[h=1]Obama's Bat Cave: $1.9 Billion Data Center Set to Open In October[/h]
1495
37
26.3K
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by John Nolte 8 Jun 2013 568post a comment
[h=2]There is no question that the big winners from last week were George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, two men vilified for years by the left, the media, and Barack Obama as eager to use the War on Terror as an excuse to violate the Constitutional rights of everyday Americans. Obama ran for president as the anti-Bush in many respects, but especially on the issue of surveillance and snooping.[/h]Well, we now know -- no thanks to the American mainstream media -- that Obama's hypocrisy on this issue is as vast and wide as the dragnet he is using to snoop into our computers and phone calls (and those of the media during those rare times they don't play White House stenographer). Moreover, Obama not only embraced his predecessors anti-terror surveillance policies; he has gone a step further in declaring the War on Terror pretty much over, even as he expands on those policies.
For instance… this:
-
--
The Daily Mail:
The personal data and private online conversations that the National Security Administration is accused of mining could be stashed in a one million square-foot, $1.9 billion facility in the Utah Valley.
Concerns over what the government will store at the Utah Data Center have been reinvigorated by the revelation that U.S. intelligence agencies have been extracting audio, video, photos, e-mails, documents and other information to track people's movements and contacts. …
Plans released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is handling the construction, show the center will have four 'data halls' to store information and two substations to power the facility.
Sure sounds like the Bat Cave to me; and it sure sounds like, at the very least, President Obama owes George W. Bush a very public apology.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by John Nolte 8 Jun 2013 568post a comment
[h=2]There is no question that the big winners from last week were George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, two men vilified for years by the left, the media, and Barack Obama as eager to use the War on Terror as an excuse to violate the Constitutional rights of everyday Americans. Obama ran for president as the anti-Bush in many respects, but especially on the issue of surveillance and snooping.[/h]Well, we now know -- no thanks to the American mainstream media -- that Obama's hypocrisy on this issue is as vast and wide as the dragnet he is using to snoop into our computers and phone calls (and those of the media during those rare times they don't play White House stenographer). Moreover, Obama not only embraced his predecessors anti-terror surveillance policies; he has gone a step further in declaring the War on Terror pretty much over, even as he expands on those policies.
For instance… this:
-
--
The Daily Mail:
The personal data and private online conversations that the National Security Administration is accused of mining could be stashed in a one million square-foot, $1.9 billion facility in the Utah Valley.
Concerns over what the government will store at the Utah Data Center have been reinvigorated by the revelation that U.S. intelligence agencies have been extracting audio, video, photos, e-mails, documents and other information to track people's movements and contacts. …
Plans released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is handling the construction, show the center will have four 'data halls' to store information and two substations to power the facility.
Sure sounds like the Bat Cave to me; and it sure sounds like, at the very least, President Obama owes George W. Bush a very public apology.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
[h=2]HHS Employees Had Access to Insider Trading Info[/h]
New York Stock Exchange / AP
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
June 10, 2013 4:57 pm
At least 436 employees at the Department of Health and Human Services had access to private and sensitive information suspected in an insider trader investigation lead by the Securities and Exchange Commission. As the Washington Post reports:
The investigation started when Height Securities alerted its clients on April 1 that funding would be increased to Medicare at least 18 minutes before the market closed and before the government made an announcement.
Keith Hall, a former commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claimed that confidentiality is very serious among statistical agencies that handle sensitive information, but other agencies don’t have the same consequences.
“There are plenty of people at [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] who, wanting to be cooperative and friendly, may have given out information without realizing it would benefit one investor versus another,” former Director of Medicare Thomas Scully told the Post.
New York Stock Exchange / AP
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
June 10, 2013 4:57 pm
At least 436 employees at the Department of Health and Human Services had access to private and sensitive information suspected in an insider trader investigation lead by the Securities and Exchange Commission. As the Washington Post reports:
The surge of trading in Humana’s and other private health insurers’ stock before the April 1 announcement already has prompted the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate whether Wall Street investors had advance access to inside information about the then-confidential Medicare funding plan. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa) told the Washington Post late last week that his office reviewed the e-mail records of employees at the Department of Health and Human Services and found that 436 of them had early access to the Medicare decision as much as two weeks before it was made public.
