Obama’s Parting Gift to You: A Ministry of Truth

January 04, 2017 chris




Before leaving office on Jan. 20, President Barack Obama and the Democrats stuck Americans with a combination Christmas and going-away present that effectively creates a Ministry of Truth to police what constitutes news in this country. Notably missing from this new measure is who, exactly, is going to be defining what is true and what is false.


By John Tiffany

There’s a saying that evil and the devil never sleep. Thus, while the American people were celebrating the Christmas season and paying little attention to politics, secure in the knowledge that Donald Trump had been elected, a lame-duck Congress and President Barack Obama made their move, passing and signing into law a bill that will create an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

The budget-busting $611 billion 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has hidden deep within its pages a proviso known by various euphemisms such as the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 (H.R. 5181) or the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692).

Long before the flap about so-called “fake news”—meaning anything (such as the truth) not conforming to the government/mainstream media narratives—was drummed up, the writers of this anti-First Amendment legislation were planning to task the secretary of state with coordinating with the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” whose ostensible purpose is to “develop and disseminate” what are claimed to be “fact-based narratives” to counter the pesky truthers who have the effrontery to point out anomalies and holes in the establishment narratives.

Notably unanswered is the question of who determines what is “fact” and how they determine this. For example, for President George W. Bush it was a “fact” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. In the end, it was clear to everyone the true facts were the opposite of the president’s “facts”—but by then the damage had been done.

The free speech-chilling rider was first introduced by Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and back in March by RINO Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Kinzinger is noted for saying he cannot support Donald Trump.

Portman complained: “Surprisingly, there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national-level development, integration, and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

On Dec. 8, the proviso was quietly inserted into the Senate version of the NDAA. Obama signed it into law in the evening of Dec. 23—practically on Christmas Eve.

The bill also creates a grant program to give away taxpayer dollars to “NGOs, think tanks, civil society [whatever that means] and other experts outside government who are engaged in counterpropaganda-related work.”

In what is effectively a return to the Cold War, Obama and these solons claim “foreign disinformation and manipulation” threaten the world’s “security and stability.”

This legislation “does not bode well for independent media and has massive potential to be abused for political purposes,” commented the news and commentary website “21stCenturyWire.com.”

Germany’s boss, Angela Merkel, joined with Obama in calling for more censorship and news control.

As part of the same drive, we have already seen Facebook partnering with government-sponsored “fact checking” sites and algorithms being put in place to remove dissident news from social media feeds. The new law chips away at freedom in America.

This latest outrage comes scant weeks after the Defense Department was found to have hidden a January 2015 report showing how $125 billion could have been saved over a five-year period without any civilian layoffs or any reduction in military strength—information the Pentagon and military-industrial-banking complex do not want leaked to the taxpayers.

Such “lamestream media” as The Washington Post have already indoctrinated and primed the public to believe that anyone deviating from the official narrative is providing “fake news” and “Russian propaganda,” so that now the government can legally crack down on any media that questions the official line.

WHAT THE NDAA IS ALL ABOUT

SEN. ROB PORTMAN ON FOREIGN PROPAGANDA:

“Our enemies are using foreign propaganda and disinformation against us and our allies, and so far the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel.

“. . . But, today, the United States has taken a critical step towards confronting the extensive and destabilizing foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us by our enemies overseas.” —SEN. ROB PORTMAN

[AMERICAN FREE PRESS translation: Too much truth is getting out about the misdeeds of the U.S. government and something has to be done.—Ed.]


PORTMAN ON THE PURPOSE OF THE NDAA:

The Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act has this as its main goal, according to a press release on Portman’s Senate website:

“The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering the foreign propaganda and disinformation being wages [sic] against us and our allies by our enemies. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China as well as non-state actors.

“The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations by our enemies and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.”

[AMERICAN FREE PRESS translation: The government will accelerate distribution of its official propaganda narrative through compliant media outlets while at the same time crushing “fake news” outlets until the nexus between government and media is 100% complete. At the same time, the U.S. will expand even further its own spying and disinformation operations.—Ed.]

John Tiffany is AFP’s copy editor and lives in West Virginia.



Source

Obama ‘Strongly Objects’ to Religious Liberty Amendment

Posted in Top Stories

Jun 12, 2013


By Todd Starnes

The Obama Administration “strongly objects” to a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday that would have protected the religious rights of soldiers – including evangelical Christian service members who are facing growing hostility towards their religion.

The amendment was authored by Rep. John Fleming, R-La. It would have “required the Armed Forces to accommodate ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member.”

The Obama Administration said the amendment would have a “significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.”
“With its statement, the White House is now endorsing military reprimands of members who keep a Bible on their desk or express a religious belief,” Fleming told Fox News. “This administration is aggressively hostile towards religious beliefs that it deems to be politically incorrect.”

Fleming introduced the amendment after a series of high-profile incidents involving attacks on religious liberty within the military- including an Air Force officer who was told to remove a Bible from his desk because it might give the impression he was endorsing a religion.

He said there are other reports of Christian service members and chaplains being punished for their faith.

• The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.
• A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
• A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.
• A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.

Last month Coast Guard Rear Admiral William Lee told a National Day of Prayer audience that religious liberty was being threatened by Pentagon lawyers and service members are being told to hide their faith in Christ.

“Leaders like myself are feeling the constraints of rules and regulations and guidance issued by lawyers that put us in a tighter and tighter box regarding our constitutional right to express our religious faith,” he said.

Fleming said the purpose of his amendment is to clarify ambiguities in the Pentagon’s policies.

“The bottom line is the military is bending over backwards to remove – even in the case of chaplains – expressions of faith and conscience,” Fleming said.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called the Obama Administration’s edict a “chilling suppression of religious freedom.”

“The Obama administration has joined forces with those who are attacking the religious freedoms of those who serve in our Armed Services,” Perkins said. “The Administration’s opposition to Rep. Fleming’s religious freedom amendment reveals that this administration has gone beyond accommodating the anti-Christian activists who want to remove any vestige of Christianity from the military, to aiding them by blocking this bipartisan measure.”

Source

.

The First Jesuit Pope

Mar 28 2013 | Charlie Adams |



The First Jesuit to be Elected Pope

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an Argentinan and is the first Jesuit to be elected Pope. He is the 266th bishop of Rome and leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics. He became Pope Francis, but the masses know little about the secretive Jesuit Order he has been a part of nearly all his life. Let us probe a little deeper into the Jesuit Order.

THE JESUIT ORDER

"Throughout Christendom, Protestantism was menaced by formidable foes. The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time, the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from every earthly tie and human interest, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy.

When appearing as members of their order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the sacred name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior the most criminal and deadly purposes were concealed. It was a fundamental principle of the order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination, were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of State, climbing up to be the counselors of kings, and shaping the policy of nations. They became servants, to act as spies upon their masters. They established colleges for the sons of princes and nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of popish rites. All the outward pomp and display of the Romish worship was brought to bear to confuse the mind, and dazzle and captivate the imagination; and thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. The Jesuits rapidly spread themselves over Europe, and wherever they went, there followed a revival of popery." EGW 

[Nancy Pelosi  Jill Biden & Joe Biden with Pope Francis I. President Barack Obama has announced that Vice President Joseph Biden will lead the US delegation to the Mass inaugurating Pope Francis’s Petrine ministry. Other members of the delegation are Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and President John DeGioia of Georgetown University.]

VATICAN SEEKING TO CONTROL AMERICA

The bill of rights has always been a hindrance to Vatican world domination and the dreaded planned world wide “Sunday Law”, that in essence gives homage to the Papacy, since Sunday keeping can’t be found anywhere in the Bible.

"Sunday is our ‘Mark of Authority’...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of the Sabbath observance is proof of the fact.” Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.

The Jesuits in recent years have made open avowed war on the United States Constitution: the Bill of Rights. But let’s take a look at this statement:

"Jesuit education would consist in the creation of “multiplying agents.”" -Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe S.J.

The mighty and widely ramified Order of St. Ignatius was powerful enough to procure by its interest fair greater advantages to individuals, than could any other Corporation, Fraternity or even secular power. “St. Ignatius was powerful enough to procure by its interest far greater advantages to individuals, than could any other Corporation, Fraternity or even secular power.” -Jesuit General Jean-Baptist Janssens

Which brings us to Jesuit groomed Barack Obama whose mentor Gregory Galluzo is a Jesuit Priest. Recent U.S Presidents have all been heavily influenced if not controlled by the Vatican. Note: this has been the status quo since the Reagan administration, which audaciously opened diplomatic relations with the Vatican on January 10 1984.

Reagan was sworn into office on Jan 20, 1981 on the WEST WING of the Capitol Building, all previous Presidents took their oath of office on the East side of the building. This was done so that Reagan would face the Washington Monument (obelisk) during his swearing in ceremony as President of the United States. Twenty years earlier Ex-Jesuit Priest Alberto Rivera informed the world that when the Jesuits had completely taken over ALL the American Christian Churches an American President would be sworn into office facing an obelisk as a sign.

As Jesuit General Jean-Baptist Janssens (black Pope) bragged that he can place men of Jesuit education into the position of influence he desires. We can examine the key positions of the men who were responsible for the greatest intelligence black out in history! Ever!!! Let’s have a perusal of this recent scientific poll conducted by Time/CBS:that claims a staggering 84% reject Official version of what happened on 9/11 [In a 2004 U.S. poll]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

Senate hearing, Senator Mark Dayton remarked that “this country and its citizens were completely undefended” for “109 minutes” on 9/11. Dayton went on to clarify that officials within the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had covered up the facts about the lack of air defenses by lying to the 9/11 Commission, to Congress and to the American people. And they were not held accountable.

Other intelligence agencies likewise suffered the same intelligence paralysis, the NSA (National Security Agency), CIA the Central Intelligence Agency. But the most unnerving fact is that the directors of these intelligence agencies are all Jesuit educated except Porter Goss whom belongs to another secret society, nevertheless Jesuit controlled by proxy. George Bush (whom many claim to be a secret catholic under the control of the Pope) even gave Jesuit Georgetown trained George Tenet 9/11 CIA director a medal for incompetence or treason. You be the judge.

Let us again re-examine this statement: "Jesuit education would consist in the creation of “multiplying agents.” -Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe S.J.

[George W Bush awarding George Tenet CIA Director (Jesuit Educated Georgetown University) Medal of Freedom after the biggest intelligence failure or treason in the history of America]

LIST OF JESUIT TRAINED CIA DIRECTORS

*George Tenet. CIA Director. [1997-2004] George Tenet was educated at Jesuit Georgetown University.

*Porter Goss. CIA Director. [2004-2005] Porter Goss attended Yale University and is member of Secret Society "Book & Snake" and a member of Psi Upsilon Fraternity.

*General Michael Hayden. CIA Director. [2006-2009] General Michael Hayden was educated at Jesuit Duquesne University. General Michael Hayden was also the Director of the NSA (National Security Agency) [1999-2005] and was involved in the warrantless wiretapping “scandal” of U.S Citizens.

*Leon Panetta. CIA Director. [2009-2011] Leon Panetta was educated at Jesuit Santa Clara University, later becoming Secretary of Defense.

*David Petraeus. CIA Director. [2010-2011] David Petraeus was educated at Jesuit University of Georgetown & Princeton University

*John O Brennan. CIA Director. 2013 – Incumbent. John O Brennan Jesuit Fordham University

*Michael Morell serves as director between transitions or elections of new CIA directors since July 2011 – present. Michael Morell was educated at Jesuit Georgetown University.

*General Michael Hayden. NSA Director (National Security agency). [1999- 2005] General Michael Hayden was Jesuit educated at Duquesne University.

*Keith B. Alexander. NSA Director & staunch Roman Catholic Keith B. Alexander assumed office in 2005 until present.

It’s no surprise the Jesuits groomed Obama for Presidency, with the most flowing oratory skills ever produced by a president, not to mention his color which makes the invasion of Eurasia and targeting Africa not such an “all white man affair”. Eurasia holds 72% of the world population and much of the worlds natural resources. Barrack Obama has appointed many Jesuit agents to many key positions in U.S Government. As a civil rights attorney and professor of constitutional law, one has to be puzzled as he takes to the United States constitution with a chainsaw. But if you know about the power who grooms him and backs him, you will find the motive and the method of Jesuit genius.

*Jon Favreau another educated Jesuit attending the College Holy Cross and is Obama’s speech writer.

*Obama’s senior military and policy advisor Major Scott Gration is another Jesuit instrument educated at Georgetown University.

*Daniel Pfeiffer Jesuit trained Georgetown University is Whitehouse Director of Communications [2009-2013]

*Donald Rumsfeld. United States Defense Secretary [2001-2006]. Jesuit Trained at Georgetown University.

*Robert Gates United States Defense Secretary of Defense [2206-2011] Educated at Jesuit Georgetown University.

*Leon Panetta Secretary of Defense. [2011-2013] Formerly a CIA Director.

*Chuck Hagel United States Secretary of Defense [2012-Incumbent]

“CHUCK HAGEL (R-Neb.), a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of National Governance at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service (SFS) since 2009, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as the 24th United States Secretary of Defense. “Georgetown’s loss would be America’s gain,” said SFS Dean Carol Lancaster. “Students and faculty at the School of Foreign Service have benefited tremendously from Sen. Hagel’s experience and insight. Georgetown continues its long history of hosting exceptional scholars and practitioners.”

