bill103 that would have required private companies to delete license plate records after 60 days and regulated the sale and sharing of privately held plate data. Due in part to the companies’ vigorous opposition, as well as that of law enforcement agencies, the bill died on the Senate floor. Today, these companies continue to operate with no regulation of how they use the data they are rapidly collecting.
THERE ARE TOO FEW RULES IN PLACE TO PROTECT PRIVACY Given that license plate readers facilitate the mass collection of information on Americans’ movements, that too many jurisdictions are retaining data on innocent Americans for long periods of time, and the inevitable trend towards greater sharing of this data, it is apparent that there are too few rules in place to ensure that license plate reader technology is not abused.
In a small 2009 survey, over half of responding agencies that used license plate readers had no policy addressing license plate reader use. Among the agencies that did have or were developing license plate reader policies, most policies did not address data retention (52 percent) or data sharing (56 percent).
Only 5 states have laws on the books governing license plate readers, and the laws have different approaches as well as strengths and weaknesses.
New Hampshire all but bans license plate readers with narrow exceptions for EZ-Pass and for use by government agencies at public buildings and 3 named bridges in Portsmouth.
Maine prohibits all private use of license plate readers (except as part of an EZ-Pass system) and requires law enforcement to delete captured plate data that is not part of a criminal or intelligence investigation within 21 days.
Arkansas strictly limits private use of license plate readers, requires captured plate data that is not part of an ongoing investigation to be deleted within 150 days and prohibits all sharing unless it is evidence of an offense.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure that license plate readers can be used by law enforcement agents for legitimate purposes without infringing on Americans’ privacy and other civil liberties, the ACLU calls for the adoption of legislation and law enforcement agency policies adhering to the following principles: • License plate readers may be used by law enforcement agencies only to investigate hits and in other circumstances in which law enforcement agents reasonably believe that the plate data are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred before examining collected license plate reader data; they must not examine license plate reader data in order to generate reasonable suspicion. • Law enforcement agencies must not store data about innocent people for any lengthy period. Unless plate data has been flagged, retention periods should be measured in days or weeks, not months, and certainly not years. • It is legitimate to flag plate data (1) whenever a plate generates a hit that is confirmed by an agent and is being investigated, (2) in other circumstances in which law enforcement agents reasonably believe that the plate data are relevant to a specific criminal investigation or adjudication, (3) when preservation is requested by the registered vehicle owner, or (4) when preservation is requested for criminal defense purposes. • Once plate data has been flagged, a longer retention period commensurate with the reason for flagging is appropriate. • Law enforcement agencies must place access controls on license plate reader databases. Only agents who have been trained in the departments’ policies governing such databases should be permitted access, and departments should log access records pertaining to the databases. • People should be able to find out if plate data of vehicles registered to them are contained in a law enforcement agency’s database. They should also be able to access the data. This policy should also apply to disclosure to a third party if the registered vehicle owner consents, or for criminal defendants seeking relevant evidence. • Law enforcement agencies should not share license plate reader data with third parties that do not conform to the above retention and access principles, and should be transparent regarding with whom license plate reader data are shared. • Hot lists should be updated as often as practicable and, at a minimum, at the beginning of each shift. Whenever a license plate reader alerts on a plate, law enforcement, before taking any action, should be required to confirm visually that a plate matches the number and state identified in the alert, confirm that the alert is still active by calling dispatch and, if the alert pertains to the registrant of the car and not the car itself, for example in a warrant situation, develop a reasonable belief that the vehicle’s occupant(s) match any individual(s) identified in the alert. • Any entity that uses license plate readers should be required to report its usage publicly on at least an annual basis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report has been a project of the American Civil Liberties Union. The primary author is Catherine Crump, staff attorney, Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. The ACLU would also like to acknowledge the following individuals who made substantial contributions to this report: Ibrahim Alsaygh, Christina Argueta, Josh Bell, David Benhamou, Tess Bloom, Allie Bohm, Stevaughn Bush, Matt Cagle, Kade Crockford, Sandra Fulton, Naomi Gilens, Katherine Haas, Brian Hauss, Mike Katz-Lacabe, Doug Klunder, Mica Moore, Sejal Singh, Jay Stanley, Bennett Stein, Nathan Freed Wessler, Ben Wizner, and Noa Yachot. Thanks also to the participants in the NYU Technology Law and Policy Clinic, and professor Jason Schultz, for their valuable feedback. The ACLU would like to thank the following affiliates for participating in this multi-state coordinated public records request: Alaska, Arizona, Northern California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas/W. Missouri, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wyoming.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 20, 2013 8:22:20 GMT -6
There was a brief discussion of Detroit's financial problem on PBS last night, especially the bankruptcy filing
The sickening part of the bankruptcy was that they offered "big banks" (as PBS put it) 75¢ on the dollar.
