thenatureofmind

Fighting the Militarized State

The Barack Obama administration, determined to thwart the attempt by other plaintiffs and myself to have the courts void a law that permits the military to arrest U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and indefinitely detain them, has filed a detailed brief with the Supreme Court asking the justices to refuse to accept our petition to hear our appeal. We will respond within 10 days.

Fighting the Militarized State | NationofChange.

Fmr CIA Agent Ray McGovern Sues State Dept For Putting Him On Watch List After Peaceful Protest

Why the NSA's Actions Are Unconstitutional

In the news articles and the conversations around Edward Snowden's revelations about the actions of the NSA, there seems to be little understanding of exactly why these actions are illegal and unconstitutional. The adninistration and the NSA claim that they are not searching the data, they are just collecting it. This in itself constitutes an illegal and unconstitutional action. I will explain.

First we should look at the actual wording of the 4th amendment of the constitution, part of what is called "The Bill of Rights":

"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."

Of particular importance here is the wording: "persons, houses, papers, and effects". The constitutionality hinges on the word effects. The history of this particular amendment goes back to English case law, to a case where a lord granted a general warrant to search the house of an author who was higly critical of the government and of the crown. They seized everything he had written. He challenged the warrant before the British court and they struck down the warrant and demanded that the government return his "effects". This established that the law not only protected a person's dwelling, but established that a person had a right to expect that his effects were private and that the government did not have the right to invade that privacy without showing cause before a designated officer of the court, It also established that warrants had to specify exactly what was to be searched for and seized.

The US government's position, that they are allowed to collect the private data of everyone constitutes a "seizure" of the private data (effects) of citizens who have right under the law to expect that that data is private, constitutes a "seizure" under the law. The position of the government that they are not "searching" that data without a FISA court order constitutes a complete and intentional failure to understand the law. In 1967 in the case before the supreme court of Katz vs. the United States, Katz was conviceted based on a conversation he had in a pay phone that had an FBI listening device attached to the glass of the phone booth. The listening device was placed there without a warrant. The court overturned his conviction and reasoned as follows: 

1) Katz, by entering the booth and shutting the door behind him, had exhibited his expectation that "the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world", and 2) society believes that his expectation was reasonable. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the majority opinion that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places". Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy thus provided the basis to rule that the government's intrusion, though electronic rather than physical, was a search covered by the Fourth Amendment and thus necessitated a warrant. The Court said that it was not recognizing any general right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment, and that this wiretap could have been authorized if proper procedures had been followed.

So clearly according to the court because the 4th amendment protects "people not places" it has stated that phone conversations, private messages all constitute a person's "effects" and that a person has the right to expect that his privacy will not be violated by the government. The notion that because we develop new ways to communicate using new technology are not protected is clearly and unequivocally dealt with in Katz vs. the United States. The government always reserves to itself the mechanism whereby it can violate this privacy when the interests of maintaining law and order require it to do so and the mechanisms whereby this is accomplished is also spelled out in the law. In the case of the NSA's bulk seizure of citizens' private data, this constitutes seizure without a warrant and any court that would issue such a broad General Warrant which does not spell out either the target or the coontent to be siezed would be in violation of the 4th amendment. There is no provision under the law for such a general warrant to size the effects of citizens who are not the target of any criminal investigations. 

Lastly, one of the reasons that this amentment came into being was that although British law limited the use of General Warants, in the colonies there was no provision under the laws governing them to prevent this type of warrant being used. As a consequence of the highly restrictive tax laws imposed on the colonies by the East India Company, searches and seizures became an epidemic. The colonists were up in arms about this and it was one of the things that helped drive the colonies to revolt against the British government. We have come full circle and now are being subjected to extreme violations of our right to privacy by the government. The NSA bulk collection of our private data is unconstitutional and highly illegal.

Anti-NDAA Legislation Passes Michigan Senate With Unanimous Vote

The Michigan Senate joined with a number of states that are pushing through anti-NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) legislation. Their version of the Liberty Preservation Act, Senate Bill 94 (SB94) was passed by a unanimous vote of 37-0 with 1 Senator absent. This legislation was sponsored by State Senator Rick Jones and was forged by a grassroots movement that is truly bipartisan in nature against the federal law which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens on U.S. soil.

Anti-NDAA Legislation Passes Michigan Senate With Unanimous Vote

Why Journalists Fear NDAA. Amber Lyon, Harvard Law School 2013

Kent State: Was It about Civil Rights or Murdering Student Protesters?

This article is from the forthcoming book Censored 2013: Dispatches from the Media Revolution and intends to expose the lies of American leadership in order to uncensor the “unhistory” of the Kent State massacre, while also aiming toward justice and healing, as censoring the past impacts American Occupy protesters today.

Kent State: Was It about Civil Rights or 
Murdering Student Protesters?

Glenn Greenwald: Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster

Comencing immediately upon the 9/11 attack, the US government under two successive administrations has spent 12 straight years inventing and implementing new theories of government power in the name of Terrorism. Literally every year since 9/11 has ushered in increased authorities of exactly the type Americans are inculcated to believe only exist in those Other, Non-Free societies: ubiquitous surveillance, impenetrable secrecy, and the power to imprison and even kill without charges or due process. Even as the 9/11 attack recedes into the distant past, the US government still finds ways continuously to increase its powers in the name of Terrorism while virtually never relinquishing any of the power it acquires. So inexorable has this process been that the Obama administration has already exercised the power to target even its own citizens for execution far from any battlefield, and the process has now arrived at its inevitable destination: does this due-process-free execution power extend to US soil as well?

Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster

Amy Goodman: Rand Paul’s Filibuster of John Brennan

You could say that a filibuster occurs when a senator drones on and on. The problem with the U.S. Senate was that there were too few senators speaking about drones this week.

Rand Paul’s Filibuster of John Brennan

Court: 4th Amendment Applies At Border, Password Protected Files Not Suspicious

An anonymous reader sends this Techdirt report on a welcome ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

""Here's a surprise ruling. For many years we've written about how troubling it is that Homeland Security agents are able to search the contents of electronic devices, such as computers and phones at the border, without any reason. The 4th Amendment only allows reasonable searches, usually with a warrant. But the general argument has long been that, when you're at the border, you're not in the country and the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.

Court: 4th Amendment Applies At Border, Password Protected Files Not Suspicious

Jeanine Molloff: HR 347 'Trespass Bill' Criminalizes Protest

As I write this op-ed, I primp for the mirror -- looking for the most flattering pose -- for my mug shot. Now, don't get the wrong impression; I haven't been arrested and charged with a federal felony -- yet. Nor is the preparation done in anticipation of a guest stint on "America's Next Top Model" -- but as a common sense reaction to Obama's predictable signing of the latest assault on the Bill of Rights -- namely -- H.R. 347 (and it's companion senate bill S. 1794); aka the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." Sounding more like an appropriations bill authorizing monies for federal grounds landscaping -- this bill, better known to those in the DC beltway as the 'Trespass Bill' -- potentially makes peaceable protest anywhere in the U.S. a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Jeanine Molloff: HR 347 'Trespass Bill' Criminalizes Protest