The number of federal employees with advance knowledge is likely higher, according to the Post.
The investigation started when Height Securities alerted its clients on April 1 that funding would be increased to Medicare at least 18 minutes before the market closed and before the government made an announcement.
Keith Hall, a former commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claimed that confidentiality is very serious among statistical agencies that handle sensitive information, but other agencies don’t have the same consequences.
“There are plenty of people at [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] who, wanting to be cooperative and friendly, may have given out information without realizing it would benefit one investor versus another,” former Director of Medicare Thomas Scully told the Post.
[h=1]Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent[/h]
Avik Roy, Contributor
455 comments, 452 called-out
Comment Now Follow Comments
The Canton Office Of Former Ohio Auditor, and Current Lieutenant Governor, Mary Taylor (Photo credit: ProgressOhio).
Democrats continue to try to dismiss the evidence that Obamacare will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. But on Thursday, the Ohio Department of Insurance announced that, based on the rates submitted by insurers to date, the average individual-market health insurance premium in 2014 will come in around $420, “representing an increase of 88 percent” relative to 2013. “We have warned of these increases,” said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor in a statement. “Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.”
In Ohio, Obamacare to Increase Individual Insurance Premiums by 55-85%
Avik Roy Contributor
How Ohio's Medicaid Expansion Will Increase Health Insurance Premiums for Everyone Else
Avik Roy Contributor
Insurance Analysts: Obamacare to Increase Out-of-Pocket Premium Costs, Despite Lavish Subsidies
Avik Roy Contributor
Aetna CEO Bertolini: Get Ready for 'Rate Shock' as Some Health Insurance Premiums to Double in 2014
Avik Roy Contributor
The rates that Ohio reported are proposed rates; the Department of Insurance still has to formally approve them. “A total of 14 companies proposed rates for 214 plans to the Department. Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required [by Obamacare] essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans.”
Avik Roy, Contributor
455 comments, 452 called-out
Comment Now Follow Comments
The Canton Office Of Former Ohio Auditor, and Current Lieutenant Governor, Mary Taylor (Photo credit: ProgressOhio).Democrats continue to try to dismiss the evidence that Obamacare will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. But on Thursday, the Ohio Department of Insurance announced that, based on the rates submitted by insurers to date, the average individual-market health insurance premium in 2014 will come in around $420, “representing an increase of 88 percent” relative to 2013. “We have warned of these increases,” said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor in a statement. “Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.”
In Ohio, Obamacare to Increase Individual Insurance Premiums by 55-85%
Avik Roy Contributor
How Ohio's Medicaid Expansion Will Increase Health Insurance Premiums for Everyone Else
Avik Roy Contributor
Insurance Analysts: Obamacare to Increase Out-of-Pocket Premium Costs, Despite Lavish Subsidies
Avik Roy Contributor
Aetna CEO Bertolini: Get Ready for 'Rate Shock' as Some Health Insurance Premiums to Double in 2014
Avik Roy Contributor The rates that Ohio reported are proposed rates; the Department of Insurance still has to formally approve them. “A total of 14 companies proposed rates for 214 plans to the Department. Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required [by Obamacare] essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans.”
[h=3]The war on terror is Obama's Vietnam[/h] Jun 10th 2013, 11:47 by M.S.
HOW serious is the terrorist threat that justifies the National Security Agency's surveillance of Americans? Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, doesn't address this question; his point is that the American people should have the information they need to decide whether the threat merits the surveillance. Matthew Yglesias thinks the threat isn't very serious, and that counterterrorism efforts, including surveillance and airport security systems, should be subjected to a cost-benefits analysis. ("Approximately zero lives per year are saved by airport security measures," he writes, though he admits he could be wrong about this.)
Stephen Walt is a bit less hyperbolic, but he agrees that terrorism simply isn't the kind of danger that could merit the level of response America devotes to it. Unless terrorists get nuclear weapons, he says, they really can't do much damage in America:
Mr Yglesias and Mr Walt are right: conventional terrorism poses no major threat to America or to its citizens. But that's not really what it aims to do. Terrorism is basically a political communications strategy. The chief threat it poses is not to the lives of American citizens but to the direction of American policy and the electoral prospects of American politicians. A major strike in America by a jihadist terrorist group in 2012 would have done little damage to America, but it could have posed a serious problem for Barack Obama's re-election campaign. For the president the war on terror is what the Vietnam War was to Lyndon Johnson: a vast, tragic distraction in which he must be seen to be winning, lest the domestic agenda he really cares about (health-care, financial reform, climate-change mitigation, immigration reform, gun control, inequality) be derailed. It's no surprise that he has given the surveillance state whatever it says it needs to prevent a major terrorist attack.
In a perfect world, as Mr Walt argues, we in the public wouldn't let terrorist strikes dictate our politics. But we're not likely to get calmer about terrorism, because too many people are trying to keep us frantic. At least three parties stand to gain from exaggerating, rather than minimising, our reactions to terrorist strikes. The first is the media, which wins viewership by whipping up anxiety over terrorist strikes. The second is politicians seeking partisan advantage, since panic over foreign-backed terrorism tends to increase voter turnout. (In Israel terrorism shifts voter support to the right. In America throughout the early 2000s, anxiety over terrorism increased support for president George W. Bush, but by 2008 an attack would have increased support for Mr Obama. Similarly, Spanish voters punished the conservative government for the Madrid train bombings in 2004 because 80% of the public had opposed the government's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Either way, when terrorists attack, one party or the other is going to make political hay out of it.)
Finally, the third party trying to exacerbate our responses to terrorist attacks are the terrorists themselves, who have generally proven quite effective at choosing targets that provoke widespread media coverage. As hard as we may try to restrain our national responses to terrorism, there will be some pretty smart terrorists out there figuring out how to do things that get our attention again. Even the rather inept Tsarnaev brothers, who only managed to kill three people, did an excellent job of picking a target that dominated the news cycle. Had that attack occurred in mid-2012, it would have completely derailed the presidential campaign. Democrats would no doubt have tried fruitlessly to tamp down public reaction, while Republicans would have allied with the media in hyping it relentlessly.
Politicians do not want to have to deal with these sorts of surprises. They have very strong incentives to go along with intelligence organisations that say they need ever-more-powerful surveillance programmes to see what the terrorists are up to. For Mr Obama, this is a no-win situation. The only thing worse than missing a terrorist attack because an NSA surveillance programme had been blocked would be having the NSA leak that the terrorist attack was missed because you blocked their surveillance programme. Now, having given the NSA what it said it needed to prevent any nasty surprises, he finds himself dealing with a different nasty surprise: the leak of the NSA programmes themselves. And that surprise has made the chances of accomplishing anything on the issues Mr Obama really cares about—health care, climate change, immigration reform, inequality—more remote than ever.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...y?fsrc=nlw|newe|6-10-2013|5865545|37615391|NA
HOW serious is the terrorist threat that justifies the National Security Agency's surveillance of Americans? Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, doesn't address this question; his point is that the American people should have the information they need to decide whether the threat merits the surveillance. Matthew Yglesias thinks the threat isn't very serious, and that counterterrorism efforts, including surveillance and airport security systems, should be subjected to a cost-benefits analysis. ("Approximately zero lives per year are saved by airport security measures," he writes, though he admits he could be wrong about this.)
Stephen Walt is a bit less hyperbolic, but he agrees that terrorism simply isn't the kind of danger that could merit the level of response America devotes to it. Unless terrorists get nuclear weapons, he says, they really can't do much damage in America:
Conventional terrorism—even of the sort suffered on 9/11—is not a serious threat to the U.S. economy, the American way of life, or even the personal security of the overwhelming majority of Americans, because al Qaeda and its cousins are neither powerful nor skillful enough to do as much damage as they might like.
He adds that "post-9/11 terrorist plots have been mostly lame and inept, and Americans are at far greater risk from car accidents, bathtub mishaps, and a host of other undramatic dangers than they are from 'jihadi terrorism.'" He uses the Boston bombing in April as a case in point, describing it as tragic but less lethal than the factory explosion that took place that same week down in Texas.