But everyone else would get "pennies on the dollar."
What possible reason is there to prioritize big banks over pensioners? The pensioners had a legal contract that guaranteed them their pensions and benefits, which they were promised in lieu of higher wages in previous years.
What makes it OK to violate a legal contract with pensioners, and pay off big banks instead?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 19, 2013 22:31:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 19, 2013 21:20:11 GMT -6
Obama Big Loser in Zimmerman Trial July 13th, 2013 Forget the over-zealous prosecutors and the repellent state attorney Angela Corey (who should be immediately disbarred or, my wife said sarcastically, elevated to director of Homeland Security) and even the unfortunate Trayvon Martin family (although it is certainly hard to forget them — they have our profound sympathies), the true loser at the Zimmerman trial was Barack Obama. By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a former law professor, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.It is also the work of a narcissist who thinks of himself first, of his image, not of black, white or any other kind of people. It’s no accident that race relations in our country have gone backwards during his stewardship. Congratulations to the jury for not acceding to this tremendous pressure and delivering the only conceivable honest verdict. This case should never have been brought to trial. It was, quite literally, the first American Stalinist “show trial.” There was, virtually, no evidence to convict George Zimmerman. It was a great day for justice that this travesty was finally brought to a halt. We all know Al Sharpton, the execrable race baiter of Tawana Brawley and Crown Heights, agitated publicly for this trial more than anyone else. But he most likely would not have succeeded had it not been for Obama’s tacit support. As far as I know this is unprecedented in our history (a president involving himself in a trial of this nature). The media also followed Obama (as they always do) by enabling the demagogue Sharpton, as if he were a serious person. The media, as I wrote before, treated this case like pornography, something to be exploited, giving it all sorts of racial import it didn’t have. The New York Times, acting like true reactionaries of the Obama era (how can we use the word “liberal” with these people?), even went so far as to invent the term “white Hispanic” to fit the case. The National Enquirer couldn’t have done it better. (I take it back. The Enquirer behaves more ethically.) The irony is that the people who suffer most from the media behaving in this manner are black people who are manipulated into acting as an interest group when they have no interest. They are literally victims of the media and of Obama. Of course, they aren’t the only ones. Almost everyone is a victim in in this case that should never have been tried. George Zimmerman will never live a normal life. The American public has been polarized with emotions stirred up for absolutely no reason. Racism is essentially manufactured, as if it were a commodity. A further irony is that recent polls have shown racism in our culture at all-time lows. You don’t hear that from the media or from our administration, however. This knowledge is not to their advantage. As I type this article, I am listening to Geraldo, on the post-verdict show, nattering on about the possibility of the Justice Department initiating a civil rights prosecution of Zimmerman. If that happens, the Obama administration will have outdone itself in the creation of racism. The same continues. pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/07/13/obama-big-loser-in-zimmerman-trial/?singlepage=trueExcellent assessment of the whole debacle!