[President Barack Obama receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame Jesuit University]


SIGNING THE NDAA ON NEW YEARS EVE

Let us now investigate the signing of the NDAA on New Years Eve 2011/2012 while every U.S citizens was distracted by celebrations.

The NDAA Indefinite detention without trial: Section 1021. The NDDA effectively revoked the democratic right “habeas corpus” which prevents arbitrary imprisonment of individuals by requiring that the government present evidence to a judge or court to justify taking an individual into custody. The provisions included in the 2012 NDAA allow U.S citizens suspected of terrorism to be indefinitely detained in military custody without charge or trial. The bill goes far beyond to the 9/11 attacks to anyone defined by the president as engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

Under the NDAA the President could imprison anyone even domestic opponents deemed enemies of the state voicing conflicting or objective views.

In other words the United States would ultimately be a fascist state using mostly Roman Catholic Jesuit controlled Supreme Court judges and their 2 crony Jewish judge colleagues to interpret the laws to suit the Vatican. Some of the torture techniques are a repetition of the “Catholic Spanish Inquisition torture techniques” that we now see at Guantanamo Bay.

Eventually the prisoner would crack under the pressure and anxiety of not knowing when they will be released or what they were even charged with, some would confess to heresy as a thought crime just to have sentence passed. Water boarding was another instrument of the inquisition. Now the Jesuit controlled CIA use the same torture.

Perhaps the Jesuit controlled CIA have taken a page out of the Spanish Inquisition history book?

The NDAA is an extension of the Patriot Act. Insidiously crafted by Jesuit Georgetown University educated Professor Viet Dihn.

AMENDMENTS UNDER JESUIT FIRE!

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

NSA (National Security Agency) Jesuit Trained General Hayden: Critics of the nomination and Hayden's attempts to increase domestic surveillance included Senator Dianne Feinstein who stated on May 11, 2006 that "I happen to believe we are on our way to a major constitutional confrontation on Fourth Amendment guarantees of unreasonable search and seizure." General Michael Hayden aim was to spy on American citizens.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT II [the right to keep and bear arms]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Michael Quigley Jesuit trained at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

In May 2011 representative Quigley sponsored an amendment to the “patriot act,” prohibiting the sale of weapons on the FBI terrorist watch-list. But to the amazement of citizens, the FBI released documents on December 27, 2012 listing the Occupy Wall ST protestors were domestic terrorists.

***If you research the past exploits of the Vatican and how it ruled the known world (Europe) you will see that Jesuit/Papal politics are fascist and totalitarianism in its purist form. In recent years the Catholic Church has publicly supported dictators like Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet. Benito Mussolini even gave The Vatican is fascism in it purist form. Pope Pius XII backed Hitler the Waffen-SS was modeled on the Jesuit Order.

***A series of treaties and concordats known as the Lateran Treaty facilitated by Benito Mussolini gave the Vatican its own state and very large sums of money to bankroll these religious mobsters back into business after Napoleon Bonaparte deposed the Pope and took him back to Paris in 1798.

Despite the Vatican’s many financial scandals (some still being investigated) Pope Benedict XVI has the nerve to call for a “New World Economic Order.”

The Vatican has been patient and subtle in its infiltration and takeover of the United States. The next step is the proposed “Sunday Law.” You may ask, what is wrong with a Sunday Law in a Christian country?

Sunday keeping is a child of the Papacy and is nowhere to found in the Bible. Here are some statements from the Papacy: “It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.” Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903.

"Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday; they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope." Our Sunday Visitor, February 5th, 1950.

March 2008-- One of the most alarming incidents involving the NSA (National Security Agency) was picking up attendees of a “Sunday Law Conference” held at a hotel. The meeting was so secret that most people met at different hotels as NSA agents collected them from a decoy Hotel then escorted the patrons to the correct venue. The planning of any “Sunday Law” directly violates the bill of rights.

AMENDMENT I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Rome changed God’s Holy day in 321 A.D. All the early churches in Galatia, Corinth and Thessalonica etc kept the Sabbath (Saturday). Rome changed God’s Holy day in 321 A.D. from the Sabbath to the venerable day of the Sun (Sunday) or Sun worship day.

Exodus 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. The above scripture was before the Jews came into existence through Abraham. The disciples taught all gentiles to observe the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath is not introduced as a new institution but as having been founded at creation. It is to be remembered and observed as the memorial of the Creator’s work. Pointing to God as the Maker of the heavens and the earth, it distinguishes the true God from all false gods. All who keep the seventh day signify by this act that they are worshipers of Jehovah. Thus the Sabbath is the sign of man’s allegiance to God as long as there are any upon the earth to serve Him. The fourth commandment is the only one of all the ten in which are found both the name and the title of the Lawgiver. It is the only one that shows by whose authority the law is given. Thus it contains the seal of God, affixed to His law as evidence of its authenticity and binding force.

God has given men six days wherein to labor, and He requires that their own work be done in the six working days. Acts of necessity and mercy are permitted on the Sabbath, the sick and suffering are at all times to be cared for; but unnecessary labor is to be strictly avoided. “Turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and ... honor Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure.” Isaiah 58:13. Nor does the prohibition end here. “Nor speaking thine own words,” says the prophet. Those who discuss business matters or lay plans on the Sabbath are regarded by God as though engaged in the actual transaction of business. To keep the Sabbath holy, we should not even allow our minds to dwell upon things of a worldly character. And the commandment includes all within our gates. The inmates of the house are to lay aside their worldly business during the sacred hours. All should unite to honor God by willing service upon His holy day.



[Current Superior Jesuit General Aldolfo Nicolas next to former Superior Jesuit General Peter Hans Kolvenbach]

.

House Votes To Legitimize More Government Computer Snooping

April 24, 2013 by Bob Livingston 

PHOTOS.COM

No amount of online spying is too much, said the criminal elected class in the House of Representatives, as it passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and (non)Protection Act (CISPA) yesterday over hollow veto threats by the Administration of President Barack Obama.

The bill will give the government access to online data — including financial data — from private computer networks. A proposal that would have prohibited the military from collecting data directly from industry was blocked from floor debates by Republicans. A compromise measure was passed that ensures companies must first go through the Department of Homeland Security before turning information over the military.

Privacy groups object to the bill because they said it would give the National Security Agency “a front-row seat in analyzing data from private computer networks.” The Associated Press reports that the bill doesn’t address NSA specifically, but “it’s presumed that the military intelligence agency would have a central role in the data-sharing because of its technical expertise in tracking foreign-based hackers.”

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who once lamented that the Internet had been created and longed to return to the days of pencil and paper, will take the lead in pushing CISPA through the Senate.

