See other National News Articles
Title: Mysterious privacy board touted by Obama has deep government ties
Source:
guardian.co.uk
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201 ... ivil-liberties-obama-secretive
Published: Jun 21, 2013
Author: Dan Roberts
Post Date: 2013-07-07 15:03:59 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Privacy & Civil Liberties Boar, Potemkin Village, NSA, Surveillance
Views: 186
Comments: 23
Photograph by Dan Roberts for the Guardian: A security guard at 2100 K Street in Washington said he had no record of the mystery body that claimed to occupy suite 500. The body charged by President Obama with protecting the civil liberties and privacy of the American people exists in shadows almost as dark as the intelligence agencies it is designed to oversee. The Privacy & Civil Liberties Board (PCLOB) was due to meet Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon at 3pm in the situation room to discuss growing concerns over US surveillance of phone and internet records – or, at least, that's what unnamed "senior administration officials" said would happen. The meeting did not appear on the president's official diary issued to journalists, nor has the PCLOB issued much public confirmation beyond saying "further questions were warranted". To be fair, that might be because the PCLOB does not have a website, nor an email address, nor indeed any independent full-time staff. Its day-to-day administration is currently run by a government official on secondment from the office of the Director of National Intelligence. In fact, even the office address given out by the PCLOB in the few public letters that exist does not appear to be functioning. A security guard at the federal buildings on 2100 K Street in Washington said he had no record of the mystery body that claimed to occupy suite 500. On Tuesday, Obama announced that the PCLOB would be at the heart of his efforts to address the growing scandal over the National Security Agency's surveillance programmes. "I'll be meeting with them and what I want to do is to set up and structure a national conversation not only about these two programs but also about the general problem of these big data sets because this is not going to be restricted to government entities," he told Charlie Rose in a TV interview. Yet, the White House appears to be scrambling to set up infrastructure that can support such a conversation and has placed its trust in a body with a chequered history of independent scrutiny. Set up as an agency within the Executive Office of the President in 2004, the PCLOB for many years had no members at all. After criticism, in the words of a congressional report, that it "appeared to be presidential appendage, devoid of the capability to exercise independent judgement and assessment or to provide impartial findings and recommendations", it was reconstituted as an independent agency in August 2007 on the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. But even then, oversight moved at a glacial pace. Obama nominated two members in January 2011 and a further three in December 2012 but the Senate only confirmed four of them in August 2012. The fifth, chairman David Medine, was confirmed just last month. Obama told Charlie Rose that it was "made up of independent citizens, including some fierce civil libertarians". But there is little in the published biographies to elaborate on that. Medine was a partner in the DC law firm WilmerHale and previously served as a senior advisor to the White House National Economic Council. From 1992 to 2000, he worked at the Federal Trade Commission and previously worked at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and US Securities and Exchange Commission. The White House says he has long been interested in "internet privacy and data security". Three of the others meeting Obama on Friday have also worked for the government or courts. Rachel Brand is now a regulatory lawyer at the US Chamber of Commerce, but formerly worked at the Department of Justice. Patricia Wald is a former DC appeals court judge and Elisebeth Collins Cook is also a lawyer at Wilmer Hale, who once worked for the Department of Justice. Only Jim Dempsey, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, does not appear to have worked for the government or served on the judiciary. The Washington Post described him as "a reasoned and respected civil liberties advocate routinely summoned to [Capitol] Hill by both political parties to advise lawmakers about technology and privacy issues." Following a meeting with intelligence chiefs on Wednesday, Medine said: "Based on what we've learned so far, further questions are warranted." He told the Guardian by email on Friday that the board would issue a statement after the meeting with Obama. NSA director Keith Alexander implied it understood the need for such programmes. "My deputy met with the board yesterday and actually briefed them for a couple of hours on both programs so that they understood," he told a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday. Official board meetings of the PCLOB are closed to the public, because of the classified issues to be discussed, a notice published on the Federal Register said. In his email, Medine told the Guardian that the board was moving ahead with plans to step up its operations. He said: "The bipartisan members of the independent board have been at work since last September. In the three weeks since I became chairman, the board is moving rapidly forward to complete its efforts to operate a website and hire permanent staff, the latter being something only the chairman has authority to do." A senior administration official defended the White House's transparency record. "Over the past few weeks, in the wake of disclosures related to sensitive NSA collection activities, the president directed the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to declassify information to better contextualize these programs, correct misrepresentations, and provide an opportunity for the dialogue he welcomes about the right balance between national security and privacy," said the official. "In fact, yesterday (Thursday), at the request of the President, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco directed the DNI – in consultation with the DOJ – to review Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions and filings relevant to the programs and to determine what additional information the Government can responsibly share about the sensitive and necessarily classified activities undertaken to keep the public safe." The official said the administration was seeking "to declassify a significant amount of information regarding these programs." "The president's direction is that as much information as possible be made public while being mindful of the need to protect sources and methods and National Security." the unnamed official added. "In the last few weeks, we have provided enhanced transparency on, and engaged in robust public discussion." Speaking later White House spokesman Jay Carney said the PCLOB was required to report to Congress at least twice a year. "The president will be meeting with a range of stakeholders in the coming weeks on these issues," added Carney. 4.45pm ET update The board issued a statement after meeting Obama. It reads, in full: We discussed with the President our recommendation that every effort be made to publicly provide the legal rationale for the programs in order to enhance the public discussion and debate about the legality and propriety of the country's counterterrorism efforts. As we informed the President, and have informed Senators in response to a specific inquiry, we will produce a public report containing our conclusions and recommendations. Poster Comment: Some article Comments: "That's quite a story. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) was created in 2004, but ... the director was only recently appointed, the board has no staff and only one board member has a background in civil liberties. The National Security Agency (NSA), on the other hand, has 40,000 employees. Do the PCLOB members even have security clearances?" "Well, it's doing a great job protecting privacy. Its own privacy, that is. The idea of a body charged with protecting privacy and civil liberties operating in secret is more than a bit ironic." "The idea of a body charged with protecting privacy and civil liberties operating in secret is more than a bit ironic." "after 7 years, we have some ill-contrived privacy watchdog who will do absolutely nothing and their members will collect large sums of money similar to executives who sit on boards a few times a year" "talk about building a ... Potemkin Village." "They even concoct a Potemkin panel full of government lawyers to explain this to the public upon whom they spy. This Potemkin panel will graciously produce a 'public report' which will explain the legal rationale so that the public can discuss and debate the 'legality and propriety' of spying on everyone in the world." "Speaking of Jason Bourne, didn't the last one portray these exact capabilities, i.e. they showed the CIA intercepting a British journalist's communications through a system that looked like it was monitoring all communications en masse? And there was some moral curve to the plot, when one of the characters said it was wrong for the CIA to have this power and other assassination powers (aka Obama's drones)? I do remember for certain that the Guardian was also in that movie, as the newspaper that was doing the leaking. All a very strange coincidence." "As Conor Fridersdorf noted in the Atlantic, why is it that the decision to use 'indicator of criminal activity' as a reason for the NSA retaining an email, is, itself, a secret? That has nothing to do with terrorism or national security. Why should the FACT that such communications are maintained, be secret and unaccountable?" "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians?" "NSA is undermining the US Constitution and spying on honest hard-working US citizens - an act of war against the United States of America." Privacy & Civil Liberties Board at the heart of Obama's effort to address NSA surveillance scandal is itself a Washington enigma
We were very pleased to meet with the President today. We informed the President that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), an independent, bipartisan federal agency, is undertaking a review of the recently revealed surveillance programs as a top priority. We conveyed our appreciation for the briefings we have received to date. We informed the President that we plan to seek additional briefings, including as to the effectiveness and practical aspects of these programs. We informed the President that as part of our oversight effort, we are scheduling a full day public workshop to seek input from invited experts, academics and advocacy organizations as to the legal bases for these programs and potential options to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: GreyLmist (#0)
I bet you didn't have to cherry-pick those comments. It's always like this. People know. ------------------------------------------ Why should we worship in God what we detest in man? -Robert Ingersoll
