Relevant Privacy Case

The President's assertion that domestic spying is allowed under the constitution for "National Security" reasons should never even make it to the Supreme Court. Why? It has already been there, and he lost.

On Sept 30, 1968 a bomb went off outside of CIA headquarters in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Three leaders of the radical "White Panthers" organization were charged. During the trial, it came out that the government had been warrentlessly listening to conversations involving radical groups. This is very relevant today, as it deals with the 4th Amendment, national security, and domestic terrorism.

Here is what government archives have to say about the case:


On January 25, 1971, United States District
Court Judge Damon J. Keith issued an opinion in
what later became known as the "Keith Case."
The opinion rejected Attorney General John N.
Mitchell's assertion that the Executive Branch had
the inherent right to conduct warrantless electronic
surveillance on domestic groups that posed a
threat to national security. The decision achieved
landmark status when the United States Supreme
Court unanimously affirmed the decision on
June 19, 1972.

and..


The Keith Case stands today, as it has for over
30 years, as a beacon to the judiciary to vigilantly
guard against attempts by the Executive Branch
to secure an "uninvited ear" to the private
conversations of citizens, especially when those
attempts are premised on an opaque assertion of
national security. The opinion honors the heritage
of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and the independence of
the Federal Judiciary.

Needless to say, the Nixon administration appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed to uphold the Keith ruling. It doesn't only address "probable cause" but also what is considered "reasonable". The case in question is 407 U.S. 297, and here are some excerpts from their opinions:

"History abundantly documents the tendency of Government - however benevolent and benign its motives - to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. "

"It may well be that, in the instant case, the Government's surveillance of Plamondon's conversations was a reasonable one which readily would have gained prior judicial approval. But this Court "has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end." Katz, supra, at 356-357. The Fourth Amendment contemplates a prior judicial judgment, 18 not the risk that executive discretion may be reasonably exercised. This judicial role accords with our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government. "

"But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech."

"In cases in which the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant to search be obtained, `probable cause' is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness. . . . In determining whether a particular inspection is reasonable - and thus in determining whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant for that inspection - the need for the inspection must be weighed in terms of these reasonable goals of code enforcement."

Republicans Want To Lose?

As Bush is trying to set records for the lowest poll numbers, he has actually pushed things to the point that 1 in 3 Republicans want the GOP to lose control of Congress. Reported by conservative commentator Joe Scarboro, 45% of conservatives disaprove of Bush, 65% of conservatives disapprove of the GOP controlled congress, and yes, 1/3 want to lose congress.

Another Violation

The seperation of powers outlined in our constitution has been under attack by the Bush administration for years now. From them deciding to take it upon themselves to interpurt the laws (the role of the Judicial branch) to deciding what laws they will follow (the role of the Legislative branch). In fact, they only seem to be lacking in the area of EXECUTING THE LAW, which is the traditional role of the Executive branch.

This weekend, for the first time in our nations history, the FBI conducted a raid on the office of a sitting congressman. I might point out, a Democratic congressman. This is in response to alligations that Rep Jefferson (LA) accepted a bribe of $100,000 from a FBI informant. It is important to note that during the recent scandal of Rep Randy "Duke" Cunningham (CA), a Republican who recently pled guilty to taking millions of dollars in bribes in what has been called the biggest corruption scandle in our country's history, there was no need of such a violation.

In the past, when the Justice Department wanted documents from a congressman, they would subpena for them. It is not like we haven't been able to investigate corruption for the last 219 years because the DOJ's hands have been tied. They have successfully prosecuted members of congress on numerous occassions. In fact, in this particualr case, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) had called for an ethics comittee investigation of Jefferson. Yes, that is right! A Democrat called for an investigation of another Democrat. Lets just try to compare that to the way Republicans acted with corruption allegations against Delay.

Freedom of the Press is Dead

This weekend the Washington Post reported that journalists may be prosecuted for printing classified information. Now this isn't just the type of information you would think would be off limits: troop strengths, secret weapons, the names of CIA operatives. This is also things like revealing wrong doing by the Administration.

That's right! The NY Times journalists could be prosecuted for telling you that the NSA is listening to domestic calls without warrants! The problem comes from the idea the administration has that keeping Republicans in power is a matter of national security. We know that getting them out of power is really the matter of national security.

Administration Refuses to Cooperate in Investigation

The Justice Department has announced a frustrated end to the inquiry about the presidents domestic spying program. CNN has reported that the NSA simply refuses to give the investigators clearence for the requested information.

You Must Be Crazy If You Don't Like Bush!

Clevelad Independent Media has reported that Judge Timothy McGinty has sent an activest to a prison psych ward, stating that her opposition to Bush makes her "delusional". Read this article then call him ( 216-443-8758) and voice your opinion.

HUD Warns Dissenters

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson has stated that you cannot expect a HUD contract if you don't support Bush. The Dallas Business Journal broke the story, an excerpt of which is reprinted here:

"He (a perspective advertising contrator) had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'
"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'
"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

Clearly Illegal Domestic Spying

USA Today reports that the NSA is gathering a database of ALL PHONE CALLS MADE WITHIN THE COUNTRY. Since shortly after 9/11 AT&T, Verizon and Bell South have been turning over records of TENS OF MILLIONS OF CUSTOMERS PHONE RECORDS. What has been revealed doesn't actually include listening to the calls, but it track who speaks to who, both business and private calls.

"The Salvador Option"

Is the US currently using death squads in Iraq? Known as the "Salvador Option" for the use of US backed death squads in El Salvador during the 80's, have we implemented this same tactic in Iraq? Considering that in a BBC interview the Interior Minister, Bayan Jabr, points to the Facilities Protection Service as being involved, it is hard to say "no" with any real conviction. The FPS was set up by the Coalition Provisional Authority shortly after the fall of Baghdad. It consists mainly of "private security contractors" (aka mercenaries) and operates outside of all laws (see Bush Video).