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 19, 2013 21:11:43 GMT -6
from the Guardian.co.uk The Great One strikes again. And Verizon, among others, is in complete collusion. Secret court lets NSA extend its trawl of Verizon customers' phone recordsLatest revelation an indication of how Obama administration has opened up hidden world of mass communications surveillance July 19, 2013 by Ed Pilkington " The National Security Agency has been allowed to extend its dragnet of the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon through a court order issued by the secret court that oversees surveillance. In an unprecedented move prompted by the Guardian's disclosure in June of the NSA's indiscriminate collection of Verizon metadata, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has publicly revealed that the scheme has been extended yet again. The statement does not mention Verizon by name, nor make clear how long the extension lasts for, but it is likely to span a further three months in line with previous routine orders from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa). The announcement flowed, the statement said, from the decision to declassify aspects of the metadata grab "in order to provide the public with a more thorough and balanced understanding of the program". According to Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein, the Verizon phone surveillance has been in place – updated every three months – for at least six years, and it is understood to have been applied to other telecoms giants as well. The decision to go public with the latest Fisa court order is an indication of how the Obama administration has opened up the previously hidden world of mass communications surveillance, however slightly, since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed the scheme to the Guardian. The ODNI statement said "the administration is undertaking a careful and thorough review of whether and to what extent additional information or documents pertaining to this program may be declassified, consistent with the protection of national security." The Verizon metadata was the first of the major disclosures originating with Snowden, who remains in legal limbo in the international airport in Moscow."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 19, 2013 20:57:28 GMT -6
Just out of curiosity, how many American cars were being sold in Europe to begin with?
Is a decline in European auto sales and demand significantly affecting US-made auto sales?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 19, 2013 20:49:52 GMT -6
Obama DID fool most Americans--again.
But a lot of us weren't fooled at all, and saw him for the fraud that he was (and still is).
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 19, 2013 11:53:59 GMT -6
I read the Press-Telegram article.
In reference to the "lawmakers should consider doing more to help these workers find suitable new jobs quickly, especially those groups most at risk of remaining jobless for a considerable period", the 1st measure should be high TARIFFS on all manufactured imports, to raise the after-Tariff cost of producing goods overseas--making it comparatively more profitable to produce goods in the US.
The next step would be to completely eliminate the H1B Visa program--and all programs like it--to increase job availability for Americans.
There is no "lack of qualified workers", when over 3 million Americans graduate from college each year, and less than 1.8 million total jobs are created per year.
And this is even more true, given all the previously underemployed college grads who weren't able to find jobs in previous years.
There's A LOT the Government could do, but little that they're willing to do.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 18, 2013 22:44:05 GMT -6
from the Guardian.co.uk www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/white-house-silent-renewal-nsa-court-orderWhite House silent on renewal of NSA data collection orderOfficials decline to comment on whether they will seek to renew order that permits bulk collection of Americans' phone records July 18, 2013 by Spencer Ackerman "The Obama administration is refusing to say whether it will seek to renew a court order that permits the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records on millions of Verizon customers when it expires at the end of this week. Officials declined to discuss what action they intend to take about the order at the center of the current surveillance scandal, which formally expires at 5pm Friday. The looming expiration of the order, issued by the secretive Fisa court, provides an early test of Barack Obama's claim to welcome debate over "how to strike this balance" between liberty and security. Beyond the question of the phone records collection, the court order authorizing it is a state secret. On Thursday, the administration would not answer a question first posed by the Guardian six days ago about its intentions to continue, modify or discontinue the Verizon bulk-collection order. The White House referred queries to the Justice Department. "We have no announcement at this time," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon. The NSA and office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to questions. A spokesman for the Fisa court, Sheldon Snook, said the court "respectfully declines to comment". Bipartisan criticism is mounting in Congress about the NSA's collection and stockpiling of millions of Americans' phone records without individual warrants or suspicions of connections to terrorism. Congressman James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin and a senior member of the House judiciary committee, told the Guardian: "By renewing the Fisa court order, the Obama administration would reconfirm its support for the dragnet collection of telephone metadata, despite public outcry." Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, asked if he thought Obama should let the Verizon order expire, said: "Yes. This type of secret bulk data collection is an outrageous breach of Americans' privacy. If the administration feels this program is vital to our national security, it should declassify the secret court interpretations that justify broad data collection so Congress and the American public can debate it in the light of day." Judge Roger Vinson, until recently a member of the court that reviews the government's surveillance requests, approved the order for "all call data records or telephony metadata" from customers of Verizon Business Services on 25 April. The court has reauthorized the bulk phone records collection, in secret, every 90 days for about seven years. At least two other major telecoms, AT&T and Sprint, reportedly receive similar orders. The dates of their expiration are unclear. Obama administration and intelligence officials describe the collection of phone records – detailing phone numbers dialed, duration of the calls, and the times they occurred – as critical to uncovering terrorist plots. While the court orders permit the NSA to collect and store tens if not hundreds of millions of American phone records, NSA director General Keith Alexander has cited the phone records collection as contributing to the discovery of about 10 domestic plots. Officials argue that Americans' liberties are protected because court criteria forbid the searches of the phone-records database absent "reasonable articulable facts," although NSA officials decide for themselves when those criteria are met. NSA claims to have searched through the database fewer than 300 times in 2012. "It's the old adage: if you're looking for the needle in the haystack, you have to have the entire haystack to look through," deputy attorney general James Cole testified to the House judiciary committee on Wednesday. "But we're not allowed to look through that haystack willy-nilly." But there is concern and even anger among legislators about the propriety and legality of the NSA's access to the haystack. Sensenbrenner, the author of the Patriot Act, whose Section 215 provision the government uses to justify the bulk phone records collection, warned Cole and other officials on Wednesday: "You have to change how you operate Section 215, otherwise in the year and a half, or two and a half years, you're not going to have it anymore." Sensenbrenner told the Guardian: "I would advise the president to reconsider his misinterpretation of Section 215 and rein in abuse." Other members on the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, expressed strong opposition to the phone records collection. "This is unsustainable. It's outrageous, and must be stopped immediately," said congressman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat. "Do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in anything but maybe a letter I hand-deliver to my wife in a [secure facility]?" asked Blake Farenthold, a Republican from Texas. Last week, senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and a member of the Senate intelligence committee, commented that the Obama administration was "getting concerned about the bulk phone records collection" and speculated it might "move administratively" to restrict it. "The bulk collection of ordinary Americans' records is at odds with the American values embodied in the Bill of Rights and the fourth amendment, and I continue to be opposed to the secret interpretations of the Patriot Act that are used to justify this bulk collection," Wyden told the Guardian. "I have worked with my colleague Senator Udall and others to introduce legislation that would end this bulk collection, and I hope that while Congress considers legislation the intelligence community will examine the use of such bulk collection authorities and bring them more in line with the constitutional privacy protections the American people deserve." Udall urged the White House to restrict the bulk collection in advance of the Wyden-Udall legislation. "The federal government's dragnet, bulk collection of phone data runs contrary to our constitutional values and unnecessarily violates millions of law-abiding Americans' privacy," Udall, also member of the Senate intelligence committee, told the Guardian. "I am strongly opposed to the Section 215 program continuing as it exists today and when the Verizon order was issued. Sen. Wyden and I have introduced a plan to narrow the scope of the Section 215 program, but the White House should in the meantime more narrowly focus its counter-terror efforts under the Patriot Act." On Friday morning, hours before the expiration of the phone-records bulk collection order, the top lawyer for the director of national intelligence, Robert S Litt, is scheduled to speak at the Brookings Institution in Washington about the controversial surveillance and the laws bounding it. At Wednesday's hearing, Litt was asked by Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House judiciary committee, if the administration thought if a surveillance program "of this magnitude … could be indefinitely kept secret from the American people?" "Well," Litt replied, "we tried.""
|
|