Tuesday’s ruling pitches the Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable search and seizure into the dustbin of history.
Photo: Library of Congress.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court disemboweled the Fourth
Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that citizens cannot challenge
government wiretapping laws, in particular the unconstitutional Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and, more recently, the FISA Amendments
Act of 2008.
According to Justice Samuel Alito, millions of Americans can no longer expect
the government to uphold the Constitution and prevent the NSA from conducting dragnet
surveillance.
The government established so-called “sovereign immunity” last August when
the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco dismissed Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v.
Obama following a December 2010 court case ruling the NSA’s warrantless wiretap program was illegal.
FISA is a near perfect scheme for the government. It allows the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court to rubber-stamp surveillance requests of
supposed terrorists (the Justice Department claims there are over a million terrorists in America). The
feds are not obliged to identify a target and they can conduct surveillance a
week before making a FISA Court request. Surveillance can continue in the
unlikely event that a request is denied and an appeal is set in motion.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act.
It allows federal agents to write their own search warrants in violation of the
Fourth Amendment and does away with the FISA-issued search warrant requirement,
itself blatantly unconstitutional.
“FISA gives the government unchecked authority to snoop on all Americans who
communicate with any foreign person, in direct contravention of the Fourth
Amendment,” Andrew Napolitano wrote in December. “The
right to privacy is a natural human right. Its enshrinement in the Constitution
has largely kept America from becoming East Germany.”
Alito’s argument rests on the fact that FISA is a secret court. “Yet
respondents have no actual knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting
practices. Instead, respondents merely speculate and make assumptions about
whether their communications with their foreign contacts will be acquired under
§1881a,” he wrote.
Alito was joined Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy,
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented the ruling.
Tuesday’s ruling pitches the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable
search and seizure into the dustbin of history. It means we are one step closer
to becoming East Germany where the Stasi conducted dragnet surveillance with
impunity.
Stasi, however, was old school. The modern high-tech surveillance state is
infinitely more effective and will be used to monitor the political attitudes of
all Americans in dragnet fashion and ferret out for persecution – and elimination – those who pose a threat to
the status quo.
Debunking the meme that historical gun grabs by dictatorships is a myth
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com February 26, 2013
Following Alex Jones’ explosive appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan
Tonight last month, gun control advocates reacted to Jones’ fiery
historical defense of the right to bear arms by attempting to dismiss the fact
that tyrannical regimes always disarmed their target populations as a myth or a
hoax.
Numerous left-wing blogs successfully gamed Google’s search engine results so that when people
searched for terms such as ‘Nazi gun control’, they were met with a plethora of
articles claiming the historical basis for this connection was a
fabrication.
A meme has been launched claiming that historical gun grabs by
dictatorships is a myth – an insulting attempt to literally re-write history in
the name of pursuing a contemporary political agenda.
In reality, the Nazis did take existing gun control laws and make
them more draconian in order to target their political adversaries. That is a
manifestly provable historical fact.
Hitler disarmed his domestic enemies before launching a
genocide against them.
The Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 prohibited Jews from
“acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as
truncheons or stabbing weapons,” and ordered them to turn in all guns and
ammunition to local police. As historian William Sheridan Allen noted, the Nazis
also began house to house gun confiscations targeting “subversives” shortly
after they came to power.
In addition, historians like Israel Guttman have outlined how the Warsaw
Ghetto uprising against the Nazis was hampered by the fact that imprisoned Jews
did not have access to adequate arsenals of firearms, although their resistance
did lead Goebbels to note in his diary: “This just shows what you can expect
from Jews if they lay hands on weapons.”
Similarly, as J.E. Simkin and Aaron Zelman document in their book “Gun Control”: Gateway to
Tyranny, in October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the Communist
government) ordered citizens to surrender all firearms, ammunition, and sabres,
having first mandated registration of all weapons six months earlier. Just like
the Nazis, Communist Party members were exempt from the ban.
