Civil Rights

This story is from Tuesday, but has been ignored thanks to Imus and all the other"important" news:

President Bush's spy chief is pushing to expand the government's surveillance authority at the same time the administration is under attack for stretching its domestic eavesdropping powers.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has circulated a draft bill that would expand the government's powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, liberalizing how that law can be used.

Known as "FISA," the 1978 law was passed to allow surveillance in espionage and other foreign intelligence investigations, but still allow federal judges on a secretive panel to ensure protections for U.S. citizens — at home or abroad — and other permanent U.S. residents.

The changes McConnell is seeking mostly affect a cloak-and-dagger category of warrants used to investigate suspected spies, terrorists and other national security threats. The court-approved surveillance could include planting listening devices and hidden cameras, searching luggage and breaking into homes to make copies of computer hard drives.

Sure, because this administration has proven how trustworthy it is with greater powers. I wonder what email address they will use to correspond on these issues.

Today's New York Times has obtained documents showing the NYPD spied upon people who were planning to protest the 2004 GOP Convention:

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.

From Albuquerque to Montreal, San Francisco to Miami, undercover New York police officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists, the records show.

They made friends, shared meals, swapped e-mail messages and then filed daily reports with the department’s Intelligence Division. Other investigators mined Internet sites and chat rooms.

From these operations, run by the department’s “R.N.C. Intelligence Squad,” the police identified a handful of groups and individuals who expressed interest in creating havoc during the convention, as well as some who used Web sites to urge or predict violence.

Amazing this comes out during the same time we are going through the attorney purge and the fact evidence is pointing to the U.S.A.s being purged for not going after Democrats enough. So why does the GOP hate democracy so much?

All the arguments last year over the warrentless wiretapping, and all the spin by wingnuts to say it is legal has now come to an end:

President George W. Bush has decided not to reauthorize the controversial domestic warrantless surveillance program for terrorism suspects and to put it under the authority of a secret special court, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday.

"The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to Senate leaders.

"Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales said.

The only possible reason I can see for such a drastic about face on this is the question of legality. I suspect that someone in the administration told Bush that he was really walking a tight rope on this and the Democrats are ready to push him over. Of course this doesn't absolve him from any previous wrong doings on this, and the Democrats still must investigate the past incidents and take appropriate actions against Bush for them.

And a new story has emerged that he MUST answer for:

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

That's right - our dictator can now snoop in our mail WITHOUT a warrant. Are you listening Democrats? Fuck all these Republicans telling you that you shouldn't consider impeachment. This man is destroying our country and has ignored our constitution. That very document says he should be impeached for that. I suggest the Democrats listen to our Constitution and send this jack-ass packing.

 Today's New York Times has a very interesting article that requires a thorough reading. It details how an American contractor was held in an American military prison in Iraq for more than 90 days without access to a lawyer. Furthermore, this person was wrongly jailed. He was an informant for the FBI into possible contractor fraud, and the military detained him. To add insult to injury, this man was subject to many of the same treatments as the prisoners at Gitmo.

Two very important issues come to mind from this story.

Why would American citizens subject themselves to this? I am not talking about the actual treatment, but the risk of being subject to that treatment. I know the pay is phenomenal for American contactors in Iraq, but in essence you are putting a price on your life, and in the end your life is not worth that price.

Now I know many are thinking that "this will never happen to me or my loved one working over there", and if that is the case, then you must read this story again. This is a man, who was doing the right thing. He was reporting possible illegal activities, something any citizen of the United States, with a conscience would do. He ended up being subject to 3 months of total hell, because the military screwed up, and remember - he was denied access to attorneys (because of Bush's idea of Democracy), so he had no way to plea his case. Sounds more like times prior to the 17th century than the 21st century.

The other issue that comes to mind deals with the people who constantly support this type of technique. I am talking about the wingnuts (the Malkins and Drudges in the world).

Now I can understand that these people also suffer from the proverbial "this couldn't happen to me" mind set. This just shows how disconnected from reality they really are.

TPMmuckraker:

Ah, the Man with the Iron Mustache is leaving the international arena -- but not before attempting a thoroughly embarrassing and wholly unsympathetic maneuver.

Less than two weeks before the White House announced his resignation, Ambassador John Bolton's U.N. mission blocked an effort to celebrate the end of slavery in our hemisphere.