Mr Yglesias and Mr Walt are right: conventional terrorism poses no major threat to America or to its citizens. But that's not really what it aims to do. Terrorism is basically a political communications strategy. The chief threat it poses is not to the lives of American citizens but to the direction of American policy and the electoral prospects of American politicians. A major strike in America by a jihadist terrorist group in 2012 would have done little damage to America, but it could have posed a serious problem for Barack Obama's re-election campaign. For the president the war on terror is what the Vietnam War was to Lyndon Johnson: a vast, tragic distraction in which he must be seen to be winning, lest the domestic agenda he really cares about (health-care, financial reform, climate-change mitigation, immigration reform, gun control, inequality) be derailed. It's no surprise that he has given the surveillance state whatever it says it needs to prevent a major terrorist attack.
In a perfect world, as Mr Walt argues, we in the public wouldn't let terrorist strikes dictate our politics. But we're not likely to get calmer about terrorism, because too many people are trying to keep us frantic. At least three parties stand to gain from exaggerating, rather than minimising, our reactions to terrorist strikes. The first is the media, which wins viewership by whipping up anxiety over terrorist strikes. The second is politicians seeking partisan advantage, since panic over foreign-backed terrorism tends to increase voter turnout. (In Israel terrorism shifts voter support to the right. In America throughout the early 2000s, anxiety over terrorism increased support for president George W. Bush, but by 2008 an attack would have increased support for Mr Obama. Similarly, Spanish voters punished the conservative government for the Madrid train bombings in 2004 because 80% of the public had opposed the government's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Either way, when terrorists attack, one party or the other is going to make political hay out of it.)
Finally, the third party trying to exacerbate our responses to terrorist attacks are the terrorists themselves, who have generally proven quite effective at choosing targets that provoke widespread media coverage. As hard as we may try to restrain our national responses to terrorism, there will be some pretty smart terrorists out there figuring out how to do things that get our attention again. Even the rather inept Tsarnaev brothers, who only managed to kill three people, did an excellent job of picking a target that dominated the news cycle. Had that attack occurred in mid-2012, it would have completely derailed the presidential campaign. Democrats would no doubt have tried fruitlessly to tamp down public reaction, while Republicans would have allied with the media in hyping it relentlessly.
Politicians do not want to have to deal with these sorts of surprises. They have very strong incentives to go along with intelligence organisations that say they need ever-more-powerful surveillance programmes to see what the terrorists are up to. For Mr Obama, this is a no-win situation. The only thing worse than missing a terrorist attack because an NSA surveillance programme had been blocked would be having the NSA leak that the terrorist attack was missed because you blocked their surveillance programme. Now, having given the NSA what it said it needed to prevent any nasty surprises, he finds himself dealing with a different nasty surprise: the leak of the NSA programmes themselves. And that surprise has made the chances of accomplishing anything on the issues Mr Obama really cares about—health care, climate change, immigration reform, inequality—more remote than ever.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...y?fsrc=nlw|newe|6-10-2013|5865545|37615391|NA
[h=1]State Dept. Accused of Covering
Up Sex, Prostitution Investigation[/h]
Up Sex, Prostitution Investigation[/h]
-
AP
- The State Department's ability to investigate wrongdoing by its staff is under question after a report that the agency tried to cover up several crimes surfaces.
- VIDEO: State Dept. Probes Claims
- IG Report Finds 'Questionable' Payments to Former US Rep. Heather Wilson
[h=2]Obama Quietly Backs Patriot Act Provisions[/h] by William Fisher
NEW YORK - With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.
And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.
When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.
But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.
Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.
The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:
National Security Letters (NSLs)
The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.
The 'Material Support' Statute
This provision criminalises providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalises a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organisations.
FISA Amendments Act of 2008
This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.
Asked by IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, referred to "the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms – while publicly stating receptiveness to them." White House pressure, he speculated, "was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor".
He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.
Zazi , a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.
Leahy acknowledged that, in light of these incidents, "This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."
Pitts told IPS, "Short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach."
"In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it's become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror - and avoid being accused of being "soft on terror" - brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed," he added.