The proposal that puts DHS in charge of disseminating the information between corporations and the military was supposed to be comforting. But considering the DHS’s record regarding electronic privacy, it’s no comfort at all. Recall that for years DHS claimed the naked body scans taken by backscatter radiation emitters at airports were not stored, and the machines were not capable of storing images. Finally, after lawsuits filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center made their way through the courts, it was revealed that DHS did indeed store the images and that Transportation Security Administration agents used them for all sorts of nefarious purposes.

The Administration’s veto threats ring hollow because it has yet to find a liberty-reducing law it could oppose (see the National Defense Authorization Act). But we should be thankful, because our safety is of foremost concern among the criminal elected class.

Source

.

.

DoD Plans to Use Preemptive Deadly Force on Hackers, Cyber Threats

Saturday, March 9, 2013





Freda Art
Eric BlairActivist Post

A new report from the Department of Defense outlines the military's capability to deter cyber threats with some pretty heavy firepower, including nuclear weapons.

The paper written by the Defense Science Board described the best types of bombs to use on hackers to be "Global selective strike systems e.g. penetrating bomber, submarines with long range cruise missiles, Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS), survivable national and combatant command," while "Nuclear weapons would remain the ultimate response and anchor the deterrence ladder" for cyber threats.

"The report ... implies that the United States might have to rely on nuclear weapons to retaliate after a large-scale cyber attack," Foreign Policy writes.

Although it seems that Foreign Policy is reporting shocking revelations, they're actually engaged in subtle misinformation. They claim that this strike capability is only to be used in "retaliation" after a cyber attack as opposed to preemptive strikes to prevent cyber threats, which the military is already authorized to do.

For all the talk of the indefinite detention section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a little known provision gave President Obama the authority to "conduct offensive operations in cyberspace".


Here's what Section 954 of the 2011 NDAA says:

SEC. 954. MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE.
Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to—

(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and
(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).Prior to this NDAA provision, in July 2011, the Pentagon announced cyberspace to be their "operational domain" and claimed that the U.S. can "under the laws of armed conflict, respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time and place of our choosing," said Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn during the release of The Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.

This week we heard Rand Paul speak much about the "law of armed conflict" or "Martial Law" in his talking filibuster of John Brennan over drone strikes on American soil, which is a related concern since the NDAA also officially labeled theU.S. as part of the battlefield.

Paul reiterated that if Americans can be treated the same as an enemy under the law of armed conflict, there is no due process protection, as well as more flexible rules of engagement than those that restrict the police. Just ask the Guantanamo prisoners or Bradley Manning how due process works under the laws of war. Or ask the family of the 16-year-old American murdered by a targeted drone strike about the rules of engagement.

Therefore due process will not be needed to take offensive action against cyber threats under the laws of war. In other words, hackers everywhere may be facing a lethal force if they're suspected of engaging in cyber attacks against the U.S. or its allies and interests.

The report, however, urges US military leaders to develop "cyber escalation scenarios and red lines" that could prompt the use of force. Or simply put, when can they pull the trigger on a cyber threat. Of course, just as the legal justification for drone strikes has remained classified, surely, this will as well.

Here is a nifty illustration they provided to help us visualize how the threat levels are designed for hackers:

It's also important to note that the military has been authorized to conduct a cyberwar with "kinetic capabilities", meaning it can operate wherever the threat is in the world. A borderless war like the war on terror. This eliminates any need for the President to seek an individual declaration of cyber war against China in Congress even though nuclear weapons could potentially be involved.

Does anyone in Congress understand just how dangerous it is to authorize the use of preemptive deadly force against cyber threats without due process?

Source

.

.

Big Brother Wears Google Glasses

Photo (Courtesy: http://bestandroidlookout.blogspot.com/2012/11/google-glass-project-glass-from-google.html)

WEEKEND EDITION FEBRUARY 22-24, 2013

An Orwellian Looking Glass

by ALYSSA ROHRICHT


In 2014, for a mere $1,500, you can literally have Big Brother strapped to your retinas. It isn’t marketed that way, of course. Instead, Google Glass is marketed as making “augmented reality” a part of our every day lives. And while Google’s mantra may be “Don’t Be Evil” (though the company’s own morality is questionable at best), you can be assured that the government, the Secret Service, and corporations are chomping at the bit to get ahold of this veritable gold mine of information.

“Imagine your brain being augmented by Google,” Google CEO and co-founder Larry Page said in a 2004 interview. And that’s now something we no longer have to imagine. In a teaser-video for Google Glass, we’re shown the viewer flying an airplane, playing sports, ice sculpting, and playing with a dog, all the while the glasses display the time, the temperature, and incoming phone calls in the upper right view frame of the glasses-wearer. The glasses take instant photos, videos, and even display information from the internet, including translating text and an instant GPS feature.

It is hard not to make the connection between Google Glass and George Orwell‘s Big Brother lurking around every corner of the dystopian novel. In Orwell’s nightmarish future world, Big Brother – via telescreens that can never be turned off – can literally see into every space of the city. He is in your bed room, at work, on the street, and peering down every hallway. With Google Glass, Big Brother won’t need a telescreen and he won’t need to spy on citizens. Instead, citizens will do the spying for him. Google Glass will constantly be gathering real-time information about your every single movement. What you see, what you hear, where you go and how you get there, who you speak with and what about, what you eat, drink, purchase, what you research, what you read on the street and in books and even what you do in the privacy of your home.

Gold mine is an understatement. Advertisers and corporations have been data mining for years, and we already give them most of this information through what we type on search engines, the websites we visit, and even through our smart phones and GPS devices. And they’ve been using that information to target us with tailored advertisements expertly based on our patterns of interests ripped directly from that information. Google Glass doesn’t necessarily do anything new, but it is the ease with which we are offering up our data on a silver platter that is transforming the data mining world. We aren’t just inviting these companies – and furthermore, the government – to view our thoughts, patterns, and consumer habits when we access the web. Now we’re inviting them into our private lives even further and literally placing them at the forefront of everything we do by affixing them directly in front of our faces 24/7.

Obviously, I’m not the first to criticize this new gadget, nor am I the first to see the glaring connection to our impending Orwellian future. Mic Wright writes in The Kernel that “Project Glass is the telescreen made real, strapped directly onto your face, pumping adverts into your retina, encouraging you to perpetually jones for more information in a way that will make today’s Twitter addicts seem slothful and non-reactive.” And it is true. We are not only giving up our last semblances of privacy, we are also succumbing even further to our ever-growing need to be “tapped-in” to the interweb and the endless stream of useless information it offers us.

The ramifications of the ease of accessibility for government and security agencies is even more frightening, especially in the face of the recent Justice Department “white paper” obtained by NBC earlier this month detailing the legal justifications that the Obama Administration has claimed for the targeting and killing of American citizens without trial. The paper was written in an attempt to legitimize the 2011 drone killings of three U.S. citizens in Yemen, including Samir Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki, and later Abdulrahman, al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son. The paper argues that the targeted killings of U.S. citizens are justified and legal under U.S. law if a threat is “imminent” (though for a specific attack to be imminent does not mean that it must currently be under way at the time), a high-level official has provided evidence that the person in question may be a threat, and if capture is difficult. The incredibly vague memo leaves much room for interpretation, and of course, this is intentional. When questioned about the right to due process under the Constitution, General Eric Holder responded in March of 2012 saying,


“Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Basically, if the Executive Branch says you’re guilty, that’s all the due process you need. Never mind a court, a trial by jury, or the notion that you’re innocent until proven guilty. The word of our government should be all that we require for any legal justifications.

The prospects for the information that Google Glass can provide to our government, which now reserves the right to detain us without charge (under the National Defense Authorization Act) and even immediately and covertly put an order out for our deaths, are terrifying, to say the least.


“In the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end.”

This dire prophecy is from Orwell’s 1984 and never before has this statement rang so true as today. As Wright wrote in his piece, in a way, Google Glasses are something “grimly inevitable.” It is not surprising that technology and access to the web has finally made the push not just to the tips of our fingertips but literally to right before our eyes at every moment. Not surprising, but worthy of resistance nonetheless. Wright notes,


“What will be lost with the proliferation of Google glasses, and what will be gained? Project Glass will not materially improve our lives. It will improve Google’s databases and make it easier to sell, sell, sell us more products and services. Ultimately, whatever the utopian rhetoric of Google’s cash-rich, sense-light engineering team, Project Glass will make you the easiest piece of meat to market to in history”

“BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU,” Orwell wrote in 1984. For years, we’ve carried Big Brother around in our pockets, willingly giving up our information on the web and through our phones. Now, as those in the tech world clamor to be one of the lucky “bold, creative individuals” to get to try out Google Glass for free and before the wide-release, we will lose our last vestiges of privacy. Facecrime is no longer just a term in a book to describe an illegal act given away by a facial expression. Now, it has become our reality – our “augmented” reality.

Alyssa Rohricht maintains Crash Culture and can be reached at aprohricht@msn.com.

Source

.

Congress Moves Forward On Bill Without Protection From NDAA, Indefinite Detention Of Americans

Published On: Wed, Dec 19th, 2012

By Brandon Jones




Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.



The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both chambers worked out a unified measure.

“I was saddened and disappointed that we could not take a step forward to ensure at the very least American citizens and legal residents could not be held in detention without charge or trial,” Feinstein said. “To me that was a no-brainer.”

It declared that “An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”

The provision sparked a heated debate in the Senate, but ultimately passed by a wide majority with both supporters and opponents of U.S. terrorist detention practices voting for it, citing differing interpretations.

Feinstein offered the amendment to clarify a part of the 2012 NDAA that for the first time codified the ability of the military and White House to detain terrorism suspects.

The White House had threatened to veto both the House and Senate versions over numerous other provisions included in the legislation. Among them were restrictions on the executive’s ability to transfer prisoners from the prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday he hoped the changes to the 2013 measure would be sufficient to win Obama’s signature.

“You’ll have to ask them, but again, I can’t predict what they will do. I think we made some significant changes, we worked very closely with Sec. Panetta and the Pentagon. It wasn’t as if we were doing all these things on our own,” McCain said.

Liberty minded groups, like the Tenth Amendment Center, continued to call for State nullification.

“A liberty minded governor and legislature would move immediately to nullify this in their State. The AG would be directed to instruct all State LEO to arrest any federal agent attempting to implement kidnapping. Sheriffs should also inform all federal agencies NDAA is illegal and perpetrators subject to arrest. Any federal operations in our Counties are subject to Sheriff approval or they must cease. That’s how it should be done,” Andrew Nappi of Florida’s Tenth Amendment said in a Facebook post Wednesday morning.

Source

.

Sexual privacy under threat in a surveillance society

By Naomi Wolf, Special to CNN
updated 11:04 AM EST, Tue November 20, 2012

Gen. David Petraeus, 60, resigned Friday, November 9, as head of the CIA and admitted having an affair. His mistress was later identified as his biographer, Paula Broadwell. The retired four-star general formerly oversaw coalition forces in Iraq as well as U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. He and his wife, Holly, have been married 38 years and have two grown children.


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Naomi Wolf: We live in an increasingly intrusive surveillance society
Wolf says for her, Petraeus story is about terrifying power of Patriot and Espionage acts
She says loss of sexual privacy would be destructive to the human condition
Wolf: We should not rush to judge marriages and those who commit infidelity

Editor's note: Naomi Wolf is the author of "Vagina: A New Biography."

Naomi Wolf

(CNN) -- Once again we see the scenario unfold: A powerful man, with tremendous responsibilities, apparently "caught" in a compromising sexual situation with a woman who is not his wife.

There is the now-familiar ritual of the threats of embarrassing revelations of intimate conversations, the hunted-down "other woman" who either decides to tell more or not, the nationwide harrumphing and moralizing, and the schadenfreude-stoking musings over the humiliations of the loyal wife. And of course, there is the spectacle of another career -- in David Petraeus' case, one that distinguished him in his service to our country -- in tatters.

But while the media tell a familiar narrative of misjudgment and temptation, to me this story is about the terrifying power of the Patriot Act, married to the terrifying power of the resurrected Espionage Act -- and combined with a lethal admixture of our nation's Puritanism, prurience about and ignorance regarding sexuality.

What happened to Petraeus -- and the recent slew of other powerful men or men threatening to some power blocs, from Eliot Spitzer to Bill Clinton? They were surveilled by political elites in an increasingly intrusive surveillance society, and exposed.

We should understand that the surveillance that keeps tripping up these powerful men is not something about which only heads of state, whistle-blower publishers or generals have to worry. It also includes others in which the allegations of what initiated their downfall are more complex and serious, such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Julian Assange.

Because of the Patriot Act, any of us, if we annoy or threaten powerful interests, can have our e-mails read without our knowledge. Any of us can be subject to a search that could lead from one e-mail correspondent to another until the National Security Agency or the FBI, which have both confirmed that they have invested heavily in domestic surveillance of social networks, find something -- anything -- that could be seen as compromising.

At that point, any of us can be subjected to terrible pressure -- even legal threats -- if what is uncovered can be in any way described as "classified information."

When affairs ruin careers

Petraeus affair overshadows Benghazi

Media's Petraeus frenzy

We live at a time in which our government is vastly over-classifying subjects in the name of public interest or that might embarrass the state. Heaven forbid if anyone provides "material support" for the enemy, which is so vague a term that President Barack Obama's own lawyers confirmed to Judge Katherine Forrest, in my presence during the New York hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act this past spring, that it can be used to include basic journalism about, for instance, the Taliban, or other information the government simply does not wish exposed.

