Judge Andrew Nepalitano speaks about why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and why he endorses Ron Paul
***This article has been chosen as a discussion topic on PFP Movement Radio, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pfpmovementradio Friday night at 6pm-8pm. Please Call In To The Show, 347-633-9636. COMMENTS will be included in the show so feel free to discuss or ask questions here on current.com as they will be addressed during the show. This article will also air on Freedom Hour Saturday at 9pm-10pm on Movement TV http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?page_id=36***http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=2846
Judge Andrew Nepalitano speaks about... more
The Obama administration’s position that the government can force mobile carriers to hand over cellphone tower location information on their customers without a warrant is wrong, two legal scholars say.
"Because CSLI acquisition is hidden, indiscriminate and intrusive, and because it reveals information over a period of time, it should be subject to the highest level of Fourth Amendment oversight (the same procedures used for wiretapping and video surveillance)," the scholars wrote late Friday.
The scholars are Susan Freiwald, of the USF School of Law, and Peter Swire, of Ohio State University.
Their words, published by the American Constitution Society, came a month after the Justice Department made its claim in a little-noticed case that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply.
Most Americans have or will carry a mobile phone in their lifespan, so the outcome could have wide-ranging privacy ramifications. Smartphones, like the iPhone, use cell-tower information to power geo-location applications like Google Maps.
In a case pending before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the government maintains it can require federal judges to order mobile phone companies to release historical cell-tower information of a phone number without probable cause — the standard required for a search warrant.
While judges have differed on the issue, the resulting evidence can be used in a criminal prosecution. The case on appeal concerns a Pennsylvania judge who rejected the government’s position in a drug prosecution that the new administration inherited.
Mobile-phone providers keep cell-site information for up to 18 months. Historical cell-site location information includes the tower connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call. The government does not claim a warrantless right to cell-site information for future calls, only for calls already dialed.
"Cellular providers could, if they wanted, keep track of your cell phone’s location every seven seconds," the scholars wrote, "because your phone ‘registers’ that often with the nearest tower."http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/scholars-reject/
The Obama... more
When President Obama was Senator Obama, he had deep reservations about the expansion of executive authority. Now that he wields that authority, he's had a change of heart. His former colleagues -- still senators -- have had no such epiphany.
Add the PATRIOT Act to the list of grievances that President Obama now needs to work out with his party
At least he has friends on the other side, however. When Department of Justice officials came to Congress Wednesday to push for a full-scale reauthorization of the expiring provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, they found more support from Republicans than the committee's Democrats.
The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism” charges for publishing a website and vocally, unapologetically supporting direct action–has been upheld by a U.S. appellate court. It is a landmark free speech ruling that lowers the threshold of what types of conduct are protected by the First Amendment, and upholds a law that is so broad that it targets civil disobedience as “terrorism.”
As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses of individuals connected to the corporations targeted.
The ruling was issued today and, although there are many aspects that deserve attention, I want to walk through what I think are by far the most dangerous and troubling implications of this ruling–those related to the First Amendment:
[PDF of the SHAC appeal ruling]
Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not protected speech.
As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about “electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.
Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold. In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless action.
To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience, explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to take part is not protected speech.
This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the civil disobedience.
This has dangerous implications far beyond this case. For instance, I wrote about the recent call by mainstream environmental groups for massive non-violent civil disobedience in defense of the environment. Under this reasoning, organizers of that event who published a website aren’t protected by the First Amendment.
[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by the headline and preceding points.]
Fiery rhetoric is a “true threat” when illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.
Another measurement of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment is whether it is a true threat. Throughout the appellate court ruling, the court argued that SHAC’s speech did, in fact, constitute a true threat.... full article at link........The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism”... more
The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4, Bob Bloom. The letter captures both the absurdity of the charges, and the significance of the case for the animals and all of us. For a blunt and succinct explanation of how far the FBI is willing to go to crush the more effective tactics employed by the animal liberation movement, read on.
-Peter Young
A new client of mine, a young man named Joseph Buddenberg, is one of four principled, dedicated, and non-violent animal rights activists who have been indicted in federal court in San Jose, California under a new federal statute that was intended by Congress to target unlawful and violent conduct.
The statute, effective as of 2008, is known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), and each of the four defendants is facing five years or more in federal prison because they are alleged to have engaged in, literally, picketing at the homes of researchers they believe cause laboratory animals to be subjected to inhumane experimentation that causes suffering, pain, and death.