In contrast to the Senate, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a version of the legislation containing several significant reforms. In a 16-10 party-line vote, the committee's version curbs some of the government's controversial surveillance powers.
The Patriot Act, passed by a landslide after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional powers to thwart terrorist activities, was reauthorised in 2005.
The legislation has been criticised by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.
Judiciary Chair John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said the goal of the new legislation was to "craft a law that preserves both our national security and our national values".
The proposed new legislation would permit the so-called "lone wolf" provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures.
It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organisations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.
The Justice Department maintains that the "lone wolf" authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent citizens.
The proposed new House legislation would also restrict the use of national security letters. According to a Congressional Research Service report, "National security letters (NSL) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information."
Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies". The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.
The bill approved in the Senate contains much more modest reforms. It would retain the lone wolf provision, and is, in general, much more in line with the wishes of the administration. Should both bills pass and go into conference to be reconciled, it is unclear which approach would prevail.
House and Senate versions still need to be voted on by each body separately and then reconciled into a single bill to send to the president for signature.
Pitts told IPS, "President Obama's flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it's imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualised suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions."
In a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, "More than seven years after its implementation there is little evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources."
NEW YORK - With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.
And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.
When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.
But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.
Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.
The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:
National Security Letters (NSLs)
The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.
The 'Material Support' Statute
This provision criminalises providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalises a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organisations.
FISA Amendments Act of 2008
This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.
Asked by IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, referred to "the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms – while publicly stating receptiveness to them." White House pressure, he speculated, "was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor".
He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.
Zazi , a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.
Leahy acknowledged that, in light of these incidents, "This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."
Pitts told IPS, "Short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach."
"In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it's become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror - and avoid being accused of being "soft on terror" - brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed," he added.
In contrast to the Senate, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved a version of the legislation containing several significant reforms. In a 16-10 party-line vote, the committee's version curbs some of the government's controversial surveillance powers.
The Patriot Act, passed by a landslide after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional powers to thwart terrorist activities, was reauthorised in 2005.
The legislation has been criticised by many from across the ideological spectrum as a threat to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions. Sections of the original act have been ruled unconstitutional, with certain provisions violating protected rights.
Judiciary Chair John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, said the goal of the new legislation was to "craft a law that preserves both our national security and our national values".
The proposed new legislation would permit the so-called "lone wolf" provision to sunset. This authority removed the requirement that an individual needed to be an agent of a foreign power to be placed under surveillance by intelligence officials and permitted surveillance of individuals with a much lower evidentiary threshold than allowed under criminal surveillance procedures.
It was intended to allow the surveillance of individuals believed to be doing the bidding of foreign governments or terrorist organisations, even when the evidence of that connection was lacking.
The Justice Department maintains that the "lone wolf" authority is necessary, even though there is no evidence that it has been used. Its opponents believe that existing authorities are sufficient to achieve the goals of the lone wolf provision while more effectively protecting the rights of innocent citizens.
The proposed new House legislation would also restrict the use of national security letters. According to a Congressional Research Service report, "National security letters (NSL) are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas. Intelligence agencies issue them for intelligence gathering purposes to telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting agencies, banks, and other financial institutions, directing the recipients to turn over certain customer records and similar information."
Under current law, intelligence agencies have few restrictions on the use of NSLs, and in numerous cases, have abused the authority. An FBI inspector general report in 2007 "found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies". The reform provisions seek to create greater judicial scrutiny of NSL use.
The bill approved in the Senate contains much more modest reforms. It would retain the lone wolf provision, and is, in general, much more in line with the wishes of the administration. Should both bills pass and go into conference to be reconciled, it is unclear which approach would prevail.
House and Senate versions still need to be voted on by each body separately and then reconciled into a single bill to send to the president for signature.
Pitts told IPS, "President Obama's flip-flop on Patriot Act issues does as much damage as did his flip-flop on the FISA Amendments Act and telecom immunity last year. But it's imperative that we fight, while we still can, to comprehensively reinsert requirements for fact-based, individualised suspicion, checks and balances, and meaningful judicial review prior to government intrusions."