Any of us can be threatened with possessing classified information. This is why Bradley Manning has spent months in solitary confinement in prison.

We can be threatened with the Espionage Act. This is why Assange is hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If Assange were convicted of receiving classified information, and extradited under the Espionage Act, he could theoretically be shipped to Guantanamo -- for which some congressional voices have called. But that precedent casts a shadow over everyone who might have ever heard about or discussed classified information -- something that is routine in Washington.

There are still many unknowns to the Petraeus story. Maybe it really is just about the CIA and the FBI being very, very worried about Petraeus sleeping with his biographer. But we don't need to buy into this theater. If there is a national security breach -- which would be a real issue if one took place -- that can be investigated and addressed without spectacle or bullying.

Opinion: Blame affairs on evolution of sex roles

In working with these two appalling laws, we need to understand what loss of privacy means: Any of us can be brought down, intimidated, silenced, threatened, by exposure of our personal lives, for any reason.

We all have secrets we do not wish made public. Any of us can be threatened with exposure of infidelity, or sex addiction, or flirtatious communications, or addiction to embarrassing pornographic images, or alcoholism or bipolar disorder, or even our discussions with our doctors, psychiatrists or accountants -- about our most personal information.

It is hard to imagine fully what the loss of sexual privacy means to private life -- and to the human condition.

In the film "The Lives of Others," set in East Germany before the Berlin Wall came down, the state listened in on lovers doing what lovers do: quarrelling, engaging in highly intimate acts of desire and passion, and sometimes, yes, betraying their spouses. But what is clear from the depiction is that whatever private pain such betrayal as infidelity causes, the general pain and the deadening quality for everyone, of living in a society in which there is no privacy -- and no sexual privacy -- is far, far more destructive and more distorting of the human condition.

Sexual privacy is absolutely necessary for human beings to have basic dignity, and that includes the space to make mistakes or do things one may regret. A third of couples, husbands and wives, report that they have committed infidelity. What if all of those marriages were subject to surveillance and exposure?

What if the power regarding who tells you that your spouse has betrayed you, becomes not a private struggle in private life, but a matter for the state to decide? And how many people in marriages that might have survived an infidelity, might have their lives and relationships further shattered by the state, as it can do now, from knowing the details of every single e-mail or credit card record or gift?

Finally, add to this toxic mess American Puritanism and prurience. It is easy to look at what seems to be a man, a mistress and a furious wife, and to assume that one knows all about what has gone on.

But often such situations are complex. Women commit adultery as often as men do, though the media are full of stories asking: Why do men cheat? Indeed, women initiate divorce more often than men do. Female unhappiness in intimate relationships is rife in America, because of some basic misunderstandings of female desire that I have detailed in my new book.

It is not our place to judge and condemn, or to cast the first stone. A new understanding of the dangers of the Patriot and Espionage acts should show us why it is more important than ever for couples to be permitted to experience the pain and betrayal of a possible infidelity in private, without the power of the state breathing down the necks of all involved.

Of course, there is no way ever to justify an infidelity -- betrayal is always wrong. One cannot know from the outside what kind of sexual or emotional loneliness may have been part of any given marriage, what kinds of demons any one of us might struggle with.

Understanding the toxic sexual culture in which American marriages try to thrive should lead us, at least, to see such breakdowns without snap judgments. And understanding the role of a surveillance society in the state's choosing which adulterers to go after should give us pause about joining into to any theatrics of public condemnation.

Unless there was a serious state security issue in relation to this infidelity, what happened between Petraeus and Paula Broadwell should be, personally speaking, the equivalent of classified information: in other words, absolutely none of our business.

Source

.

JUDGE STRIKES DOWN INDEFINITE DETENTION, OBAMA APPEALS

SEPTEMBER 25, 2012   AFP

By Pete Papaherakles

On September 12, civil liberties advocates sighed in relief as U.S. Judge Katherine Forrest permanently struck down indefinite detention provisions of the notorious National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This blatant violation of Americans’ constitutional liberties is law no more, although an appeal is still possible.

Judge Forrest ruled that the law was unconstitutional. “First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away,” the judge wrote. “This court rejects the government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.”

According to an article in RT, “Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through. At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.”

Section 1021 of the NDAA, which contained the controversial provisions, would have allowed for indefinitely detaining U.S citizens without the right of habeas corpus. This right is so fundamental to the Constitution that it was one of the main causes for the American War of Independence. Habeas corpus, which translates as “you shall have the body,” states that an accused person must be physically brought before a judge with a statement demonstrating sufficient cause for arrest.

The Continental Congress held King George III accountable for his failure to enforce this basic human right. Yet in 2012 our own government saw fit to deprive its own citizens of this same right in the name of fighting terrorism. By redefining what a terrorist is, theDepartment of Homeland Security would have potentially been able to indefinitely detain any American without formally charging him of a specific crime.

The NDAA had been challenged earlier this year by journalists, scholars and political activists including Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg and Naomi Wolf. A temporary injunction had already been placed on the provision by Judge Forrest in May. Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winner and former New York Times war correspondent, led the challenge with a lawsuit against the bill in January. The plaintiffs testified in court that they had no assurance that their writing and advocacy activities could not be deemed “terrorism.”

The provision subjected to indefinite detention anyone who “substantially” or “directly” provided “support” to terrorists. Judge Forrest questioned how “substantial support” can be determined. “That’s no small question” she said. “It’s a question about defining an individual’s core liberties.”

She questioned the criteria and the methods the government would use to determine if an article or video posted to the Internet “substantially supported” the terrorists or even how to distinguish between “modest” and “substantial” support.

“In short, the court can find no authority in domestic law or the law of war, nor can the government point to any, to justify the concept of ‘support’ as a valid ground for detention” she said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyer Bruce Afran called the ruling “historic” and said it was rare in the last half century that a judge would declare a federal statute unconstitutional for directly intruding on speech.

——
Peter Papaherakles, a U.S. citizen since 1986, was born in Greece. He is AFP’s outreach director. If you would like to see AFP speakers at your rally, contact Pete at 202-544-5977.

Source

President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?

1/02/2012 @ 11:56AM

President Obama signs the National DefenseAuthorization Act after months of debate.

One thing I love about writing on technology is that it’s a subject always filled with hope and optimism. For every frightening use of technology by oppressive governments there’s a corresponding story about the use of that same technology to overcome oppression.

For every story of police abuse I’ve read, there’s another story about corruption and violence exposed by something as simple as a camera phone.

But can technology help us overcome truly pernicious legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act recently signed by the president?

The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.

There is some controversy on this point, in part because the law as written is entirely too vague. But whether or not the law will be used to indefinitely detain US citizens domestically, it is written to allow the detention of US citizens abroad as well as foreigners without trial.

“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s
arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

The NDAA Makes the Status Quo Worse

Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that the law gives the government truly frightening powers. He notes that section 1022 exempts US citizens from the requirement of military detention but still leaves the option open to the state.