More from the Comments section of the article: "Shadow-government organization of unelected power-brokers given an official sounding name in order to disguise their true operating function. Imagine the Sicilian Mafia having a building where they collect and count all their money, and naming it The Federal Accountancy and Transparency Board. That's what the government does. They are a crony, mafia organization of international criminals masquerading as public officials" "... they claim the very human rights of which they deprive everyone else ..." "amid the juvenile hand wringing whine -- 'nobody understands' -- they (executive leadership) claim for themselves exactly that which they deny the public -- a chance to confront their accusers." "They call this 'democracy' as they collect their paychecks." "most people think propping up dictators is defending liberty." "mentioning [Obama] no less than 5 times in that statement..kinda let's me know where the block party is headed. We informed we discussed ..we appreciate..conveyed appreciation again ..we informed again...lol" "Of course its independent, independently stacked with NSA, CIA, FBI and any other Alphabet agency one can think of!" "Gosh, I feel so much better knowing that there may be a sheep or a wolf, or a chicken, or maybe not, guarding the hen house. Ten thousand Orwells simultaneously typing couldn't come up with this stuff." "Another governmental niche "agency" that needs to be trashcanned." "I'm trying to laugh, really I am. But I just can't. This is such a blatant mockery that the humor escapes me. Forget the toothless 'board' of insiders. We need Congressional hearings and a real independent counsel." "Congress, the most despised institution in America, investigating it's partners in corruption in the Executive! What could go wrong?" "Probably another rubber stamp, like FISA." "Bush-Obama already have an alternative court system, the GOP-beloved military tribunal system." "to resolve this whole issue of NSA spying on the public without a warrant ... dismantle key parts of the physical spying apparatus" ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Excellent comment. As PS just observed - People know. And many of us are through with all the deecee double-speak, reverse-speak baloney. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC makes some good points in the commentary below about Snowden, although I disagree with his interpretation that amounts to an official Declaration of War against us being needed from our traitorous Congress before they could be charged with Treason. Perhaps one of the reasons that they've avoided declaring Wars officially for so long is that they are under the impression that not doing so somehow shields them from ever being so charged (and what a silly scam that would be) but their previous declaration of America as a battlefield would likely suffice for those purposes anyway. Whether they've used arms themselves or not doesn't really make much difference as a defense for their actions and those of others in moving to overthrow our Constitutional Republic. Reference the case of Jefferson admin Vice President, Aaron Burr. The link at that 4um post is broken but here's another: Treason: Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson, and the Constitution. Many more research sources about that on the web. Also, it is not necessary for elected/appointed "officials" to be currently in office to be impeached. Reference the case of former Secretary of War, Belknap who had resigned from Pres. Grant's administration. I think I've posted more on that somewhere around here but here's a Wikipedia source. WHAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT TREASON - YouTube Edit to the comment in parentheses + spelling and sentence 1 to shorten. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
People know. Mainly just reshuffled them a bit for continuity. It's good to know that people know. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
As PS just observed - People know. And many of us are through with all the deecee double-speak, reverse-speak baloney. Thanks, Lod. Wouldn't get that impression about the deecee double-speak/reverse-speak just from reading the standard-issue article. It's great news, imo, to read of so many reports from people in the know who are not their customers. The more there are in the know like that, the better. :) ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
We olde farts know, and so do many others...beware deecee, you're playing a dangerous game with us. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
"Independent" and "Federal", now, maybe I'm just being a little too picky but aren't those terms mutually exclusive? "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
This is a rather long but generally informative article with some suggestions for using software alternatives that might be more protective against surveillance. That's something to consider but not enough of an available option for everyone and not enough to protect humanity from abusive uses of technology against us. Towards the end of the article, it slants into a globalist pitch. Am posting portions of it here mostly because the author makes the same interpretive mistake (imo) that Lawrence O'Donnell did in his video commentary at Post #4: that Treason charges require a Congressional Declaration of War against Declared Enemies. [Underlined that perceptual misconstruance below.] I disagree and the Aaron Burr case cited at #4 is an example of why I think that "modernized" view is too narrow. The author of this article might suspect as I do, though, that not officially declaring wars is being used as a deceptive ploy by Congress to prevent prosecutions of the Treasonous. thiscantbehappening.net: The Snowden Controversy and Our Legacy of Choices - excerpts The coverage of his asylum applications and whereabouts, linked