A 1920 decree then imposed a minimum six month prison sentence for
any non-Communist possessing a weapon. After the civil war, possession became
punishable with three months hard labor plus fines. After Stalin came to power,
he made possession of unlawful firearms a crime punishable by death.
Stalin disarmed his domestic enemies before launching a
genocide against them.
With Russians almost universally disarmed, Stalin was given free
reign to carry out one of history’s most brutal prolonged genocide, with tens of
millions of people executed or starved to death in the three decades that
followed, a model subsequently mimicked in China and Cambodia.
Brutal dictatorships have almost always been preceded by
widespread gun confiscation, and to allow leftists to claim otherwise in the
pursuit of their contemporary political agenda is an insult to the historical
record.
H/T - This web page has an excellent and fully
sourced list of all the countries where gun control was a pre-cursor to mass
genocide.
On last Friday’s show, Pharmacist Ben Fuchs joined Alex to break down how a
barrage of stress factors can wreak havoc on the human body and how the negative
side effects of too much stress can be successfully offset through nutritional
supplementation, proper relaxation and exercise.
Pharmacist Ben also talks about the benefits of avoiding fast food and
examines why nutritional supplements can help the body help itself.
You can start getting healthy now and help support Infowars by visiting Infowars.Health.com to learn more about
Youngevity and their great line of natural health products.
Beretta USA, the domestic division of the Italian firearms manufacturer,
recently informed Maryland it will move operations out of the state if a law
aimed at the Second Amendment is enacted. “Enact such measures at your own
risk,” the company told lawmakers, according to Bizpac Review.
Beretta’s ARX-160, developed for the Italian armed
forces and now in commercial prototype, would be outlawed by the pending
legislation. Photo: Defense Review.
Jeff Reh, a member of the Board of Directors for Beretta U.S.A. Corp., told
lawmakers the company opposes Maryland Senate bill 281, otherwise known as the Firearm
Safety Act of 2013.
The law proposes “altering” how the Second Amendment is interpreted in the
state and would outlaw so-called assault weapons and prohibit “a person from
transporting an assault weapon into the State or possessing, selling, offering
to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon.” Under the
law, “certain individuals” would be ordered “to surrender firearms… under
certain circumstances.” In addition, the law would force handgun owners to
obtain a “handgun qualification license” from the Secretary of State Police.
Beretta’s ARX-160, developed for the Italian armed forces as part of
the Soldato Futuro (Future Soldier) program and now in commercial prototype,
would be outlawed by the pending legislation.
In a letter to lawmakers, Beretta’s Jeff Reh said
legislation proposed by Gov. Martin O’Malley will “treat as dangerous millions
of people who lawfully and safely own semi-automatic rifles and the tens of
millions of people who lawfully and safely own magazines that hold more than 10
rounds. It tells those people that you can protect your life, your family or
your business, even against multiple assailants, as long as you can get do so in
10 rounds or less. It tells all of these people that in Maryland there is a
limit on the extent to which you can exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, a limit
that does not apply, by the way, to police officers who buy these products for
the same protective reasons that are desired by the general public.”
The Washington Post reports politicians in
Maryland fear the company will take their business elsewhere. “I’m concerned. I
think they’re going to move,” said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., a
Democrat. “They sell guns across the world and in every state in the union — to
places a lot more friendly to the company than this state.”
On Saturday, we covered a growing number of firearm
companies announcing they will no longer sell products to states, counties and
municipalities engaged in subversion against the Constitution.
“There are some states, counties, cities, and municipalities in our great
nation that fail to allow their citizens to fully exercise their right to keep
and bear arms with restrictions such as magazine capacity or types of firearms
that are widely available to citizens of other states, counties, cities, and
municipalities,” The Police Loophole reported. “However, these government
entities do not place these restrictions upon their own employees, such as
police officers.”
Agri-giant Monsanto, not satisfied with being one of the world’s largest
agricultural corporations, is dragging hundreds of U.S. farmers into court over
alleged copyright violations for repeated usage of the company’s patented
seeds.
In a case that has surprised a lot of observers, the U.S. Supreme Court
agreed to hear one of these complaints on Feb. 19. That case, Bowman v.
Monsanto Co., was billed as a landmark battle pitting farmer Vernon Bowman
against the international Ag-giant over the former’s repeated use of seeds he
bought from Monsanto which the company says are only supposed to be used for one
growing season.
In advance of the case, The Huffington Post reported, the Center
for Food Safety and the Save Our Seeds campaigning organizations
released a report detailing similar cases.
Price of seeds have skyrocketed
According to that report titled “Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers,” which readers
can view here, Monsanto alleges seed patent
infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in
at least 27 states, as of January of this year.
Combined, Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont hold more than half – 53 percent – of
the global commercial seed market, which the groups claim in their report has
led to a massive increase in the price of seed: Between 1995 and 2011, the
groups say the average cost of planting a single acre of soybeans rose a
whopping 325 percent, while corn seed prices climbed a
staggering259 percent.
Monsanto especially says that seed
patents are a form of biological patent and that means the company’s seeds –
which are genetically modified to ward off bugs and weeds, though some strains
of each are becoming increasing resistant to them – are legally protected
inventions or discoveries in biology, HuffPo reported.
“In the case of Monsanto, that often means patents on genetically modified
seeds,” said the web-based newspaper. “In recent years, these and other
companies have taken farmers to court for alleged seed patent infringement –
meaning they planted seeds without paying for them.”
For the record, farmers have, for centuries, harvested seeds from the
current years’ crop so they could plant again next year; Monsanto and the others
have, in essence, made that time-tested practice illegal with a product that, according to reports, is not living up to
advertised standards of resistance.
That doesn’t matter to Monsanto and the other Ag-giants, but it does matter
to the U.S. Supreme Court, because the issue of patent infringement becomes less
clear when you consider that these farmers are growing subsequent crops with seeds they
initially purchased legally – even if the ag-giants consider such subsequent
planting a crime.
In the case of Bowman, he allegedly replanted second-generation seeds for
years, though he initially purchased them legally from a licensed Monsanto
distributor. He didn’t purchase new seeds each crop year, and because of that,
Monsanto says he essentially stole their product. The company has managed to win
a string of victories in lower courts.
The agricultural firm argues that its patents serve to protect its business
interests, and that they “provide a motivation for spending millions of dollars
on research and development of hardier, disease-resistant seeds that can boost
food yields,” Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported.
Not resistant or eco-friendly enough
However, Bill Freese, one of the authors of the activist seed group report and a
senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety, said in a press release
that claims Monsanto’s patents are creating better crops are bogus.
“Most major new crop varieties developed throughout the 20th century owe
their origin to publicly funded agricultural research and breeding,” Freese wrote.
He also added that the GM crops weren’t as eco-friendly as advertised.
“While agrichemical corporations also claim that their patented seeds are
leading to environmental improvements, the report notes that upward of 26
percent more chemicals per acre were used on GE crops than on non-GE crops,
according to USDA data,” he said.
Some have attributed the dramatic decline in crop diversity in recent years
to the growth of a few ag-giants. In the report, the authors note that 86
percent of corn, 88 percent of cotton and 93 percent of soybeans grown in the
U.S. are currently GM strains.
A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens' rights to own them.
According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.
Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states:
"The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms...If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction."
York Arms, located in Buxton, ME released a statement following new legislation in New York:
"Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York."
Quality Arms, located in Rigby, ID writes on their website, "elected officials have their own agenda to circumnavigate the truth and destroy the constitution of the United States."
The site states: "Quality Arms Idaho will not supply and firearm or product, manufactured by us, or any other company nor will we warranty, repair, alter, or modify and firearm owned by any State, County or Municipality who infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment."