“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional.

This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”

“The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo,” he continues. “That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for
those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.”

In part the National Defense Authorization Act helps to preserve the status quo established a decade ago with the original provisions in the PATRIOT Act giving the government broad new powers in the so-called War on Terror. In part the bill expands those powers, codifying the use of indefinite detention of foreign nationals and possibly US citizens arrested abroad and at home. In part the bill expands the use of the US military on domestic soil, at once complicating anti-terrorism strategies at home and raising serious questions about the role of the military in law
enforcement.All these things should make Americans – and not just Americans – very nervous about the preservation of their civil liberties. That precarious balance between security and liberty is looking ever more tilted toward the former and away from the latter.

The History of Anti-Terrorism is Bad News for Civil Liberties

Just as troubling, these laws suggest that the legal apparatus available to us is insufficient to the task. While due process may work for any other criminal act, terrorism is unique and requires new and expanded powers that ignore the Constitution. These powers are necessary until “hostilities end” – as though terror itself can ever be extinguished.

In the 1970′s the British government began passing a series of anti-terrorism laws that did many of the same things the US government has done since 9/11. At the time, detention without charge was expanded to seven days. Various other powers of arrest and detention were written into law, and these provisions were expanded gradually through the 1980′s as the British government continued to wage its war against the Irish Republican Army.

Far from wiping these laws from the books when the IRA disarmed, many of these laws were simply reinforced by the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act and the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The problem with fighting a war on terror is that it’s in many ways a war on ideas. The IRA may have disbanded, but that didn’t stop terror from taking a new shape in the form of Al-Qaeda. Britain’s struggle against Irish dissidents may have been a good excuse for earlier anti-terror legislation, but Islamic radicalism is just as potent a threat.

You Can’t Wage a War on an Idea

In the United States the Cold War had barely ended before the threat of terrorism replaced it and, in some ways, became an even more urgent reason to expand government power at the expense of privacy and civil liberties. Unlike the Cold War, Americans have actually died in the War on Terror. Also unlike the Cold War, the enemy we face is not embodied in another country or people, but rather in a form.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a state. It is used to create overreaction in its targets. The initial reaction by the US government to the 9/11 attacks was understandable but wrong-headed. Over a decade after that national tragedy, the government is still overreacting. Each time we allow our fear to undermine our freedom we concede to the very terrorists we hope to defeat.

“The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders in a statement. “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.
While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans.”

Technology, Social Media, and Grassroots Activism Online Can Help Combat Bad Legislation

Support for the National Defense Authorization Act is decidedly bipartisan.
Opponents like Senator Sanders (an independent who describes himself as a socialist) and Rand Paul (a Republican and a libertarian) also come from both sides of the aisle.
The same people tend to be opponents of other civil-liberty-quashing bills like the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, two bills being debated in congress which would give the government and the industry sponsors of the bills broad new powers over the internet and freedom of speech online.

To me, this underscores the need to look beyond politics as usual.
Technology is changing the way institutions, governments, and individuals interact. The symmetry of power is shifting and governments and non-state actors alike are scrambling to keep up. Sometimes this creates real security threats.
Hacking outfits like Anonymous present a real challenge to governments and corporations. At times these groups may act honorably, attempting to expose corruption. At times they may act without such noble intentions. Either way there is no denying that security is an issue going forward and that the overreaction of governments to a myriad security risks poses its own set of problems and challenges.

I’ve writtenin the past that people concerned with civil liberties should begin to walk away from the old left-right dichotomy entirely and focus on electing civil libertarians to congress whether these are members of the left like Russ Feingold or of the right like Rand Paul. Of course, both Paul and Feingold will fall short of the ideal civil libertarian when it comes down to it, but both are a far cry better than 90% of their colleagues.

We have few options available to us at this point. The NDAA may be challenged in the courts, and this will almost certainly happen if the president (or a future president) actually makes use of the powers related to US citizens. Even then, however, the courts could come down on either side. The Supreme Court is not exactly filled to the brim with civil libertarians.

Until that time, however, we can try to abandon politics-as-usual and focus on electing oliticians who care more about curtailing government excess than expanding government power endlessly in our never-ending War on Terror. And we can use technology, social media, and other tools at our disposal to act outside of politics altogether to work to create alternate institutions and
communities.

Look at what Reddit has done with its boycott of GoDaddy.com – now the online community is planning to unseat a congressman (or two or three) over the SOPA/PIPA legislation. The power of online activism is only just emerging. Technology may only be a tool, but I think we’ll discover that it’s a powerful one.

Source

The National Defense Authorization Act Explained:

December 21, 2011

Joanne Mariner

Part One in a Two-Part Series of Columns on the Act

©iStockphoto.com/SKLA

Passed by the House and Senate last week, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) now awaits the president’s signature. Because of its controversial provisions on indefinite detention, President Obama had threatened to veto the bill back in May, when the House passed one version of it, and again in November, when the Senate passed another, somewhat different version of it.

But last week, after the House and Senate reconciled their two versions of the bill, the president lifted his veto threat. His press secretary explained in a written statement that the revised bill was considered acceptable because problematic provisions had been removed, and because “the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law.”

Numerous human rights advocates, civil libertarians, and members of Congress disagree. Human Rights Watch said that President Obama’s decision not to veto the bill “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad.” The ACLU said, “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.” Representative Jerrold Nadler, who voted against the bill, said that it presents a “momentous challenge to one of the founding principles of the United States—that no person may be deprived of his liberty without due process of law.”

The bill’s congressional supporters reacted with outrage to such criticism, calling it false and misleading. “Rarely in my time have I seen legislation so consistently misunderstood and misrepresented as these detainee provisions,” complained Senator John McCain, one of the bill’s main drafters.

So what do the detention provisions of the NDAA actually say, and who, in particular, do they affect?

Background to the NDAA
To fully understand the NDAA’s provisions on detention, a brief review of recent history is needed.
During the Bush years, despite massive public and press attention to the administration’s detention policies, Congress remained largely out of the picture. While the USA PATRIOT Act contained some provisions on detention, they were never put to use; the Bush administration preferred to create a detention system that was, it assumed, largely free of legal constraints and judicial oversight.

The military prison at Guantanamo and the CIA’s secret prison system were therefore created by executive fiat, without congressional input or restriction. When cases challenging Guantanamo and the military detention of US citizens on US soil got to court, however, the administration claimed that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a joint resolution passed by Congress in September 2001, gave congressional approval for those detentions.