In a report on the Patriot Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said, "More than seven years after its implementation there is little evidence that the Patriot Act has been effective in making America more secure from terrorists. However, there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violate the rights of innocent people and squander precious security resources."
[h=1]Document: Sen. Obama Opposed 'Government Fishing Expeditions' Under Patriot Act[/h]
Print Article Send a Tip
by John Sexton 10 Jun 2013 336post a comment
[h=1]More:[/h]NSA PRISM
[h=2]A "Dear Colleague" letter signed by then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in 2005 urged an end to "government fishing expeditions" under Section 215 of the Patriot Act to gather records on American citizens indiscriminately. The letter was also signed by eight other Senators, including John Kerry (D-MA) and Chuck Hagel (R-ND), who currently serve in President Obama's Cabinet as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, respectively.[/h]The letter is provided below.
The December 14, 2005 letter was passed around in the Senate to gather support for specific changes to the Patriot Act. Sen. Obama was particularly concerned about sections 215 and 505, which give the government two legal means to collect extensive business records (the FISA court and national security letters, respectively). Sen. Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter argues that the requirements for making these requests need to be tightened:
That focus on individualized suspicion was echoed in a public statement Sen. Obama made on the Senate floor one day after the letter was issued. He said it was time "to show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can."
Later in his speech, he added:
The Chamber of Commerce letter which prompted some of Sen. Obama's concerns was sent to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) two months earlier on October 4, 2005. It made clear that business groups are concerned about the use of section 215, in part, because of the potential expense of complying with expansive demands for records.
The information leaked last week to the UK Guardian seems to indicate that the President had a change of heart. It's not clear how the broad dragnet of phone metadata or the PRISM collection of email and other data is compatible with Obama's previously expressed concerns about "government fishing expeditions."
ObamaDearColleague121405
Print Article Send a Tip
by John Sexton 10 Jun 2013 336post a comment
[h=1]More:[/h]NSA PRISM
[h=2]A "Dear Colleague" letter signed by then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) in 2005 urged an end to "government fishing expeditions" under Section 215 of the Patriot Act to gather records on American citizens indiscriminately. The letter was also signed by eight other Senators, including John Kerry (D-MA) and Chuck Hagel (R-ND), who currently serve in President Obama's Cabinet as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, respectively.[/h]The letter is provided below.
The December 14, 2005 letter was passed around in the Senate to gather support for specific changes to the Patriot Act. Sen. Obama was particularly concerned about sections 215 and 505, which give the government two legal means to collect extensive business records (the FISA court and national security letters, respectively). Sen. Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter argues that the requirements for making these requests need to be tightened:
The conference report would allow the government to obtain library, medical and gun records and other sensitive personal information under Section 215 of the Patriot Act on a mere showing that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. As business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have argued, this would allow government fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans. We believe the government should be required to convince a judge that the records they are seeking have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy, as the three-part standard in the Senate bill would mandate.
The letter goes on to argue that a stricter standard "will protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance and ensure that government scrutiny is based on individualized suspicion, a fundamental principle of our legal system."
That focus on individualized suspicion was echoed in a public statement Sen. Obama made on the Senate floor one day after the letter was issued. He said it was time "to show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can."
Later in his speech, he added:
If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document - through library books they've read and phone calls they've made - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case. This is just plain wrong.
Though that seems to have been directed at the use of national security letters, the principles would seem to apply to the collection of data and records under section 215. As reports last week indicated, the NSA has been collecting everything to which it has access and maintaining a gag order on companies that turn over the data.
The Chamber of Commerce letter which prompted some of Sen. Obama's concerns was sent to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) two months earlier on October 4, 2005. It made clear that business groups are concerned about the use of section 215, in part, because of the potential expense of complying with expansive demands for records.
Section 215 of the Act currently allows the Justice Department to obtain secret orders for business records and other tangible items from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We support the revision in the Senate bill that requires a statement of fact and some linkage between the records sought and an individual suspected of being a terrorist or spy. As written, the government merely has to certify that the records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation, without stating any underlying facts for the court or judge or showing any nexus with an actual suspect of investigation. As a result, the current Act does not impose any limit on the breadth of records sought, or protect records that are privileged or proprietary. Without such facts, let alone any probable cause of wrongdoing, an unreasonable burden and expense is imposed on businesses to supply potentially large quantities of information that are difficult to collect and transmit, including trade secrets or other sensitive information.