I thought Bush wanted to celebrate freedom? Instead he has proved that he hates it. Shocking? Nahhhhh. I am sure Bush and Bolton would love nothing more than to legalize slavery so that their corporate buddies could save even more money. That is compassionate conservatism in action!

Remember when Christmas was about "peace on earth and goodwill towards men"? This would be a perfect way to symbolize that sentiment.

Well it is unless you live in one of those corporate run communities that have a home owners association:

A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

So the home owner's association is upset because they feel it speaks out against Iraq - you know that war where we are supposed to be spreading democracy? So how about this democratic approach to handling the situation:

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

That sounds like George Bush styled democracy to me - if something isn't decided upon the way you want then you fire them. I really hope this case ends up going to court so that these so-called "activist judges" can rule in favor of freedom of speech.

If anything people should learn a lesson from this. Don't purchase a home in a condominium or community with a home owner's association. It deprives you of your very basic right in this democracy of owning land. They also deprive you of your constitutional right of free speech and a shining example of why corporations absolutely hate what America stands for.

We have been plagued by stories of computers that contain our personal information being stolen this year. Now we have a study out that shows how little privacy we have here in the United States:

U.S. privacy protections rank among the worst in the democratic world, a London-based privacy organization said Wednesday.

Privacy International ranked 36 nations around the globe, including all European Union nations and other major democracies, and determined that in categories such as enforcement of privacy laws, the U.S. is on par with countries like China, Russia and Malaysia.

Overall, the U.S. was determined to be an "extensive surveillance society,” the second-lowest rating in the study.

This is something that has happened under the watch of George Bush. He has pissed on the graves of our forefathers and worked to destroy what we once stood for. What for? In the name of revenge. He has used 9/11 and terrorism for his little revenge to go after Saddam. He could care less if Osama ever gets caught. Hell I bet he wishes we would have another 9/11, so long as it is after the elections and he don't have to worry about actually explaining himself to congress. That would give him a way to strip even more liberties away and start more wars. Make no mistake - George Bush is the gravest threat to this country that it has ever faced!

No wonder more and more soldiers are getting pissed about Iraq. We now have the very government they defend trying to censure their lives online. This is highly disturbing:

We realize that when it comes to freedom of the press, the USA has fallen to Number 53 in the world — tied with our fascist homies in Croatia and the islanders of the Kingdom of Tonga! — but do we have to make is so damned obvious?

Another Marine stationed in Iraq has sent us a screenshot of what happens when you need some hot news on Macaca and Foley:

forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com) is categorized as (Personal Pages) ALL SITES YOU VISIT ARE LOGGED AND FILED.

Nice little threat at the end, too. Asswipes.

Wonkette also has a screenshot, which show two right-wing sites loaded in the tabs, but her site and Josh Marshall's site are blocked.

The very tone of that warning is the most disturbing. "All sites you visit are logged and filed". So it is a crime now for a member of the United States armed services to view left-wing politics? This is the kind of policy Donald Rumsfeld lets go on in his Pentagon.

The right is trying to use the threat of impeachment as a reason to vote for Republicans. Well did Bill Clinton deny the basic constitutional rights of the people who defend our Constitution? Absolutley not. Yes Bush needs impeached and Rumsfeld needs charged for violating the civil rights of these soldiers. With these kind of actions by our leaders, it is no wonder people compare them to Hitler. Sadly I feel that might be an insult on Hitler now.

Reporters Without Borders has released their annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index and the United States has now fallen 53rd place:

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

I am sure this is what our forefathers fought and died for - a country diminishing in the very freedoms it was based upon. We now fail in comparison to other countries such as Bosnia, El Salvador and Serbia. In other words - that glowing light of freedom is now much dimmer. Thank you George Bush.

Here we go with the government run by the party of "small government" trying to expand their powers even more:

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday called on Internet service providers to record their customers' online activities, a move that anticipates a fierce debate over privacy and law enforcement in Washington next year. "Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms," Mueller said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Boston.

ISP snooping time line In events that were first reported by CNET News.com, Bush administration officials have said Internet providers must keep track of what Americans are doing online.

"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. "We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."

Yeah because that information would be so secured once it is stored. Hell has the FBI even fixed their major security loop holes? I doubt it and personal information being stolen from government computers is on a drastic rise and already at an all time high. Hey Mueller - fix your own problems first.