The AUMF, which authorizes the president to use “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11 attacks, or who harbored such persons or groups, is silent on the issue of detention. A plurality of the US Supreme Court agreed with the administration, nonetheless, that the power to detain is necessarily implied by the power to use military force.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the 2004 ruling that upheld the US government’s detention power, left many questions unanswered. Because it involved a prisoner who was captured during the armed conflict in Afghanistan, it did not raise the Bush administration’s broad claims of a “global war on terror,” in which terrorism suspects far from any battlefield were treated like enemy soldiers. It did not even give much guidance regarding the scope of the armed conflict, geographic or temporal, although it included, in dicta, a skeptical reference to the administration’s broadest claims.

Congress maintained its hands-off approach to detention during the entirety of President Bush’s two terms in office, even as it legislated on closely related issues like minimum standards of humane treatment and the rules for military commission proceedings. When Obama took office in January 2009, however, Congress’s attitude changed. Many members of Congress reacted negatively to Obama’s stated goal of closing Guantanamo, and, since that time, Congress has imposed various ever tighter restrictions on the release and transfer of detainees.

One last historical fact that is important to remember, when considering the scope of the NDAA, is that the Bush administration held two American citizens in indefinite military detention, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. While Hamdi was picked up as a combatant in Afghanistan in 2002, Padilla was arrested in a civilian setting in Chicago that same year. The Padilla case was never definitively adjudicated—Padilla was finally moved to the civilian justice system in 2006 — but it underscores the Bush administration’s claim of power to hold even American citizens picked up in the United States indefinitely without trial.

Subtitle D of the NDAA
What is now known as Subtitle D of the NDAA—the section on detention—made its first appearance in March of this year. Called the Detainee Security Act in the House, and the Military Detainee Procedures Improvement Act in the Senate, the bills, introduced by Representative Buck McKeon and Senator John McCain, respectively, were meant to shift counterterrorism responsibilities from law enforcement to the military. The clear goal of the two bills was to require that suspected terrorists either be tried before military commissions or be held in indefinite detention without charge.

By May, the House version of the bill had been added to the NDAA, a $662 billion spending bill that finances the military’s annual operations. It passed by a vote of 322-96, even as President Obama issued a veto threat, complaining that the bill improperly limited the government’s ability to fight terrorism effectively.

The Senate version of the bill, which also became part of the NDAA, passed in November on an overwhelming 93-7 vote. Prior to the Senate’s passage of the bill, nearly every government official with responsibility over counterterrorism, from FBI head Robert Mueller to CIA director David Petraeus, had voiced concerns that the bill would have a negative impact on US counterterrorism efforts.

President Obama again issued a veto threat after the Senate vote, but as soon as the bill was modified slightly during the process of reconciling its House and Senate versions, the threat was dropped. The final version of the bill passed both houses of Congress last week with large majorities.

Substance and Procedure in the NDAA
Subtitle D of the NDAA consists of twelve sections, covering issues that range from the military’s power over detention to technical amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2009. Overall, the thrust of its provisions is to create a presumption of military jurisdiction over terrorism suspects, expand post-hoc congressional scrutiny of decisions over the detention and prosecution of such suspects, and effectively prevent Guantanamo from being closed.

Rather than establishing categorical rules to achieve these ends, however, the bill mostly relies on an array of procedural techniques like reporting, briefing and certification requirements. The substantive rules that it does establish are, in large part, qualified by waiver options and other potential loopholes.
Nonetheless, nearly every provision in subtitle D is objectionable from the standpoint of human rights and civil liberties. Among the controversial provisions are sections 1026, 1027 and 1028 of the bill, which restrict detainee transfers and releases from Guantanamo. But while human rights organizations are worried about these limitations, their gravest concerns pertain to sections 1021 and 1022.

Sections 1021 and 1022
It is sections 1021 and 1022 that human rights organizations have in mind when they say that the NDAA enshrines indefinite detention without charge into US law.

Section 1021 purports to “affirm” the military’s authority to hold people in indefinite detention without charge pursuant to the AUMF. Although the original House version of the bill would have stated explicitly that the US continues to be in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups, the final version of the bill is somewhat more circumspect.

Section 1022 takes a subset of the persons possibly subject to military detention under section 1021—focusing essentially on persons with a stronger connection to terrorism—and creates a presumption that they will be held in military detention.

The bad news is that, as passed, sections 1021 and 1022 represent clear congressional approval of what, up to now, has been solely the executive branch’s decision to hold people in indefinite detention without charge. (Remember that the AUMF itself was silent on detention questions.) Giving the practice a firm and explicit statutory grounding not only makes it less vulnerable to legal challenge, it may well make the practice more permanent.

The good news, to the extent there is any, is that neither section 1021 nor section 1022 defines the “war” or the “hostilities” at issue. They do not, in other words, explicitly embrace the “global war on terror” paradigm that equates terrorism with armed conflict and suspected terrorists with enemy soldiers. By failing to address that question, they leave open the theoretical (if unlikely) possibility that a court could give the statute a narrow reading consistent with international law understandings of armed conflict.

Yet even this qualified success should be further qualified. First, some of the people explicitly covered by section 1021—who, for example, harbored persons responsible for the September 11 attacks—might have no meaningful link to armed conflict. More importantly, the focus of section 1022 is clearly terrorism, not armed conflict: it covers Al Qaeda members and members of groups that act in coordination with or under the direction of Al Qaeda. Although the people subject to presumptive military detention under section 1022 are supposed to be a subset of the larger group of people covered by section 1021, which includes a requirement of a nexus to armed conflict under its subsection (b)(2), the thrust of the provision is still to equate armed conflict with terrorism.

Finally, it should also be noted that the set of “covered persons” subject to possible military detention, as defined in section 1021(b) of the NDAA, is far broader than the set of persons mentioned in the AUMF. While section 1021(b)(1) relies on the wording of the AUMF, section 1021(b)(2), which defines an additional category of potential detainees, is based on the Obama administration’s definition of “unprivileged enemy belligerent” (which, itself, is just a slight tweaking of the Bush administration’s definition of “unlawful enemy combatant”).

This provision covers not only persons who are members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces (all broad and possibly inchoate categories in themselves), but also persons who “substantially supported” those groups. The concept of “substantial support” is potentially quite broad (what kind of support is covered, and might opinion or expression count?). Also, support is an extremely controversial basis for law of war detention, even in traditional wars, and the issue has sparked enormous litigation at Guantanamo.

The Indefinite Detention of American Citizens
In my next column, I will address the most vexed and contested question about the scope of the NDAA’s detention provisions: the extent to which they authorize the detention of American citizens, including citizens picked up in the United States.

For the moment, I’ll just note some recent remarks of one of the NDAA’s key drafters. In applauding the bill’s passage last week, Senator McCain spoke of its “strong, unambiguous language that recognizes that the war on terror extends to us at home.”

Joanne Mariner, a Justia columnist, is the director of Hunter College's Human Rights Program. She is an expert on human rights, counterterrorism, and international humanitarian law.

 

 

Source