Congress was cautioned that the statute would be subject to overreaching by the FBI and by prosecutors. Predictably, this case that targets non-violent and non-criminal speech is the very first prosecution the government has chosen to initiate under this new statute. (The statute can be found by Googling 18 U.S.C. 43).
I do not understate or attempt to mis-state the allegations against the defendants. One of the documents I enclose is an affidavit sworn to by the FBI agent in charge of this case. The affidavit sets forth the worst of what the FBI claims the defendants did (in fact, the affidavit mis-states the facts as to one event). As you will see from reading the affidavit, the defendants are accused of identifying and locating animal researchers and then loudly picketing on the sidewalks in front of their homes. The intent was, and is, to stop the torture and other mistreatment of animals by speaking out in a non-violent manner to shame the researchers by exposing them and their conduct to their neighbors.
This kind of activity, speaking out to expose wrongdoers, is the very essence of the First Amendment. But the offending research laboratory, the University of California, is politically very powerful, and it has apparently lobbied federal law enforcement officials to bring this prosecution. The right of non-violent activists working to protect animals is under threat, and the First Amendment rights of all of us are threatened by this prosecution as well, as the animals suffer and die painful deaths every day.
The defendants are all good people, and courageous people. I have come to know Joe, and I can tell you that he cares deeply about protecting innocent creatures and putting an end to the mistreatment and the suffering. He is not a violent person, and he is not a criminal. And he certainly is not a terrorist.
Many animal lovers and civil libertarians believe that this is an extremely important case for a number of reasons. I have been engaged in civil rights law for more than forty years, and I am truly offended by, and worried by, this prosecution. Needless to say, it impacts the four defendants, but it also imperils the rights of all of us, as well as the lab animals who are being subjected to horrific mistreatment.
The case is complex and labor-intensive. It involves a maze of legal questions regarding the constitutionality of the statute, the validity of search warrants, potential issues regarding wiretapping, and other challenging issues, including the intricacies of the law of conspiracy (one of the two counts in the indictment). The facts of the case are also complicated, encompassing some fourteen incidents in at least three counties, and there are literally dozens of witnesses for whom we must prepare............The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4,... more
Independently produced mock Public Servce Announcement on the Patriot Act.
With inauguration of a new president the time is ripe for policy change. Issues such as post-9/11 public privacy are still hot and in need of discussion.Independently produced mock Public Servce Announcement on the Patriot Act.
With... more
The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a bill to renew all of the PATRIOT powers that were set to expire at the end of the year, with only a handful of the original reforms that were first proposed by Senators Feingold and Durbin's JUSTICE Act and Committee Chairman Leahy's original PATRIOT renewal bill.
Instead of adding more protections to the bill, as EFF and the Times have been urging (along with many other Americans who have been organizing Facebook and Twitter activism around PATRIOT reform), the Committee this morning voted to accept seven Republican amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act to remove the few civil liberties protections left in the bill after it was already watered down at last Thursday's Committee meeting. Surprisingly and disappointingly, most of those amendments were recommended to their Republican sponsors by the Obama Administration.
--
Oh, by the way, THANKS for going door to door for Obama. That really helped.The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a bill to renew all of the PATRIOT powers... more
TERRORIST - SHAC 7 chronicles the journey of a group of grass-roots activists up to and through their trial for Domestic Terrorism. Dark truths about The Patriot Act, the First Amendment, questionable science and political activism all come to light as we live, laugh and fear with the defendants, attorneys, witnesses and law enforcement professionals involved in this precedent setting case. Produced in partnership with Finngate Pictures.
If you haven't called your representatives about opposing the Patriot Act renewal, do it now.If you haven't called your representatives about opposing the Patriot Act renewal, do... more
“We have a situation where the government is spending fairly large sums of money to use an unproven technology that has a possibility of false positives that would subject innocent Americans to unnecessary scrutiny and impinge on their freedom,” said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Before the NSAC expands its mission, there must be strict oversight from Congress and the public.”
Read more.
If this is what they are willing to declassify, what do they have now?
What do you thing about this?“We have a situation where the government is spending fairly large sums of money to... more
The Patriot Act -- a favorite tool in the George W. Bush administration's fight against terrorism -- may be renamed later this year as the Justice Act.
THE JUSTICE ACT???The Patriot Act -- a favorite tool in the George W. Bush administration's fight... more
The Washington Post reports the Justice Department “recommended that Congress move swiftly with legislation that would protect the government’s ability to collect a variety of business and credit card records and to monitor terrorism suspects with roving wiretaps” set to expire 31 December 09.