with a torrent of public attacks against him from politicians and pundits, have come close to derailing the discussion of the real issues his revelations raise: we are ruled by people who have no faith in democracy and they are able to spy on us because of choices about the Internet that we have made. Those are issues worth discussing but, as usual, noise is making productive conversation difficult. We got another glimpse of that late last week when several European governments erupted in outraged protest that the United States has apparently been conducting intense surveillance on their U.S. embassies and U.N. missions through phone taps and Internet data capture [...] using all kinds of surveillance prompting some European officials to compare it to "the cold war". If the "outrage" were genuine, one could argue, these countries would be lining up to give Snowden asylum. After all, his revelations were of significant service to them in exposing what the US was up to behind their backs. Germany and France, two of the most vocal protestors, certainly have both the authority and power to do that and such an action would probably be very popular in their countries. These statements are pathetic. The Chinese and Russians have known about the surveillance (and complained about it) for years now; [...] Snowden worked for a private contractor and probably took no "oath" for security clearance and even if he did take an oath, treason involves helping a declared enemy during a war -- it's almost never prosecuted because our government no longer declares wars. [My note: The underlined opinion is contested above before the posted article link.] Finally, the Snowden revelations are that these surveillance programs capture the entire Internet. You can't escape them if you use the Internet. Some saner voices caution the world not to let the controversies around young Snowden hide the fact that his revelations, essentially unchallenged by the government, mean that we are being governed by people who are committing one of the most criminal acts a government can commit under our constitution: conducting blanket surveillance on all its citizens. The situation transcends debate. There is no nuance or "balance" or presence of "competing interests" to talk about here. That laws passed in the last decade may sanction such actions means only that the Congress has legislatively crippled democracy and freedom. The point isn't how the government is using the information right now; it's that it has it in the first place. Yet, while this crime We are in a kind of "user prison" on the Internet, dependent on software that is owned by corporations who have no right to own it and who are, essentially, part of the repressive systems the government has put in place. This gloomy picture is made darker by the fact that it didn't have to be this way and still doesn't. There are powerful and efficient alternatives to all these services that function based on Free and Open Source Software provided by organizations that not only have no relationship with the government but scrupulously protect data from the government's snooping eyes. While it's true that no democratic government should be spying on its citizens, it's also true that we have let down our guard viewing the government as a neutral force in communications rather than an intrusive, repressive force against which we have to protect ourselves. The framers of the Constitution understood how important this self-protection is. The constitution is an intellectual see-saw of competing rights and privileges stabilized by a series of "checks and balances". If they thought the government was as benevolent as many Americans apparently do, why would they have even established the "checks and balances" concept? The Citizens United Supreme Court decision demonstrates that the government doesn't care that you realize it serves corporations and, when it comes to technology, the "service" is over the top. Return to paragraph 7: There is no nuance or "balance" or presence of "competing interests" to talk about here. That laws passed in the last decade may sanction such actions means only that the Congress has legislatively crippled democracy and freedom. Reference: Treason info linked at Post #4. Edited underline formatting. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Not too picky at all. It's very thought provoking. :) ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3: Treason - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net Adhering to the enemies of our Constututional Republic, giving them Aid and Comfort -- that's clear enough, I think. Legislation like the "Patriot Act" which contravenes the 4th Amendment and other such Unconstitutional moves with threat of Police/Judiciary/Military, etc. enforcement against us equates, imo, to Levying War against the Constitution, America's Constitutional Republic and We the People of it. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The justification for secrecy is to maintain the govt's high standards of investigative efficiency. For instance, a guy I knew sent an e-mail to his aunt, and it was well documented that her ex-husband's uncle's first wife's cousin's son once donated to an Arab Christian Toys For Tots Program. Needless to say, much of the funds collected were used to buy replica firearms to institute early familiarity and training in the use of weapons. It was not a great leap across the assumption gap to suspect that in the near future those children will have cultivated a fondness for real weapons, and those weapons will be supplied (through donations) to kill Jewish people. Of course they'll keep the e-mail as they are legally empowered to do. Any questions?