The Chamber and other business groups were worried about the cost of replying to these broad demands for data, but Sen. Obama's letter and speech do not mention costs. His specific concerns were the legality and morality of collecting data on Americans who are not suspected of a crime and who will not be made aware that their data has been collected. Those concerns continued through the 2007 campaign, when presidential candidate Obama gave a major speech in which he called for an end to some of these same practices.
The information leaked last week to the UK Guardian seems to indicate that the President had a change of heart. It's not clear how the broad dragnet of phone metadata or the PRISM collection of email and other data is compatible with Obama's previously expressed concerns about "government fishing expeditions."
ObamaDearColleague121405
[ More Democrat vote fraud... par for the course ]
Indiana Dem official sentenced to prison for '08 ballot fraud in Obama-Clinton primary
By Eric Shawn
Published June 17, 2013
FoxNews.com
As Hillary Clinton prepares for a possible presidential run in 2016, it appears that she could have knocked then-candidate Barack Obama off the 2008 primary ballot in Indiana.
Indiana Dem official sentenced to prison for '08 ballot fraud in Obama-Clinton primary
By Eric Shawn
Published June 17, 2013
FoxNews.com
-
From left, Butch Morgan, Pam Brunette, Beverly Shelton and Dustin Blythe were charged April 2, 2012, in an election fraud case from the 2008 Indiana Democratic primary.
As Hillary Clinton prepares for a possible presidential run in 2016, it appears that she could have knocked then-candidate Barack Obama off the 2008 primary ballot in Indiana.
[h=1]The New Yorker Slams Obama Administration With New Cover[/h] Jun. 17, 2013 9:30pm Jason Howerton
The latest cover of the New Yorker criticizes the Obama administration over its massive surveillance programs.
The illustrated cover shows a giant Uncle Sam looking into a woman’s bedroom window as she talks on the phone and uses her computer in bed. The all-seeing eye of Uncle Sam looks on, monitoring the woman’s actions.
Credit: The New Yorker
The artist who created the cover, Richard McGuire, reportedly told the New Yorker, “George Orwell’s ghost is shaking his head saying, ‘I told you so.’”
More details from the Huffington Post:
- 195
- 70
- 3
- 3
- 53
The latest cover of the New Yorker criticizes the Obama administration over its massive surveillance programs.
The illustrated cover shows a giant Uncle Sam looking into a woman’s bedroom window as she talks on the phone and uses her computer in bed. The all-seeing eye of Uncle Sam looks on, monitoring the woman’s actions.
Credit: The New YorkerThe artist who created the cover, Richard McGuire, reportedly told the New Yorker, “George Orwell’s ghost is shaking his head saying, ‘I told you so.’”
More details from the Huffington Post:
The image is a nod to new revelations about the NSA’s top-secret domestic surveillance programs, which the Guardian and the Washington Post broke to the public earlier this month. Citing classified information leaked by source Edward Snowden, the two bombshell stories revealed that the U.S. government has been monitoring the phone records of millions of Verizon customers, and mining the servers of Internet firms. Prior to that, the White House was already under fire for the DOJ’s secret investigations into the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen, as well as the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.
[ Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin's son "retarded" and look at the scum-fucks that come to Maher's side ]
[h=1]Whoopi, Walters Defend Bill Maher's Attacks on Palin's Special-Needs Son[/h]
Barbara Walters grew up with a special needs sister, yet she still rushed to Bill Maher's defense over the comic's use of the derogatory word "retarded" to describe Sarah Palin's special needs child, Trig.
[h=1]Whoopi, Walters Defend Bill Maher's Attacks on Palin's Special-Needs Son[/h]
Barbara Walters grew up with a special needs sister, yet she still rushed to Bill Maher's defense over the comic's use of the derogatory word "retarded" to describe Sarah Palin's special needs child, Trig.[ Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin's son "retarded" and look at the scum-fucks that come to Maher's side ]
Whoopi, Walters Defend Bill Maher's Attacks on Palin's Special-Needs Son
If you want to put a face on liberal women there you go. Palin's son has special needs and there is nothing funny about that. Maher needs attention and thinks he is special when he gets it.
[ Another Democrat crook... ]
LITTLE ROCK — A former state representative convicted of bribing voters with the help of his father and campaign workers was sentenced to three years' probation, including nine months of house arrest, Thursday afternoon in federal court.
Hudson Hallum will also be required to serve 100 hours of community service and pay a $20,000 fine. During his home confinement, he will be allowed to go only to work.
The scheme involved bribing voters to support Hallum in multiple special elections with cash, cheap vodka and chicken dinners.
Hallum; Hallum's father and campaign manager, Kent Hallum; and West Memphis City Councilman Phillip Wayne Carter all pleaded guilty to election-fraud charges in September.
Kent Hallum was also sentenced Thursday afternoon, receiving a similar sentence to his son. Judge Kristine G. Baker handed down a sentence of three years' probation and nine months of home confinement, plus 100 hours of community service. His fine was less than Hudson's, at $10,000.
Carter had been sentenced May 22 to three years of probation, with five months of home confinement. Sam Malone, a former West Memphis police officer who assisted in the bribes, pleaded guilty and was sentenced May 21 to three years' probation, plus 7.2 hours of community service.
Prosecutors said Hallum bribed voters and used absentee ballots to commit fraud in the 2011 election for his District 54 seat serving Crittenden County. Hallum resigned days after pleading guilty.
LITTLE ROCK — A former state representative convicted of bribing voters with the help of his father and campaign workers was sentenced to three years' probation, including nine months of house arrest, Thursday afternoon in federal court.
Hudson Hallum will also be required to serve 100 hours of community service and pay a $20,000 fine. During his home confinement, he will be allowed to go only to work.
The scheme involved bribing voters to support Hallum in multiple special elections with cash, cheap vodka and chicken dinners.
Hallum; Hallum's father and campaign manager, Kent Hallum; and West Memphis City Councilman Phillip Wayne Carter all pleaded guilty to election-fraud charges in September.
Kent Hallum was also sentenced Thursday afternoon, receiving a similar sentence to his son. Judge Kristine G. Baker handed down a sentence of three years' probation and nine months of home confinement, plus 100 hours of community service. His fine was less than Hudson's, at $10,000.
Carter had been sentenced May 22 to three years of probation, with five months of home confinement. Sam Malone, a former West Memphis police officer who assisted in the bribes, pleaded guilty and was sentenced May 21 to three years' probation, plus 7.2 hours of community service.
Prosecutors said Hallum bribed voters and used absentee ballots to commit fraud in the 2011 election for his District 54 seat serving Crittenden County. Hallum resigned days after pleading guilty.
[h=1]Bloomberg Presides Over Hot Dog Eating Contest[/h]
72
1
37
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Ben Shapiro 4 Jul 2013 81post a comment
[h=2]In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg presided on July 4 over the annual Coney Island Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, at which winner Joey Chestnut scarfed down 69 hot dogs. Sonya Thomas, known as the “Black Widow,” swallowed 37 hot dogs.[/h]Chestnut’s eating amounted to some 20,010 calories, 1,173 g of fat, 48,990 mg of sodium, and 759 g of protein in ten minutes, according to ESPN Sports Business Reporter Darren Rovell. Michael Bloomberg has attempted to curb New Yorkers’ appetites by limiting transfats and drink cup size within the city limits.
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).
Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip
by Ben Shapiro 4 Jul 2013 81post a comment
[h=2]In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg presided on July 4 over the annual Coney Island Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, at which winner Joey Chestnut scarfed down 69 hot dogs. Sonya Thomas, known as the “Black Widow,” swallowed 37 hot dogs.[/h]Chestnut’s eating amounted to some 20,010 calories, 1,173 g of fat, 48,990 mg of sodium, and 759 g of protein in ten minutes, according to ESPN Sports Business Reporter Darren Rovell. Michael Bloomberg has attempted to curb New Yorkers’ appetites by limiting transfats and drink cup size within the city limits.
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).