Carrie Johnson and Ellen Nakashima report:
The three provisions set to expire Dec. 31 allow investigators to monitor through roving wiretaps suspects who may be trying to escape detection by switching cellphone numbers, obtain business records of national security targets, and track “lone wolves” who may be acting alone on behalf of foreign powers or terrorist groups. The government has not employed the lone wolf provision, but department officials want to ensure they can do so in the future.
____________________
So another Bush policy that Obama was against before he was for. Wonder where all the outrage from the left will be when the Obama administration is solely responsible for pushing through the Patriot Act.The Washington Post reports the Justice Department “recommended that Congress move... more
to access business records, operate 'roving wiretaps', conduct surveillance on
'lone-wolf'suspects.to access business records, operate 'roving wiretaps', conduct surveillance on... more
The real 9/11 truth is not that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, but that the terrorists who flew planes into it achieved a monumental victory. The destruction of the twin towers and the loss of life and property, as tragic as they were, did not by themselves achieve a victory for the terrorists. It took the overblown response by President George W. Bush to enable the terrorists to achieve what they could not have by themselves.
Many of us are no longer afraid of Muslim terrorists, however, we are afraid of our own government. The events of 9/11 have strengthened the hands of every military, police and investigative agency in the United States (including Child Protective Services which I focus on in my articles) at the same time cutting back the civil liberties of the people of the United States.
Before 9/11 it was hard to imagine that Americans would actually debate the benefits of torture. Before 9/11 it was inconceivable that people, including American citizens, could be held indefinitely without trial.
Thousands of Americans have been subjected to wiretapping without a warrant. President Bush used 9/11 to create the Department of Reich Homeland Security, which seems duplicative of the Department of Defense. This move was supported by neo-conservatives who once called for the dismantling of the Department of Education because it intruded on the rights of the people.
President Bush also used 9/11 to expand presidential power and used signing acts to undermine what the people's representatives passed into law. He increased our border patrol's authority by allowing them to set up checkpoints as far as 100 miles inland, where they often stop people without sufficient reason for doing so.
According to the ACLU, the Patriot Act, designed by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, and rammed through Congress on a wave of "patriotism" contained provisions that vastly expanded governmental powers. According to the ACLU, Ashcroft's responses threaten us in three disturbing ways:
"They focus suspicion on groups or individuals, based on religion or national origin alone;
They demand virtually unchecked authority to snoop and spy on law-abiding Americans not suspected of any crime; and
They shut down dissent and due process with strategies ranging from secret hearings and detentions to open disregard of the courts."
...The real truth about 9/11 is that it led to the passage of many laws that have hurt civil liberties. It has given people in authority the "courage" to abuse people. It has made terrorists out of people who violate our civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism and keeping us safe.
We need to roll back any laws passed because of 9/11 that have hurt our civil liberties. We need to bring to trial people who have abused their authority.
The important issue is not who destroyed the twin towers on September 11, 2001, but who has been using that tragedy ever since to destroy our civil liberties.The real 9/11 truth is not that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an... more
The government and corporations are aggressively collecting information about your personal life and your habits. They want to track your purchases, your medical records, and even your relationships. The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society.
Don't get a real or national ID. Do not let the government do this. Better safe than sorry. Take Charge!
Do you want this to happen?The government and corporations are aggressively collecting information about your... more
This is an excerpt from Henry A. Giroux's forthcoming book, "Hearts of Darkness: Torturing Children in the War on Terror," to be published by Paradigm Publishers.
Nowhere is there a more disturbing, if not horrifying, example of the relationship between a culture of cruelty and the politics of irresponsibility than in the resounding silence that surrounds the torture of children under the presidency of George W. Bush - and the equal moral and political failure of the Obama administration to address and rectify the conditions that made it possible.This is an excerpt from Henry A. Giroux's forthcoming book, "Hearts of Darkness:... more
Youth Filmmakers: Alex Cheng, Daniela Glusberg, Danielle Strandburg-Peshkin, Chelsea Vaught
Adult Mentor: Mindy Faber
While still a student in sub-urban Illinois, Daniela Glusberg became enamored of American History. This country's centruries' old fight for a democratic republic represented more than dull facts in a book for this daughter of Argentinean parents who barely escaped a brutal military dictatorship. Continually sensitive to the issues faced by her parents in their native country and the new threats of the Patriot Act at home, Daniela and her fellow students organized to fight injustice and oppose the American invasion of Iraq, eventually leading the largest student walkout of the high school anti-war movement in the U.S.
"History Lessons" is one of eleven short films in the "Beyond Borders: Personal Stories from a Small Planet" series.