There should be no private contractors doing business with our government who haven't taken the oath. If their religion or ideology makes adhering to that oath undoable for them, they shouldn't even apply. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Many like where would anyone get the wrongful notion that they're authorized to violate the 4th Amendment so? Not from the Constitution. :) ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
------- Roger that. As the article clearly stated the phantom group (which we are supposed to assume is to protect the integrity of the law even though no such mission statement was ever offered) is jam packed with lawyers. President Obama knows too well as did President Bush before him that exceptions can be made to the law of the land now that lawyers are stepping up and writing opinions that virtually conjure up formerly non existent presidential powers. These powers are given the weight of statutory law by virtue of two presidents' cheerful acceptance of them, and the unspoken understanding that no article three judge will overrule them, and/or the majority of political hacks on the US Supreme Court will sustain them. These "legal signing statement alchemist lawyers" work in concert like ants, receiving pheromone signals from the highest court without ever having to appear or answer a single legal challenge to their newly discovered powers. So,they've simply discarded the "goddam piece of paper" by reclassifying it as nuisance trash, and under the exigent circumstances of The War On Terror it now lacks the legal weight to defeat their legal gibberish briefs. Both presidents welcomed these opinions as living genius overruling the dead hand that formerly bound them from mischief. Conclusion: Bush then Obama committed open treason, all enobled govt lawyers sided with them and the American people are now so dumbed down that they can no longer assert their rights. And rights we fail to assert are rights we forfeit. A starving DAWG in a filthy, forgotten backyard cage has no knowledge of the laws that ostensibly protect it from abuse and neglect. The animal simply makes the best of it even as its ribs start to show and mange eats it alive. And We The People my friend are now starving, mangy, forgotten mutts who have been betrayed by the govt and the compact we foolishly believed was to protect us. Some of us will howl in protest, but that just seems to disturb other dumb animals upon which the chains seem to bear lightly. It's an assault on several fronts as Adam Kokesh has an exploratory committee to run for congress after having demoralized the militia at a moment in time that couldn't have proven more timely if planned by the evildoers at Tavistock. Our reps and senators are too petrified to hold town halls in the meat world. (My senior senator called me to ask for my participation with a "telephone town hall meeting". I missed the call but a real United States Senator left a message on my machine!) The govt is stock piling ammo, the manufacturers have failed to meet the crushing civilian demand and we may with a single catalyst soon hear the second shot heard 'round the world. God Help us all. This rogue government will nape us all if we march under arms. And the new motto may be, "You can have my gun when you pry my blackened, charred fingers from around it."
Great (if awful) conclusion - great wordsmithing, thanks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Gets ya a piece of bacon for that one, Dawggie.
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner. The situation is not optimal at the moment but the Militias of our States are still America's Constitutional Militia, so they should shake off the doldrums as promptly and as best they can. People with no allegiance to the Constitution have seceded from it but have been gaming our country and the world as if they haven't and can do whatever they want here or wherever. When Protestants claimed independence from the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, they weren't continually referred to as Catholics everafter and neither should secessionists from our Constitution be confused as Americans just the same instead of the mob of foreign-commandeering that they are. A big difference between Protestants and the traitorous defectors from our Constitutional Republic is that all of America remains the valid jurisdiction of Constitutionalists only, no matter the personal belief system of the unaligned. Edited last sentence. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thank you.
bacon bacon bacon bacon BACON!