Our nation has now turned back the hands of time to a point in history before we were actually a nation:

The Senate, siding with President Bush shortly after he personally lobbied lawmakers at the Capitol, rejected a move Thursday by a leading Republican to allow terrorism suspects to challenge their imprisonment in court.

The vote paved the way for final passage of Bush's plan to establish "military commissions" to prosecute terrorism suspects in legislation that also spells out violations of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of war prisoners.

Republicans say the bill is necessary to ensure that terrorists can be brought to justice and that CIA personnel will not be charged with war crimes when interrogating these suspects.

Barring any last-minute hiccups, the bill could reach the president's desk as early as Friday.

The Republicans feel that people have no rights and can be detained indefinitely just because the President wants them to. This is an all time low for our nation. Of course the legislation takes a big chance of failing in the judicial system, but that will take time. It will also reset everything that Senate did this week and have to be done all over again. This is the price of a rubber stamp congress. They have destroyed what America stands for.

Just as disturbing is the provision in this bill that gives a carte blanche pardon to Bush and his administration for violating the Geneva Conventions. The pardon is effective from 9/11/2001 on up. By passing this bill, Senate has already convicted the Bush administration of war crimes and instead choose to make it so that breaking the law is legal. Again - they have destroyed what America stands for. Bush, his administration and the Republicans are true enemies to the United States.

We really need to go after these threats to our country:

Jim Bensman thought his suggestion during a public hearing was harmless enough: Instead of building a channel so migratory fish could go around a dam on the Mississippi River, just get rid of the dam.

Instead, the environmental activist found himself in hot water, drawing FBI scrutiny to see whether he had any terrorist intentions.

The case "shows just how easy it is to be labeled a suspected terrorist," he says.

It all started on July 25 in Alton, Ill., when the Army Corps of Engineers invited public discussion about options for improving fish movement at the nearby Melvin Price Locks and Dam, considered a major impediment to roughly three dozen species that migrate upstream.

During the 90-minute hearing that included on the agenda whether to build a fish channel, Bensman says, he reiterated he's no fan of dams, contending they're environmentally destructive and amount to billions of dollars in corporate welfare for boating interests.

He urged that the dam be torn out. He said he never mentioned blowing the dam up, though the corps' presentation of possible options included a picture of a dam being dynamited.

The next day, however, a local newspaper reported that Bensman "said he would like to see the dam blown up and resents paying taxes to fix dam problems when it is barge companies that profit from the dam."

Workers at the corps' St. Louis office "took a dim view (of the article) and questioned if it was a potential threat," and a security manager forwarded the clipping to the FBI, said corps spokesman Alan Dooley.

Within days, the FBI had Bensman on the phone, asking whether he was any threat.

Remember 9/11? Remember that city council meeting in New York where they were discussing plans about the World Trade Center right before the attacks and Osama stood up and said "I think we should get rid of them because they are not environmentally sound"? Yeah that's what I thought.

This is just more proof that our government, under the Republican leadership, considers people who oppose their political beliefs as terrorists. They don't worry as much about the people who would actually want to blow us up, or destroy our nation. Instead they worry about people who might make a difference and make the air a little cleaner, the water a little clearer and life a little better. Why? Because it may end up hurting corporations and that is the only thing the Republicans care about. They couldn't give a shit about you or me, just the big money.

How about this - "A government by the people for the people"? Wow that a silly idea.

Now this is something that is very interesting. An article in Today's Washington Post talks about Little Green Footballs and the altered Reuters' photo. When you get towards the end of the article, a side of LGF that many of us knew, but was never really talked about in the mainstream media, is talked about:

Not everyone, though, is a fan. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights organization often vilified on Johnson's blog, calls Little Green Footballs "a vicious, anti-Muslim hate site . . . that has unfortunately become popular."

The irony, Hooper says, is that if the same kind of "hatred" that appears on LGF appeared on Muslim sites, it soon would be used by LGF's fans to justify their worldview.

Like many politically themed blogs, Little Green Footballs doesn't always traffic in subtlety and nuance. Dissenting points of view often are dismissed as "idiotarian" or "LLL" (for "loony liberal left"), and Islam is mockingly referred to as "RoP," meaning "religion of peace."

Hooper says the Reuters incident is unfortunate in itself, but says such sites as Little Green Footballs use such lapses "as a club against the entire mainstream media. Their line is basically that if one freelance photographer alters a photo, then everything Israel does must be justified. Or if one of the sentences that Dan Rather once uttered wasn't correct, then the media is corrupt and Dan Rather's whole career is rotten to the core."

The FBI, according to Hooper, recently investigated several threats of physical harm against Muslims posted by Little Green Footballs readers.

Johnson acknowledges the investigation but says Hooper's organization initiated the complaints to try to stifle free speech on his blog. And Johnson names the Council on American-Islamic Relations as one of the groups he's referring to when he talks about the undue influence of Arab-funded organizations on American society and the media.

Hooper most likely hit the nail on the head with this complaint. Take a few minutes and visit right wing blogs or political forums and one thing is constant - the hatred towards Middle Eastern people. They believe these people should be tortured simply because "they are brown". They make cute little names for them like "mooslims", yet they are the first to yell about their tolerance. Of course they are just trying to justify their hatred by saying this.

While saying things on the internet is not the same as actions in real life, they do have real life implications. Think of the people who read these type of posts and get enraged at Middle Eastern people as a whole simply because these authors do such a good job at lumping them all together. I wonder if any soldiers who are suspected of killing innocent Iraqis ever visited these sites. This is the new form of hate being bred on the internet and law enforcement needs to really be on the look out for influences in this. Sure these blogs and posters have a right to free speech, but Muslims, who are American citizens, have a right to life and liberty and be free from persecution because of religion or skin color.

Something that appears to have fallen under the blogosphere radar today is a treaty that was ratified by Senate to fight cybercrime:

The Senate has ratified a treaty under which the United States will join more than 40 other countries, mainly from Europe, in fighting crimes committed via the Internet.

The Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, ratified late Thursday, is the first international treaty seeking to address Internet crimes by harmonizing national laws, improving investigative techniques and increasing cooperation among nations.

The convention had been signed by 38 European nations plus the United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa, as of the end of 2005. It was opened for signature in 2001

"While balancing civil liberty and privacy concerns, this treaty encourages the sharing of critical electronic evidence among foreign countries so that law enforcement can more effectively investigate and combat these crimes," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

The convention targets hackers, those spreading destructive computer viruses, those using the Internet for the sexual exploitation of children or the distribution of racist material and terrorists attempting to attack infrastructure facilities or financial institutions.

"This treaty provides important tools in the battles against terrorism, attacks on computer networks, and the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet, by strengthening U.S. cooperation with foreign countries in obtaining electronic evidence," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said. "The Convention is in full accord with all U.S. constitutional protections, such as free speech and other civil liberties, and will require no change to U.S. laws."

So doesn't sound to bad at first - does it? Well maybe the racist part could be provide an infringement on the civil liberties here at home, but we have laws protecting that. Don't we? Let's look to the EFF for the answer on that one:

The Convention on Cybercrime is a sweeping treaty that has been waiting in the wings of the Senate for nearly three years. Now the administration is putting pressure on the Senate to ratify it in the next two days. If it does, it would mean the U.S. would enforce not just our own, but the rest of the world's bad Net laws. Call your Senator now, and ask them to hold its ratification.

The treaty requires that the U.S. government help enforce other countries' "cybercrime" laws - even if the act being prosecuted is not illegal in the United States. That means that countries that have laws limiting free speech on the Net could oblige the F.B.I. to uncover the identities of anonymous U.S. critics, or monitor their communications on behalf of foreign governments. American ISPs would be obliged to obey other jurisdiction's requests to log their users’ behavior without due process, or compensation.

The treaty came into force last year on the international front, but not in the US, where it needs to be ratified by Congress first. So far, ratification has been blocked thanks to a "hold" placed by conservative lawmakers. But Republican senators this week are now being heavily pressured by the administration to drop their objections, and let it fly.

So when we are online, we not only have to worry about the laws of our nation, but the laws of other nation's now. In other words, if you attack a race on the internet and some other country has a law against that then that country can come after you, even though you were well within your rights here in the United States.

This is just another loophole for the government to use in order to reduce the rights we as American citizens enjoyed at one time. Give it another 10 years and we will have no rights at all in our nation. This is a sign of the times and damn it is scary.