What do youth fear most in their lives? How do they overcome those fears? 'Beyond Borders: Personal Stories from a Small Planet' is a creative burst of defiance and hope by teenagers who are overcoming the huge obstacles and ignorance that have defined their lives. It's an inspiring compilation of nine short films written, shot and edited by teenagers who weave documentary filmmaking, animation and archival footage to tell personal stories on fear and security. With mentorship from professional filmmakers, youth produced films that are powerful, startling and awe-inspiring.
With stories from Afghanistan, Argentina, Colombia, England Jordan, Korea, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Ukraine and the United States, these youth-produced films will challenge audiences to redefine fear and the priorities we make in a post 9/11 world.Featuring: Daniela Glusberg
Youth Filmmakers: Alex Cheng, Daniela Glusberg,... more
I can tell you all about the domestic 'President's Surveillance Program' (and I shouldn't be able to because I'm not a terrorist). I need a lawyer.I can tell you all about the domestic 'President's Surveillance Program' (and I... more
We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the murder of an abortion provider as “terrorism.” It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t an isolated incident. The word terrorism is used by the FBI and Department of Justice only when it fits a certain political agenda.
The government has systematically labeled animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone as “the number one domestic terrorism threat.” Yet the term is not applied to individuals who have committed much more serious (and often violent) crimes either for personal gain or for right-wing motives.
Here are 30 cases that the government has chosen to not label as “terrorism”:
Plotting to assassinate the president.
Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
Making bomb threats on an airplane.
Impersonating an armed federal agent.
Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
Kidnapping 3 children.
Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
Stealing cattle for personal profit.
Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”
Of course we could keep going, there’s no shortage of examples to draw from. To be clear, I am not arguing that all of these examples are in fact “terrorism” (I’ll be outlining what I think are the top criteria for defining acts of terrorism in a future article). But if the government defines “terrorism” so broadly as to include releasing mink from fur farms and protesting legally while wearing masks, then why don’t any of these qualify?We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and... more
Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was murdered inside his church on Sunday, and the only suspect is Scott Roeder, a man The New York Times said “had professed an anti-government, anti-abortion philosophy.” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called the murder an “abhorrent act of violence,” but he hasn’t used the word “terrorism.” Not once.
Why?
As a bit of context, if you’re new to this website, the FBI labels the animal rights and environmental movements as the “number one domestic terrorism threat” even though those activists have never harmed a human being. At the very worst, underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front have released animals from fur farms, destroyed SUVs and set fire to empty buildings.
When animal rights activists or environmental activists are arrested, though, the government immediately sends out press releases and holds press conferences trumpeting the arrest of “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists.”
So it’s pretty startling that government hasn’t used the T-word, considering that we’re talking about murder, and, as James Ridgeway notes over at Mother Jones, Roeder was also arrested in 1996 with ammunition, gunpowder, a blasting cap, and a fuse chord in his car. He was sentenced to two years of supervised probation. (By contrast, the SHAC 7 received years in prison for running a website).
What gives? Why hasn’t the murder of an abortion provider been labeled “terrorism”?
IT'S NOT A THREAT TO PROFITS. Time and again, we’ve seen that a driving force behind the domestic “War on Terrorism” is protecting corporate interests. The ELF, ALF and above-ground, lawful activists all directly target profits. As the Department of Homeland Security said in a memo, “Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.” Similarly, the State Department has warned corporations how to protect their profits from “eco-terrorists.”
HEALTH CLINICS AND NONPROFITS DO NOT HAVE THE LOBBYING POWER OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. NOW is already pushing to label this crime as “terrorism.” I wouldn’t be surprised if they also push legislation to label anti-abortion violence as terrorism. The problem, though, is that groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood don’t have the political influence (read: money) as Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, and all the other multinational corporations who push “eco-terrorism” legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
IT'S NOT THREATENING "THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE." In my reporting I’ve found that the word “terrorism” is typically applied to two types of crimes. The first are crimes that go up the chain of power (so, for example, the U.S. military bombing civilians is not terrorism, but an Iraqi civilian bombing the military is).
The second are crimes that challenge dominant American values. Let me explain: Attacking African American voters is not terrorism, right-wingers like Chuck Norris calling for armed revolution is not terrorism, Timothy McVeigh bombing the Oklahoma City building is not terrorism. Why? Because the values behind all of those actions– racism, capitalism, and Christian fundamentalism—are business as usual.
So, for example, if Dr. Tiller had been murdered by Muslim extremists proclaiming jihad against the West, the government would be labeling this “terrorism.” The exact same crime committed by Christian extremists is merely a “wicked deed in Wichita”Dr. George Tiller, one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was... more