Your gutsy, linear and logical reply may have the unintended effect of establishing a minimum intellectual capability requirement for patriots to understand it. That will greatly limit the work force needed to heal (or surgically excise) the spastic, diseased, multi-tentacled organ that is ruling over us. The heavily armed enemy will have no trouble committing to their survival mission in opposition. They will simply motivate their troops with visions of an enemy that wants to strip them of their salaries and pensions and snazzy power uniforms and body armor and weapons, and reduce them to the equivalent of govt school janitors or mail carriers. Their robots will intuitively understand that a non sexy govt is an impotent force, and they will kill us like Stallone and The Arnold has in so many Hollywood Summer Blockbusters to protect their power to remain active, potent members of UniformDating.com.
...with no right to vote or otherwise participate in our rightful form of government and no valid designation as Americans. The Constitutional Militia - Moment of Truth #112 - 20 seconds ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: All (#2)
(Edited)
an alternative court system, the GOP-beloved military tribunal system.
#5. To: PSUSA2 (#1)
I bet you didn't have to cherry-pick those comments. It's always like this.
#6. To: Lod (#3)
Excellent comment.
#7. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#6)
#8. To: GreyLmist (#0)
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), an independent, bipartisan federal agency
#9. To: All (#4)
(Edited)
Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC makes some good points in the commentary below about Snowden, although I disagree with his interpretation that amounts to an official Declaration of War against us being needed from our traitorous Congress before they could be charged with Treason. Perhaps one of the reasons that they've avoided declaring Wars officially for so long is that they are under the impression that not doing so somehow shields them from ever being so charged (and what a silly scam that would be) but their previous declaration of America as a battlefield would likely suffice for those purposes anyway.
In one of the most innovative uses of the bizarre rules of international travel, whistle-blower Edward Snowden sits in an airport transit lounge outside the customs barrier that is Russian enough to not invade but not Russian enough to claim the Russians are hiding him.
that should be the critical news, there is another layer to this story that has completely escaped attention. It's hidden, not by the statements and PR manipulations of the government, but by the lack of importance most people give it, fostered over years [of] cultural manipulation by corporations and governments.
#10. To: Southern Style (#8)
"Independent" and "Federal", now, maybe I'm just being a little too picky but aren't those terms mutually exclusive?
#11. To: Lod (#7)
#12. To: All (#4)
WHAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT TREASON - YouTube
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
LEVYING WAR, crim. law. The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.
#13. To: GreyLmist (#0)
"As Conor Fridersdorf noted in the Atlantic, why is it that the decision to use 'indicator of criminal activity' as a reason for the NSA retaining an email, is, itself, a secret? That has nothing to do with terrorism or national security. Why should the FACT that such communications are maintained, be secret and unaccountable?"
#14. To: All (#9)
Snowden worked for a private contractor and probably took no "oath" for security clearance
#15. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Any questions?
#16. To: GreyLmist (#15)
(Edited)
...where would anyone get the wrongful notion that they're authorized to violate the 4th Amendment so? Not from the Constitution. :)
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
#18. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
(Edited)
#20. To: Lod (#17)
#21. To: Esso (#18)
Gets ya a piece of bacon for that one, Dawggie.
#22. To: GreyLmist, Esso, Lod, christine, Jethro Tull, X-15 (#19)
The situation is not optimal at the moment but the Militias of our States are still America's Constitutional Militia, so they should shake off the doldrums as promptly and as best they can. People with no allegiance to the Constitution have seceded from it but have been gaming our country and the world as if they haven't and can do whatever they want here or wherever. When Protestants claimed independence from the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, they weren't continually referred to as Catholics everafter and neither should secessionists from our Constitution be confused as Americans just the same instead of the mob of foreign-commandeering that they are. A big difference between Protestants and the traitorous defectors from our Constitutional Republic is that all of America remains the valid jurisdiction of Constitutionalists only, no matter the personal belief system of the unaligned.
#23. To: HOUNDDAWG (#22)
The heavily armed enemy will have no trouble committing to their survival mission in opposition. They will simply motivate their troops with visions of an enemy that wants to strip them of their salaries and pensions and snazzy power uniforms and body armor and weapons, and reduce them to the equivalent of govt school janitors or mail carriers.
...they will kill us like Stallone and The Arnold has in so many Hollywood Summer Blockbusters to protect their power...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
