Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (17650)	12/7/2002 2:20:13 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

My last security-related project involved PM for No Such Agency, I'm quite familiar with security issues. It's clear that reasonable secrecy makes sense, no one argues with that. The problem is unrestrained secrecy breeds contempt and criminality, as has been clear since the dawn of time. What everyone doesn't know is that there is effectively no oversight, so secrecy is, indeed, unrestrained. Never mind last week's HLD bill, that's how we got to last year's Patriot Act, and Ashcroft's actions. Peter Wright, ex-director of MI5 writes (in "Spycatcher") that American intel operatives are "ruthless and lawless" compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the world. The rule of law is the issue in my prior posts. Here's Michael Ruppert's take on that issue, from last year: Beyond The Law On November 9th, Attorney General Ashcroft announced that he was ordering the Justice Department to begin wiretapping and monitoring attorney-client communications in terrorist cases where the suspect was incarcerated. This was not even discussed in HR 3162. That same day Senator Patrick Leahy (D), Vermont wrote to Ashcroft. He had many questions to ask about what the Justice Department had been doing by violating the trust of Congress and assuming powers which were not authorized by either law or the Constitution. Leahy even quoted a Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Robel): "[T]his concept of "national defense" cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of... power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term ënational defense' is the notion that defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile." Leahy asked Ashcroft by what authority had he decided - on his own and without judicial review - to nullify the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. He asked for an explanation and some description of the procedural safeguards that Ashcroft would put in place. He asked Ashcroft to appear before the Judiciary committee and to respond in writing by November 13. His answer came a little late. On November 16, Patrick Leahy received an anthrax letter. And, as of this press time, Ashcroft has not responded in writing. fromthewilderness.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (17650)	12/7/2002 2:29:46 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

The bureau ... can classify and jail anybody, without publicly declaring a reason. Anybody? Even if they have not worked fro the Company? I doubt that. Combining the ability of agencies such as the CIA to classify anything without recourse, along with DOJ's new powers, and, voila, you can jail anyone, and worse, and keep all evidence secret, even from the suspect. All power now resides in the Executive, the other branches are irrelevent. More Ruppert: On October 26th - a date which will live in infamy - the President signed the USA/PATRIOT act, officially known as HR 3162. And you should well note that, according to Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas - as reported on November 9th by Kelly O'Meara of the Washington Times' Insight Magazine - the bill had not even been printed and members of the House could not read it before they were compelled to vote on it. O'Meara wrote, "Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new bill were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it." Most of its provisions have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Under this so-called anti-terrorist measure: Š Any federal law enforcement agency may enter your home or business when you are not there, collect evidence, not tell you about it, and then use that evidence to convict you of a crime; (This nullifies the 4th Amendment to the Constitution). And, says the ACLU, it doesn't even have to be a terrorism investigation, just a criminal investigation. [Section 213 - The Sneak and Peek provision]. Š Any federal law enforcement agency may, if they suspect that you are committing a crime, monitor all of you internet traffic and read your emails. They may also intercept all of your cell phone calls as well. No warrant is required. (This violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution) [Section 202 and 216] [See FTW on Carnivore, Vol. IV, No.2 - April 30, 2001]. Š The FBI or any other federal law enforcement agency may come to your business and seize any of your business records - if they claim it is connected with a terrorist investigation - and they can arrest you if you tell anyone that they were there. (this violates the First and the Fourth Amendments to the Constitution) [Title II, Section 501] Š The CIA can now operate inside the U.S. and spy on American citizens. And, as directed by AG Ashcroft on November 13, it is also permitted to share its intelligence files with local law enforcement agencies (and vice versa). The CIA has spied on Americans for decades, but the fruits of that spying have never been admissible in court. Now law enforcement will have the ability rewrite the intelligence as a probable cause statement, conduct an investigation and introduce it as evidence. [ed:if they decide they really don't like you, this so-called evidence can go to a secret tribunal] This, from material that was collected outside the rules of search and seizure. (There goes the Exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment). [Titles 2 & 9]. Š The foundation for an international secret political police agency is laid by allowing the CIA to receive wiretap information from any local agency and then share it with the intelligence services of any foreign country. [Section 203] ...Section 802 of HR 3162 defines domestic terrorism as "activities that - involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States:... and "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" or "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;"... Under this definition the blocking of a driveway at a federal building or defending yourself when attacked by good "Germans" at a protest march - while protesting these violations of the Constitution - could instantly make you a "domestic terrorist" and subject to some of the stiffest penalties ever enacted into law. Next, ... you say, "Look Ruppert, I read the Bill. There's a 'Sunset Clause' in it. All this stuff goes away after four years. It's just for the duration of the terrorist emergency." Not so. Under Section 224 (b) "With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect." In other words, if the government says that their desire to burglarize, or wiretap you or search your files is part of an investigation that started before December 31, 2005, there is no sunset clause. This could be for a "potential" offense. What is a potential offense? Something you thought about? Something you might have thought about? ... Upon reviewing HR 3162 Congressman Ron Paul (R Texas)said to reporter O'Meara, "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place... They revolted against much more mild oppression." fromthewilderness.com