Bravo Company USA states:
"The people at Bravo Company USA and BCM support responsible private individuals having access to the same tools of civilian Law Enforcement to affect the same ends...As such Bravo Company's policy is that law enforcement officials and departments will be restricted to the same type of products available to responsible private individuals of that same city or state."
Preface: While a lot of people talk about the loss of our Constitutional
liberties, people usually speak in a vague, generalized manner … or focus on
only one issue and ignore the rest.
This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the
first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard
on the extent of the loss of each right.
First Amendment
The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:
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.
Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a
separate system of justice in America.
And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so
concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also
decides who should be assassinated.
Second Amendment
The 2nd Amendment states:
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.
Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views
about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second
Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
***
It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the
Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the
amendment begins with a reference to militias: “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.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment
protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct
provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second
Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns
entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
***
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second
Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right
of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to
free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to
reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government.
At the time, many feared the federal government and its national
army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the
government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed
populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and
self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as
an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the
amendment. None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second
Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of
American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and
admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that
Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on
gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a
protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time
that we recognize it.
The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned –
is still in flux …
Third Amendment
The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house
soldiers:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.
Hey … we’re still honoring one of the Amendments! Score one for We the
People!
Fourth Amendment
The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:
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 domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth
Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy.
Paul introduced a bill to “protect individual
privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned
aerial vehicles commonly called drones.”
Emptywheel notes in a post entitled “The OTHER Assault
on the Fourth Amendment in the NDAA? Drones at Your Airport?”
***
As the map above makes clear–taken from this 2010 report–DOD [the Department of
Defense] plans to have drones all over the country by 2015.
Many police departments are also using drones to spy on us. As the Hill reported:
At least 13 state and local police agencies around the country have used
drones in the field or in training, according to the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International, an industry trade group. The Federal Aviation
Administration has predicted that by the end of the decade, 30,000 commercial
and government drones could be flying over U.S. skies.
***
“Drones should only be used if subject to a powerful framework that regulates
their use in order to avoid abuse and invasions of privacy,” Chris Calabrese, a
legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said during a
congressional forum in Texas last month.
He argued police should only fly drones over private property if they have a
warrant, information collected with drones should be promptly destroyed when
it’s no longer needed and domestic drones should not carry any weapons.
He argued that drones pose a more serious threat to privacy than helicopters
because they are cheaper to use and can hover in the sky for longer periods of
time.
A congressional report earlier this year predicted that drones could soon be
equipped with technologies to identify faces or track people based on their
height, age, gender and skin color.
The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email, text message, internet
searches, social media communications, health information, employment history, travel and student
records, and virtually all other information of every American. [And see this.]
Some also claim that the government is also using facial recognition software
and surveillance cameras to track where everyone is going. Moreover,
cell towers track where your phone is at any moment, and
the major cell carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests
for cell phone locations and other data in 2011. (And – given that your smartphoneroutinely sends your location information
back to Apple or Google – it would be child’s play for the government to track
your location that way.) Your iPhone, or other brand of smartphone is spying onvirtually everything you do (ProPublica
notes: “That’s No Phone. That’s My Tracker“).
As the top spy chief at the U.S. National Security Agency explained this week, the American government is collecting
some 100 billion 1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications
of all types per year.
He says that the government has collected all of the communications of
congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the last 10
years.
He further explains that he set up the NSA’s system so that all of the
information would automatically be encrypted, so that the government had to
obtain a search warrant based upon probably cause before a particular suspect’s
communications could be decrypted. [He specifically did this to comply with the
Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.] But the
NSA now collects all data in an unencrypted form, so that no probable cause is
needed to view any citizen’s information. He says that it is actually cheaper
and easier to store the data in an encrypted format: so the government’s current
system is being done for political – not practical – purposes.
He says that if anyone gets on the government’s “enemies list”, then the
stored information will be used to target them. Specifically, he notes that if
the government decides it doesn’t like someone, it analyzes all of the data it
has collected on that person and his or her associates over the last 10 years to
build a case against him.
Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly installing
microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses that would give them the
ability to record and store private conversations….
The systems are being installed in San Francisco, Baltimore, and other cities
with funding from the Department of Homeland Security in some cases ….
The IP audio-video systems can be accessed remotely via a built-in web server
(.pdf), and can be combined with GPS data to track the movement of buses and
passengers throughout the city.
***
The systems use cables or WiFi to pair audio conversations with
camera images in order to produce synchronous recordings. Audio and video can be
monitored in real-time, but are also stored onboard in blackbox-like
devices, generally for 30 days, for later retrieval. Four to six cameras with
mics are generally installed throughout a bus, including one near the driver and
one on the exterior of the bus.
***
Privacy and security expert Ashkan Soltani told the Daily that the audio
could easily be coupled with facial recognition systems or audio recognition
technology to identify passengers caught on the recordings.
Street lights that can spy installed in some American
cities
America welcomes a new brand of smart street lightning systems:
energy-efficient, long-lasting, complete with LED screens to show ads. They can
also spy on citizens in a way George Orwell would not have imagined in his worst
nightmare.
With a price tag of $3,000+ apiece, according to an ABC report, the street
lights are now being rolled out in Detroit, Chicago and Pittsburgh, and may soon
mushroom all across the country.
Part of the Intellistreets systems made by the company Illuminating Concepts,
they havea number of “homeland security applications”
attached. Each has a microprocessor “essentially similar to an iPhone,” capable
ofwireless communication. Each can capture images and count
people for the police through a digital camera, record conversations of
passers-by and even give voice commands thanks to a built-in
speaker.
Ron Harwood, president and founder of Illuminating Concepts, says he eyed the
creation of such a system after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Hurricane
Katrina disaster. He is“working with Homeland Security” to deliver his
dream of making people “more informed and safer.”
The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the
place. This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair. (And they’re probably
bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able
to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re
thinking … from 164 feet away.)
Of course, widespread spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this). So the whole “post-9/11 reality”
argument falls flat.
In addition, the ACLU published a map in 2006 showing that nearly two-thirds of
the American public – 197.4 million people – live within a “constitution-free
zone” within 100 miles of land and coastal borders.
Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American
people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding
view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not
need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile
wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the
border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are
being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways in states
such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals in Washington
State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers about their
citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have permitted these kinds of
checkpoints – legally speaking, they are “administrative” stops that are
permitted only for the specific purpose of protecting the nation’s borders.
They cannot become general drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining confined to
that border security purpose. On the roads of California and elsewhere in the
nation – places far removed from the actual border – agents are stopping,
interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no
suspicion of wrongdoing.
The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the government
possesses at the border are spilling into regular American streets.
Border agents don’t need probable cause and they don’t need a stinking
warrant since they don’t need to prove any reasonable suspicion first. Nor,
sadly, do two out of three people have First Amendment protection; it is as if
DHS has voided those Constitutional amendments and protections they provide to
nearly 200 million Americans.
***
Don’t be silly by thinking this means only if you are physically trying to
cross the international border. As we saw when discussing the DEA using license
plate readers and data-mining to track Americans movements, the U.S. “border”
stretches out 100 miles beyond the true border. Godfather Politics added:
But wait, it gets even better! If you live anywhere in Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey or Rhode Island, DHS says the search zones encompass the entire
state.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) have a “longstanding constitutional and statutory authority
permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the border
and its functional equivalent.” This applies to electronic devices, according to
the recent CLCR “Border Searches of Electronic Devices” executive summary [PDF]:
Fourth Amendment
The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or warrant
is clear and longstanding, and courts have not treated searches of electronic
devices any differently than searches of other objects. We conclude that CBP’s
and ICE’s current border search policies comply with the Fourth Amendment. We
also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable
suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be
operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties
benefits. However, we do think that recording more information about why
searches are performed would help managers and leadership supervise the use of
border search authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has
implemented this change beginning in FY2012. First Amendment
Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be required
before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid chilling First
Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop border searches allowed
under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate travelers’ First Amendment
rights.