Related Links:

MSNBC

BBC

Nominated CIA Chief a RIOT!!!

Bush has nominated General Michael Hayden as the new CIA director. What do I know about him? Not much. I can tell you that the one thing I have seen him do made me laugh so hard I fell off my seat. He was holding a press conference defending the NSA Domestic Spying that was authorized by Bush. You'll have to scroll to the bottom to read the good bit. At the end of the interview this exchange occurred:

JONATHAN LANDAY: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue. And that has to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says. JONATHAN LANDAY: But the measure is probable cause, I believe. GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure. JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable -- GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: No. JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard -- GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure. JONATHAN LANDAY: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “We reasonably believe.” You have to go to the FISA court or the Attorney General has to go to the FISA court and say, “We have probable cause.” And so what many people believe, and I would like you to respond to this, is that what you have actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of “probable cause,” because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief. You have to show a probable cause. Can you respond to that, please? GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order, alright? The Attorney General has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear, okay -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees at the National Security Agency is familiar with, it's the fourth, alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. So, what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer and don't want to become one -- but what you’ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is reasonable. And we believe -- I am convinced that we're lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

That's right! Either he doesn't consider having your phone conversations monitored in this country to be "unreasonable" or he hasn't read the constitution. Either way, he is unfit to be the head of the CIA. When specifically asked if the 4th Amendment said "probable cause" he cut the person off and said "No".

Here is what the 4th Amendment actually says:

"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. "

It is just another Republican who believes (and unfortunately rightfully so) that if you can get the media to report something, that makes it true. Their insistance that Iraq had WMD's is an example, as is their insistance that saddam and 9/11 were tied in the run up to the Iraq war, and then their denial that they ever said that after it was proven false. You can see it every day on Fox News. The whitehouse says something, and the reporters never verify anything. They just repeat it, like an echo. The truth doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what you can get the public to believe.

The Weakness of the Neo-cons

September 11, 2001 was a terrible day. The US was dealt it's most serious blow ever. It was more serious than Pearl Harbor, it was more serious than the Civil War, it was more serious than the great depression, the Cold War or any other hardship this nation has gone through. We were hit at the wrong time, when we had weakness in our government, and as such have lost our identity.

The FISA act was not written in more innocent times. In fact it is just the opposite. We didn't fear people flying a plane into a building, we feared nuclear missiles dropping from the sky. As bad as 9/11 was, facing another attack like that is nothing compared to full scale nuclear war. We were stronger as a people then. We were able to stand up and say "We are going to stick to our principles."

We once had a madman with an arsenal of WMD's to rival our own stand before the UN General Assembly and tell us "We will bury you." Yet we had a strength of character in the White House, and we stuck to our principles. Because of that persistence, we won the cold war.

Today we have the Patriot Act, illegal NSA wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus as well as a host of other civil liberties issues. We have a government that relies on "secret evidence", confessions taken under extreme duress and ghost detainees. Because we have abandoned our principles, we have already lost the War on Terror.

History Lesson - The Christian Myth

Many of the religious right believe the wall seperating church and state is being distorted today from their original intent. This quote from Tom Delay typifies their stance:

"I blame Congress over the last fifty to a hundred years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that’s nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn’t stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn’t stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn’t stop them." -- Tom DeLay

I'm going to ignore the "right to privacy" comment for the time being, although it is just as erroneous. What this posting will attempt to do is shed some light on the first amendment and the Founding Fathers' intent. First, let's look at what the first ammendment actually says:

Amendment I

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.

There is a growing movement in this country by the right to establish a "Christian Nation". Missouri recently passed a resolution stating that Christianity is the majority religion of the state (true) and that the US Government is founded on Christian principles (false). This is not the first. Texas has also passed similar resolutions.

The founding fathers did not found the government on Christian principles. I have never seen "In Christ We Trust" written on our money. In fact they left us with many indications that their intent was for government to be religiously neutral:

The Treaty of Tripoli was written under Washington and signed under Adams (no doubt both are considered "Founding Fathers"). Adams even went to the unusual length of personally reading it aloud to a joint session of congress, and issued a press release about it's contents. The treaty was ratified unanimously 23 - 0 by the Senate (3 Senators were not present for the vote, there is no historical indicators that this was in protest). There was absolutely no controversy surrounding this treaty. The part relevent to this discussion is article 11 which reads:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Imagine trying to pass a resolution like that in todays Republican controlled congress. It would be political suicide. In a fashion that can only be called "Orwellian", the right has been re-writing history to their liking. Many of the colonies may have been settled by Puritans, but that was not the basis for the government.

It is true that the Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God" and a person's "Creator". This did not mean the Christian god, but whatever god you choose to believe in, or in no god at all. The important thing about the line "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is that man is created with these rights. That is, they are not given by the state, and thus cannot be revoked by the state. These rights of man are just there and it is beyond the ability of any man or group of men to take them away. This can be contrasted to the Soviet Constitution where the rights are a gift to man from the state. in that case, the state can take them away.

How can I make these claims about the Founding Father's intent? They told us their views. in Benjamin Franklin's autobiography he states:

"My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself" (Autobiography, p. 66).

Thomas Jefferson states:

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

AND

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

John Adams states:

Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?

AND

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.

Thomas Paine's assessment:

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

As you can see the assertion by the religious right that the country is founded on Christian principles is a pure myth. To say otherwise is simply to lie. To do so in a government setting is actually breaking the 9th Commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor".