Maddow: New rule kicks Patriot Act foes ‘right in the teeth’

The Bush administration has been planning since last spring to issue a final burst of federal regulations just before leaving office. It was recently announced that over 90 new regulations would be finalized before November 22 — 60 days prior to the end of Bush’s term — making them difficult, though not impossible, for President Obama to reverse. Read more

Will Obama “Change” The Bush Police State Or Expand It?

Now that Barack Obama has become the 44th President of the United States we offer a challenge - will those who elected him be able to progress past their fawning idolatry and actually pressure Obama to deliver on his mandate of “change,” or will the architecture of the Bush police state remain in place while the American empire expands? Read more

Jim Marrs on the Alex Jones Show: Rise of the Fourth Reich

Read more

Bailout is financial equivalent of the Patriot Act

NEW YORK: The passage is stunning:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency,” the original draft of the proposed bill says. Read more

Seven years on, no answer from White House on anthrax attacks

It’s been almost seven years since — in the weeks immediately following 9/11 — anthrax powder sent through the mail killed five people, threatened the lives of two Democratic senators, terrorized the entire nation, and helped prod a panicky Congress into passing the so-called Patriot Act.

In the intervening years, not only has the killer remained free, but missteps in the investigation have had major negative consequences. Just last month, in fact, the Department of Justice agreed to pay $4.6 million to former bioweapons expert Stephen Hatfill to settle a lawsuit Hatfill brought against the Justice Department, the FBI, and former Attorney General John Ashcroft for destroying his reputation and career by publicly implicating him in the case. And Glenn Greenwald has pointed out that in 2001, ABC News was fed false information by several “well-placed sources” (presumably officials in the Bush administration) suggesting an Iraq-anthrax link. That imaginary link was widely cited by pro-war cheerleaders.

At Monday’s White House briefing, I asked if President Bush was satisfied with the progress of the investigation into the attacks. Press Secretary Dana Perino told me that she didn’t even “know if he has had an update on it.”

Here is our exchange:

Q Is the president satisfied with the progress of the investigation into the anthrax attacks?

MS. PERINO: I don’t know if he has had an update on it. But obviously this is something that the FBI is doing. We don’t do the investigation from the White House.

Q Well, is he following the progress?

MS. PERINO: You know, I’m sure he — he gets updated by Director Mueller once a week on a variety of issues. And if that comes up, I’m sure he gets an update.

Q You don’t know if he’s satisfied with the progress?

MS. PERINO: I don’t.

One reason I thought the White House might need to be reminded of this issue is because as recently as last January, in his 2008 State of the Union address, the President appeared to have completely forgotten about the attacks, stating, “We are grateful that there has not been another attack on our soil since 9/11.” The anthrax letters, of course, were postmarked on September 18 and October 9, 2001, one to four weeks after 9/11. In his radio address to the nation on November 3, 2001, Bush called them “a second wave of terrorist attacks,” and promised that “we will solve these crimes, and we will punish those responsible.”

But just a few months later, the White House was already stalling. Asked about the pace of the investigation on February 25, 2002, then-Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said, “The President would like to get this, obviously, resolved as quickly as is possible. The pace of justice is a methodical one…the President believes the FBI is doing a good, solid job.”

The question didn’t come up again at a White House briefing until more than three years later, when a reporter asked Scott McClellan, “Why have we not found the person or persons responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001?” Scott’s reply: “That’s a matter that remains a priority. It remains under investigation. The FBI continues to pursue it.”

So it’s incredible that now, after three more years, all the White House spokesperson has to say is, “If that comes up, I’m sure he gets an update.” Not “he believes the FBI is doing a good job.” Not even “that matter remains a priority.” Just “if it comes up, he gets an update.”

That’s simply unacceptable. Why isn’t THE PRESIDENT bringing it up? And almost as bad, why hasn’t the establishment media pressed the administration harder on this issue? Especially after this story by David Willman in the L.A. Times revealed that Justice Department officials kept the investigation focused on Hatfill for almost five years, even though investigators never found any evidence linking him to the attacks, and that many experts who have been involved in the case now believe that it will never be solved.

When the Ramsey family was cleared in the JonBenet case, the media went wild. I can only suppose that one more Bush failure is no longer considered newsworthy.

The preceding article was a White House report from Eric Brewer, who will periodically attend White House press briefings for Raw Story. Brewer is also a contributor at BTC News. He was the first reporter to ask about the Downing Street memo and the Pentagon analysts scandal at White House briefings.

Raw Story | Eric Brewer | Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Barclays uses US anti-terror laws to close British citizens’ accounts

Barclays is closing the bank accounts of British customers, who are working in this country for businesses linked to Iran, to conform with US anti-terror laws.

The bank, which has considerable business interests in the US, is using guidelines drawn up under the Patriot Act to target firms which have not broken any laws in the UK.

The development emerged after a letter, which was written to lawyers representing employees of the Iranian-owned Bank Saderat and Melli Bank, was leaked to The Times newspaper.

Both banks have bases in the City of London, they are fully licensed to operate in Britain and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

There are Treasury and European Union sanctions in place against Iranian firms but neither of the banks are punished under those rules.

However, they both appear on the US government Office of Foreign Assets Control list of specially designated nationals (SDNs).

The US has accused Melli Bank of links to weapons of mass destruction and described Bank Saderat as a terrorist financier. Both banks deny the allegations strongly.

The letter, written by Deborah Cooper, a senior Barclays lawyer, said: “Barclays has… a policy of not conducting business with people or entities which are publicly designated SDNs and in line with that Barclays is unable to receive payments from or undertake other business which involves Melli or Saderat.”

Among those affected was a Barclays customer who gave his name only as Chris, 46, who works in IT for Bank Saderat, while his wife is in the accounts department of Melli Bank.

Both of their personal accounts were closed after a single telephone call.

Chris said: “I asked them if they were responding to American laws and they said they didn’t have to give me a reason.”

Barclays had no comment and cited customer confidentiality for being unable to discuss the issues.

Telegraph | Andy Bloxham | Friday, June 6, 2008

The ‘war on terror’ licenses a new stupidity in geopolitics

The language loved by Bush and Musharraf has translated into a global disaster bringing death and misery to millions

Nothing and nobody can stop bombs going off. No citizen, no police force, no army, no government and no global military alliance can prevent a determined suicide bomber from blowing himself up. It will happen and innocent people will die as a result, horribly, as they do on the roads, from drugs and alcohol, or from natural disasters - again without responsible authority being able to stop it. Read more

Ron Paul On The Reauthorization Of The PATRIOT Act

The Police State Act: A Report

Congress passed legislation last week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10 years, although the bill faced far more opposition than the original Act four years ago. I’m heartened that more members of Congress are listening to their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and expansions of federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why Congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist leaders still have not been captured.

The tired arguments we’re hearing today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security, it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.

One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the 170-page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine-tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties.

Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London bombings during the debate, insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home. I won’t even dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it.

The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.

July 26, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul | July 26, 2005

Obama On The Reauthorization Of The PATRIOT Act

Senator Obama discusses the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Podcast Transcript:

Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama and today is Friday, December 16th, 2005.

You know four years ago, following 9/11, this body that I serve in, the United States Senate, passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order to give our nation’s law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists - terrorists who possibly right now are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security and carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw back then.

All of us agree that we need legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. All of us agree that we need to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get flight licenses and sneak across our borders - every single America wants that to happen.

But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, I began hearing concerns from people of every background, every political leaning that this law - the very purpose of which was to protect us - was also threatening to violate our rights and our freedoms as Americans. That it didn’t just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers that it didn’t need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

Now, what’s happened in Washington, of course, is that the debate as usual has degenerated into this “either-or” type debate. So, either we’re in favor of protecting our people from terror or we will protect our most cherished civil liberties. That’s a false choice. It asks too little of us, assumes too little about America.

That’s why as it’s come time to reauthorize this law, there have been a group of senators, including myself, working in a bi-partisan way to show the American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil rights. We want to show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it wants to. In other words, what we’ve been trying to do is to inject some accountability in this process - to get answers and to see evidence where there is suspicion.

So, a bi-partisan group of Senators several weeks ago actually came up with a compromise piece of legislation - you had people like Russ Feingold on the left and Larry Craig on the right agree to this bill. We passed it out of the Senate unanimously. It wasn’t perfect but at least it addressed some of the most serious provisions, like the so-called “sneak-and-peek” provisions, that existed in current law.

Unfortunately, the house members decided they didn’t like this bill. They put some rushed legislation together that fails to address the concerns that people had about the previous PATRIOT ACT. So, just to give you a couple of examples: this legislation puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued this legislation that’s been proposed allowed federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. All they needed was sign-off from a local FBI official. That’s it.

Once a business or a person received notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anybody about it; they can’t challenge this automatic gag order in court. Despite the fact that judges have already found similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - the bill that is before the Senate disregards this case law and the right to challenge the gag orders.

If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you’ve done so already. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of the law, and I don’t see why it’s justified here.

If somebody wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through library books they’ve read , phone calls they’ve made, e-mails that they’ve sent - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.
And that’s - that’s just plain wrong.

Now, I’m happy to say that we had our first vote on this issue on the floor of the Senate today. There was a procedure that is called a “cloture vote.” Cloture means that it ends debate, it eliminates the possibility of the filibuster. Those of us who thought this was a bad compromise voted against cloture, and a number of Republicans joined us and in fact cloture, which required 60 votes, did not succeed.

And so the Republican leadership is scrambling right now to figure out what they’re going to do, and the White House has threatened that they are just going to let the Patriot Act lapse all together and will then blame Democrats if there is a terrorist attack prior to reauthorization of a new Patriot Act. Now that kind of rhetoric makes absolutely no sense, as you might imagine. If in fact the White House and the Republican leadership think that these provisions are absolutely vital, then you’d think that they would accept Democrats’ offer to extend it for three months as we continue to work on this compromise. There’s a lot of political posturing going on around this and I think that needs to end because the issues that we’re dealing with here are too important to play politics with.

So, I am hopeful that we get an extension on the existing Patriot Act for three months; we can work out a compromise that ensures our civil liberties are protected; that provides for the critical judicial oversight that’s at the core of most of our law enforcement processes; that still gives law enforcement the tools that they need in order to protect our homeland.

Now, having said all this let me also complain to you. As a consequence of the disorganization here in the Senate and whoever is running the ship, I am supposed to be flying over the Pacific Ocean right now - with my family - about to land in Hawaii for my vacation with my wife and kids. They have gone without me. My wife basically said, “Well, I hope you can make it, buddy” and took off. So, it looks like I’m stuck in Washington this weekend. As you might imagine, I’m not happy about this.

Despite that fact, I want to mention that I probably won’t be doing a podcast until early January. I’m going to be traveling after my vacation to the Middle East, including Iraq and Israel. If the schedule and logistics allow it I’m going to try to record a podcast while I am in the Middle East. Either way I’ll try to give you guys a full report when I get back.

So despite the fact that I’m feeling a little gloomy right now, the grinch has sort of stole my Christmas - he looks surprisingly like Bill Frist - nevertheless, I am hoping that all of you guys have a wonderful holiday season, a happy new year, and I look forward to talking to you soon.

Bye-Bye.

Barack Obama | Friday, December 16, 2005

Here come the thought police: yet another assault on US civil liberties in the Bush era

The Bush administration and a spineless Congress - Republican and Democratic members alike - have been chipping away at hard-won US civil liberties ever since the events 9/11/.First, came the draconian “USA Patriot Act” of October 2001, which was rushed though Congress with virtually no debate. Only one member of the Senate spoke out against it. His was a lone voice that was drowned by a shrill chorus of pro-Act voices in Congress, as the Bush administration used ever pressure-tactic in the book to ensure quick passage of the Act.

Next, along came the even more draconian “Homeland Security Act” of January 2002, which, among other things, lumped together more than a score of US federal agencies under the umbrella of a new Department of Homeland Security - a bureaucratic behemoth outranked in size only by the Department of Defence. Critics described the Department of Homeland Security as latter-day version of George Orwell’s “Big Brother is Watching You.”

And now, in a move that critics have billed as an Orwellian version of the “thought police,” the US House of Representatives last month, by as vote of 404-6, has passed the “Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” of 2007. The bill now rests in Senator Joe Lieberman’s Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain.

Not since the infamous Patriot Act of 2001 has any bill so threatened the constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens.

The US Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. There were introduced as a series of amendments in 1789 in the 1st Congress by James Madison. Ten of the amendments were ratified and became the Bill of Rights in 1791. These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States’ territory. Among the enumerated rights that these amendments guarantee are: the freedom of speech, press and religion; the people’s rights to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; and the rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination.

The Bill of Rights also restricts Congress’ power by prohibiting it from making any law respecting establishment of religion and by prohibiting the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury of any capital or “infamous crime,” guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial and local jury, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizens of states.

As the American historian Henry Steele Commager has argued, the US Bill of Rights was not written to protect the government from dissenters but to provide a legal means for citizens to oppose a government they didn’t trust.

In that same vein, diverse groups in America today are vigorously opposing the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act’s efforts to stifle dissent. However, neither the American mainstream press nor the leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates for the 2008 election have chosen to speak out on the subject. Their silence has now become deafening.

Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat, who sponsored the bill in the House of Representatives, is reported to have said that she thinks it is likely that the United States “will face a native brand of terrorism in the near immediate future” and offers a plan to deal with ideologically based violence.

Critics of the proposed bill, however, argue that Harman’s plan is a greater danger to American citizens than the threat she fears. Critics say the bill tramples constitutional rights by creating a commission with sweeping investigative power and a mandate to propose laws prohibiting whatever the commission labels “homegrown terrorism.”

Critics argue that the proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission - little Joe McCarthys - who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings.

The Patriot Act of 2001 has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans. Civil rights groups remain strongly opposed to the Act, which they see as an insidious attempt to turn America into a permanent police state. The Act is an assault on constitutional liberties so egregious that 20 state legislatures and more than 250 communities across the US have adopted resolutions condemning the Act.

The Patriot Act expanded the government’s power to use eavesdropping surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track alleged terror suspects. When it was passed in October 2001, moderate and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions were supposed to expire, or “sunset,” at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorised them.

In early April 2003, however, Republicans in the Senate discussed a proposal, authored by Senator Orin Hatch, Republican-Utah, that would repeal the so-called sunset provisions and make the expanded powers permanent. Republicans moved on the proposal in mid-April 2003 by attaching it to another anti-terrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against “lone wolf” terror suspects.

Democrats, meanwhile, grew increasingly frustrated at what they say is a lack of information from the US Justice Department on how its agents were using their newfound powers. Some Democrats predicted that Republicans did not have the votes to repeal the limits. But Republicans were eventually able to muster up the votes to repeal most of the limits, thereby extending the cutoff date for doing away with the sunset provisions.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department said the Patriot Act has allowed the FBI to move “faster and more flexibly” to disrupt terrorists before they strike. This was part of the scare tactics adopted by the Bush administration to ensure President George W. Bush’s re-election in November 2004.

Separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican-Arizona, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat-New York, in April 2003 was aimed at eliminating the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect was affiliated with a foreign power or agent, such as a terrorist group. Supporters of the measure said it would make it easier for the FBI and other agencies to spy on law-abiding citizens, such as those opposed to the Bush administration’s war against Iraq.

In other words, “inciting peace” could become a criminal offence in America if Bush and his cohorts have their way. The Kyle-Schumer amendment was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The FBI’s powers under the Patriot Act can be taken to ridiculous extremes, as happened, for instance, in the spring of 2002 when the FBI grew concerned that terrorists might attack underwater using scuba diving gear and set out to identify every person who had taken diving lessons in America in the previous three years.

Hundreds of dive shops and organisations then had to turn over their records to the FBI, giving agents contact information for several million people.

Passed on January 23, 2002, the Homeland Security Act is arguably the most draconian piece of legislation in the history of the United States. Clause (a)(1) of Section 202 (Access to information”) states: “Except as otherwise directed by the President, the Secretary (of the newly created Department of Homeland Security) shall have such access as the Secretary considers necessary to all information, including reports, assessments, analyses and unevaluated intelligence relating to threats of terrorism against the United States and to other areas of responsibility assigned to the Secretary, and to all information concerning infrastructure or other vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether or not such information has been analysed , that may be collected, possessed, or prepared by any agency of the Federal Government.”

Under this blanket provision, the Secretary of the Homeland Security Department has the authority to obtain just about any and every type of information relating to any individual, including information of the most personal nature.

Privacy no longer exists in America. It is a thing of the past, and the country is well on its way to becoming a police state.

The News | Kaleem Omar |  January 5, 2008

Next Page »