The ACLU said, Wait one darn minute! Hello, what happened to the
Constitution? Where is the rest of CLCR report on the “policy of combing through
and sometimes confiscating travelers’ laptops, cell phones, and other electronic
devices—even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing?” DHS maintains it is not
violating our constitutional rights, so the ACLU said:
If it’s true that our rights are safe and that DHS is doing all the things it
needs to do to safeguard them, then why won’t it show us the results of its
assessment? And why would it be legitimate to keep a report about the impact of
a policy on the public’s rights hidden from the very public being
affected?
***
As ChristianPost wrote, “Your constitutional
rights have been repealed in ten states. No, this isn’t a joke. It is not
exaggeration or hyperbole. If you are in ten states in the United States, your
some of your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been made null and
void.”
The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act
request for the entire DHS report about suspicionless and warrantless “border”
searches of electronic devices. ACLU attorney Catherine Crump said “We hope to
establish that the Department of Homeland Security can’t simply assert that its
practices are legitimate without showing us the evidence, and to make it clear
that the government’s own analyses of how our fundamental rights apply to new
technologies should be openly accessible to the public for review and
debate.”
Meanwhile, the EFF has tips to protect yourself and your devices against border
searches. If you think you know all about it, then you might try testing your
knowledge with a defending privacy at the U.S. border quiz.
Wired pointed out in 2008 that the courts have routinely upheld
such constitution-free zones:
Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through
travelers’ laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes, a
federal appeals court ruled Monday, extending the government’s power to look
through belongings like suitcases at the border to electronics.
***
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, finding that
the so-called border exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on
unreasonable searches applied not just to suitcases and papers, but also to
electronics.
***
Travelers should be aware that anything on their mobile devices can be
searched by government agents, who may also seize the devices and keep them for
weeks or months. When in doubt, think about whether online storage or encryption
might be tools you should use to prevent the feds from rummaging through your
journal, your company’s confidential business plans or naked pictures of you and
your-of-age partner in adult fun.
Fifth Amendment
The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double
jeopardy and grand jury:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.
There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property
being taken for privatepurposes.
The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury
is difficult to gauge, as there is so much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.
Protection against being tried twice for the same crime after being found
innocent (“double jeopardy”) seems to be intact.
Sixth Amendment
The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to hear the criminal charges levied
against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against
us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who
cannot hire an attorney:
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 defence.
Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously violates the 6th Amendment right to
a jury trial. In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever
receiving a trial … and often without ever hearing the charges against them.
More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the
defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.
True – when defendants are afforded a jury trial – they are provided
with assistance of counsel. However, the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the
super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts and the public
defenders’ offices nationwide.
The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil
cases:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.
As far as we know, this right is still being respected. However – as noted
above – the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the
super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the
wheels of justice slowing down considerably.
Eighth Amendment
The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.
While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute
cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not
punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is
technically a form of terrorism.
The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t
specifically listed in the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are. I believe they
include the right to a level playing field, and access to safe food and water.
You may disagree.
By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying
for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as
human beings.
Tenth Amendment
The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to
the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:
(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the
people
and
(2) Separation of powers
Today, most Americans believe that the government
is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom … and that
it is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed”.
And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping
on the toes of the states and the people. For example, former head S&L
prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional
staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to
weaken federal regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine
to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent
mortgage lenders.
Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose
into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.
Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights
still exist, the overall scorecard of the government’s respect for our freedom:
a failing grade.
“The American people will decide when to push back, not
me.”
Steve
Watson Infowars.com Feb 21, 2013
Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. has defended his comments on The
Alex Jones Show earlier this week under criticism from local reporters who said
his remarks that strict gun legislation could lead to a “second American
Revolution” were inflammatory.
Clarke told Jones’ listeners that he would consider any federal order to
confiscate guns as “an act of tyranny,” and said that he would refuse to enforce
it in his county.
“I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you
would see the second coming of an American Revolution, the likes of which would
make the first revolution pale by comparison.” the Sheriff urged.
That comment did not sit well with hacks at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
who accused Clarke of engaging in “attention-grabbing media appearances” on a
“conspiracy-peddling radio show.”
In a piece clearly designed to draw some much needed readership
from Infowars’ audience, one reporter makes several baiting remarks about Alex
Jones, while extensively quoting from our article on Sheriff Clarke’s comments
earlier this week.
When the Sentinel reporter questioned Clarke’s appearance and his comments,
the Sheriff responded in an email stating “I didn’t know I needed your approval…
When did people stop being entitled to their opinion?”
On the topic of the “Second Revolution” comments, Clarke told the newspaper
“I’m sure in 1776 that idea seemed way out there, too, at the time,” the sheriff
wrote. “The American people will decide when to push back, not me.”
“I was interviewed by (CNN host) Piers Morgan. Now there’s a guy with some
whacked-out views.” Clarke also wrote in the email.
“I’ve done dozens of interviews over a simple 30-second radio ad,” Clarke
told the Journal Sentinel. “I didn’t ask for one of them.”
The Journal Sentinel has been somewhat critical of Sheriff Clarke since he
publicly urged the citizens he serves to consider learning firearm safety rather
than rely on law enforcement and government to protect them.
In a message posted on the Sheriff’s website, Clarke recently wrote “I need
you in the game, but are you ready? With officers laid-off and furloughed,
simply calling 9-1-1 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for
mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but
are you prepared?”
“Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can
defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your
family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?” the message urged.
Watch Sheriff Clarke’s appearance on The Alex Jones Show below:
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for
Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in
International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of
Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing
from Nottingham Trent University
Company produces cardboard cut-outs of “non-traditional threats”: Pregnant
women, elderly & children
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
February 19, 2013
A provider of “realistic” shooting targets to the Department of
Homeland Security and other federal agencies has created a line of
“non-traditional threat” targets that include pregnant women, mothers in
playgrounds and elderly American gun owners.
Law
Enforcement Targets, Inc. is a 21-year designer and full service provider of
training targets for the DHS, the Justice Department and thousands of law
enforcement agencies throughout the country.
The company’s website offers a line of “No More Hesitation” targets ”designed to
give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios
with subjects that are not the norm during training.” The targets are, “meant to
help the transition for officers who are faced with these highly unusual
targets for the first time.”
The targets include “pregnant woman threat,” “older man with
shotgun,” “older man in home with shotgun,” “older woman with gun,” “young
school aged girl,” “young mother on playground,” and “little boy with real
gun.”
Why are top training target suppliers for the government supplying
the likes of the DHS with “non-traditional threat” targets of children, pregnant
women, mothers in playgrounds, and elderly American gun owners unless
there is a demand for such items?
The fact that targets of armed pregnant women, children, mothers
in playgrounds, and American gun owners in general are being represented as “non
traditional threats” “for the first time” is deeply concerning given the
admitted preparations for civil unrest undertaken by Homeland
Security as well as other federal agencies.
A leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil
Disturbance Operations” also outlines how military assets are to be used
domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S.
soil during mass civil unrest.
This also dovetails with the continuing characterization of Americans who are “suspicious
of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as
“extreme right-wing” terrorists by DHS-funded studies.
The US military trained last year to take on another “unusual
target” – zombies – which some fear is just a ruse to get troops used to
engaging crowds of people with deadly force. As Alex Jones documented in his
film Police State 2000, numerous “urban warfare” training
drills stretching back well over a decade have revolved around incarcerating and
battling the American people on domestic soil.
See the other “non-traditional threats” that are being provided in
the form of shooting targets to the DHS and thousands of law enforcement
agencies below.
Note: The website containing these targets has crashed since
this article was published, but this graphic shows a screenshot of the page with the
URL visible.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the
author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly
News.
