LET'S JUST CUT THE CHASE SHALL WE? THIS DANCE IS ABOUT OVER AND IT'S TIME TO ROCK!!!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

Here's some very old news; quite boring isn't it?

In the FBI We Trust?

The FBI is one of several federal agencies participating in the "War of Ideas" in an ongoing battle against terrorism, which is a vague legal term, as put forth in The U.S.A. Patriot Act II. One of the earliest devices the FBI began using is a software tool that existed well before Sept. 11, 2001, called CARNIVORE. Briefly, Carnivore is a program that monitors Web sites, networks and email for a broad range of content.

Carnivore software copies, sends and then reconstructs data that passes through a network, including Web postings, Web pages, email messages, and file downloads. For example, the FBI might use Carnivore to capture an email message traveling from a computer through an ISP network. If Carnivore works properly, neither sender nor recipient know that detection software is copying an email message. FBI officials describe Carnivore as a software tool that hunts down and chews up data. In an attempt to decrease public apprehension over Carnivore, especially images the system name calls up, the FBI officially renamed the system DSC1000. Even so, "Carnivore" is still how the media and public refer to the system.

Here's the next generation but still quite dated, don't you agree?

Echelon & The NSA

Certain Web sites claim, Carnivore is only a tip of the iceberg when it comes to Internet surveillance. The secretive NSA (National Security Administration) operates a monitoring system called Echelon that can globally search every email message and piece of Internet data for keywords, such as "bomb." Echelon is reportedly a joint surveillance network operated by the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to name a few.

U.S. governmental agencies refused comment on whether Echelon exists. In 2000, the NSA blocked a congressional inquiry seeking details about Echelon.

Evidence also points to existence of another NSA surveillance project, reportedly code-named Tempest, that captures computer keystrokes and monitor images, even if the capturing computer is in another location and not connected in any way to the targeted computer.

Who knows what software is in use these days? I mean, let's get real. Who even cares?

We burried countless fine Americans for this next silly piece of crap but again, who cares? War is a tough game, right moms and dads? When do you think they'll start the draft again?

Amendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is an integral part of the Bill of Rights that guards against unreasonable search and seizure. As mid-wife to liberty, it arose in response to controversial Writs of Assistance, widely abused by agents of King George. This broadly applied general search warrant became a significant trigger of the American Revolution.

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.

The Supreme Court has held the rule does not apply only in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a "private actor" (not a State employee) illegally seizes evidence; or (6) when illegally seized evidence impeaches defendant testimony. Furthermore, a defendant can object to the admission of unconstitutionally seized evidence only if such seizure violates personal Fourth Amendment rights. Defendants can not assert the rights of a third party.

Closely related to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which prohibits the government from introducing any evidence obtained subsequent to or resulting from illegal searches.

Here's some more old news but who has time to worry about or even read this silly little modern law?

Section-by-Section Analysis of Justice Department draft "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," also known as "PATRIOT Act II" (2/14/2003)

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been drafting comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation for the past several months. The draft legislation, dated January 9, 2003, grants sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and criminal prosecution even after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, in 2001.

Among its most severe problems, the bill

Diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power...

Permits the government, under certain circumstances, to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court altogether...

Shelters federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials...

Creates a new category of "domestic security surveillance" that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under very loose standards...

Uses an overbroad definition of terrorism that covers an ever-increasing group, including people engaging in certain forms of peaceful protest...

Provides for general surveillance orders covering multiple functions of high tech devices...

Creates a new, separate crime of using encryption technology that adds five years to any sentence for crimes committed with a computer...

Expands nationwide search warrants to the extent that they no longer meet even broad definitions of terrorism in the USA PATRIOT Act...

Gives the government secret access to credit reports without consent or even judicial process...

Enhances government abilities to obtain sensitive information without any prior judicial approval...

Permits, without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens to be shared with a variety of outside organizations...

Terminates court-approved limits on police spying, initially put in place to prevent McCarthy-style law enforcement and persecution based on political or religious affiliations...

Permits searches, wiretaps and surveillance of United States citizens on behalf of foreign governments - including dictatorships and human rights abusers - in the absence of Senate-approved treaties...
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17203leg20030214.html

THIS IS ONLY A PARTIAL LIST. I DON'T WANT TO BORE ANYONE WITH A LENGTHY POST.

At least I've got a new picture for you folks



sorry to waste your time on things that matter so little in modern America. Have a nice day!

[stepnw1f]

1. Great Work Ghost!

Kick for others to read.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

5. yeah, wolf I already knew this ALL matters to you... It's pals like you that make life worth living:

Hang tough bro' Ben Franklin said, We can either hang together or hang separately at the First Continental Congress because no one could agree on anything. Old King George was pissed about that Declaration of Independence. Come to think of it, I might be a bit upset over the The Bill of Rights. I guess I forgot why I first took the name Jeffersons Ghost while working to get a few of the crooks and liars out of D.C.

[helderheid]

2. rec 5!!

:yourock:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. SO DOES THIS RULING MAKE THOSE INDIVIDUALS STILL CONDUCTING WIRE-TAPS CRIMINALS?....

The New York Times

August 18, 2006

In a sweeping decision that drew on history, the constitutional separation of powers and the Bill of Rights, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a Carter administration appointee who sits on the U.S. District Court in Detroit, rejected almost every argument put forth by the administration.

Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/wiretap.php

[Tuesday_Morning]

3. Jon Tester:

"I want to repeal the Patriot Act - not weaken it."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/14/19956/860

[Straight Shooter]

4. The organic farmer with a crewcut from Montana.

:thumbsup:

Here's to you, JG. :patriot:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. I JUST WANT TO SEE ALL THE CRIMINALS BROUGHT TO JUSTICE...

and the country and Constitution so many brave fine Americans are dying for this very night to be restored to her glory.

Does this ruling make ANYONE that is still conducting illegal wire-taps on citizens that have done NOTHING wrong a criminal?

The New York Times

August 18, 2006

In a sweeping decision that drew on history, the constitutional separation of powers and the Bill of Rights, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, a Carter administration appointee who sits on the U.S. District Court in Detroit, rejected almost every argument put forth by the administration.

Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/wiretap.php

[mmonk]

10. Ah yes. Mr Tester.

That victory was one of my favorites this election cycle.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

11. so elections are over... when do we start "CLEANING HOUSE?"...

[Mnemosyne]

6. Don't you have anything better to

post about JG?!:evilgrin:

Good catches.:yourock:

Your nick suits you well. On to the Haunting!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

13. BOO! Be VERY afraid...

[Mnemosyne]

16. You scared me!

:rofl:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

20. It only gets worse>>>

[mmonk]

8. Great work!.

K&R for the constitution. For all that understand.:kick:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. what does this artwork say to you mmonk? It's called JUSTICE DELAYED...

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Taylor rejected the administration's repeated assertions that a 2001 congressional authorization and the president's constitutional authority allowed the program. "The public interest is clear in this matter," she wrote. "It is the upholding of our Constitution."

Democrats applauded the ruling as an important affirmation of the rule of law, while lawyers for the ACLU said Taylor's decision was a sequel to the Supreme Court's decision in June in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which struck down the administration's plans to try detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for war crimes.

"It's another nail in the coffin of executive unilateralism," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer.

[upi402]

12. super work, and I'm duly lambasted!

I do VERY much care actually and used to post on this issue. It's like taking a sip from a firehose with Republicans, neocons, and Pnacsters -et al.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

15. republicans and neocons don't drink from fire-hoses...

[upi402]

30. LOL, damn, I missed that earlier

Thanks for linking me back here!!

Yeah baby, flush that turd.

[earth mom]

17. K & R!

:applause:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

18. Certainly worth repeating...

Now most Democrats or Democratic candidates would have weasled and tried to appear somehow strong on terrorism. They would have triangulated and made up excuses for their vote. But Tester, having the spine he did, said it as clearly and explicitly as possible, that he didn't want to weaken it, he wanted to repeal it. This brings back one current Senator in particular, Russ Feingold, who was the only Senator to vote against the ORIGINAL Patriot Act.

Now Tester's comment was significant, because he wasn't running for a Senate seat in Vermont, or Rhode Island; he was running in Montana, which easily went for Bush by a 20
point margin (59-39).

After watching many of the Meet-the-Press debates, I noticed a lot of Democrats just not having the courage to come out and stand up for our Constitution. Senator-elect Tester exposed his distaste for this horrendously drafted legislation, and future Democrats should follow his lead.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/14/19956/860

[Jeffersons Ghost]

19. ooops.... I forgot to add my graphic to the previous post...

[mhatrw]

21. K & R, big time.

Nice post.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

24. it's not much without folks like you mhatrw, thanks for the rec and kick

[graywarrior]

22. Most excellent, Jeffersons Ghost.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

28. thanks graywarrior

[EVDebs]

23. Background checks are the new frontier in the privacy invasions

CSMonitor has some excellent reporting on this

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0201/p03s01-ussc.html

Also the book Spychips

http://www.spychips.com/

If inaccurate information (think ChoicePoint for example) is included into these background checks it can be used as a political tool to hammer your political opponents. It's not 'what would Jesus do ?' anymore, it's more like 'what would Karl Rove do ?' that has people on DU worried.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

25. thanks debs... I love your posts... you seem to know my taste in OPs...

Have you visited enough of my boards to know why I post this graphic in your honor?

[Jcrowley]

26. A dose of reality comes our way

"For any imperial policy to work effectively...it needs moral and intellectual guidance.... It is much to be doubted that the United States can continue to play an imperial role without the endorsement of its intellectual class.... It is always possible to hope that this intellectual class will...help formulate a new set of more specific principles that will relate the ideals which sustain American democracy to the harsh and nasty imperatives of imperial power."
--Irving Kristol

FRIENDLY FASCISM?
The post-911 events really bring home to me the dangers of fascism, American-style. The Bushies are embracing a deeply militaristic, neo-fascistic national security model, and the new Bush Doctrine is a very scary piece of imperalist policy that is going to have terrible consequences, globally.

Bertram Gross wrote a book in the early 1980s called Friendly Fascism; in it, the professor outlined how fascism could come to power in the United States. Fascism is a word we never see anymore, replaced by terms like "ultraconservative" or "extreme right-wing" or "ultranationalist" -- but "fascist" is a forbidden word, anymore (although "neo-fascist" sometimes appears to describe fringe hate groups). It is only used to reference classical fascism -- the kind everybody thinks of when you say "fascism" -- Italian Fascists, the Nazis, uniforms, mass rallies, World War II.

The popular wisdom is that fascism was killed with World War II -- that it is a bankrupt and dead ideology, a relic of the past. But this is a very dangerous and misguided belief, for fascism still lives as an idea, and has evolved for the last 60 years after the collapse of classical fascism in World War II.

The following sections are excerpted from Friendly Fascism. This long book is dated in some respects, and reflects an Old Left sensibility, but it was ahead of its time as well. I can't possibly do it justice, so I'm just adapting a comparison between classical fascism and so-called "friendly fascism" to show how the idea can and has evolved. If you think on these points, you can find many examples of them in practice in our society.

http://a4a.mahost.org/gross.html

K&R

[Jeffersons Ghost]

27. that post of yours is a very interesting read... a few months back MANY here at DU...

put forth similar ideas, although few were presented so succinctly. Back then I just called them goose-stepping Nazis, which wasn't quite as accurate but it had a nice ring.

[understandinglife]

29. Bookmarked this one. I'll cite it, regularly.

Thank you!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

31. let me dig up the really funny one... see if you think it is sci-fi or not.

[Jcrowley]

32. Good stuff here

to share

[Viva_La_Revolution]

33. back to the top!