Friday, June 14, 2013

The Peak of The Oil Lies - 6

Let's talk about the religion of Oil-Qaeda, which has tenets that have now become government policy.

The religious tenet, which they try to pass off as science, is epitomized in the Bible's old testament book of Kings:
So Elijah went to Zarephath, and as he came to the town gate, he saw a widow gathering firewood. “Please bring me a drink of water,” he said to her. And as she was going to get it, he called out, “And please bring me some bread, too.”

She answered, “By the living LORD your God I swear that I don’t have any bread. All I have is a handful of flour in a bowl and a bit of live oil in a jar. I came here to gather some firewood to take back home an d prepare what little I have for my son and me. That will be our last meal, and then we will starve to death.”

“Don’t worry, “Elijah said to her. “Go on and prepare your meal. But first make a small loaf from what you have and bring it to me, and then prepare the rest for you and your son. For this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says; ‘The bowl will not run out of flour or the jar run out of oil before the day that I, the LORD, send rain.’”

The widow went and did as Elijah had told her, and all of them had enough food for many days. As the LORD had promised through Elijah, the bowl did not run out of flour nor did the jar run out of oil.
(1 King 17:10-16, emphasis added). Now let's hear what the International Energy Agency wants us to believe, as well as some opposing scientists, so we can compare the conflicting stories:
So, what is peak oil? In short, peak oil will occur when the extraction rate of this resource ceases to rise. Typically, this point is reached when half or less of a natural commodity has been removed. It is the peak of the bell curve; the point at which the tail is longer than the rise to the top.

Last month, Time reported that peak oil had been certified dead by the International Energy Agency (IEA). It seems that unconventional energy sources in North America have delayed the onset of peak oil. To proclaim that peak oil is dead, however, is a little misleading. It would be more accurate to say that peak oil is dormant, or at least, that the rate at which oil is extracted is likely to continue on a bumpy plateau for longer than anticipated.

Of course, it is possible to argue over the exact point at which global peak oil will arrive, but at some time in the not too distant future, we are going to have deal with this problem. Oil is a finite resource and as such, it cannot sustain indefinite extraction.
(Preparing for Extinction of Petroleum Man emphasis added). The oil barons want us to believe they can do the same oil miracle that the prophet Elijah did for the widow.

Is it good government policy to believe that petroleum is not a finite resource which will become more and more scarce as it is used up?

Is such magical cornucopia thinking the proper basis for sound public policy?

Then there is the other magical thinking which is a belief that using oil as fuel, which increases carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, has no damaging impact on The Global Climate System (Terrarists).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

"Stuck inside a Mobile with the Memphis ...", Dylan: lyrics here.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

On The Origin of Security - 2

General In Charge of "Your" Private Data
When is the military not subject to civilian government?

When it comes to your private data is one answer in at least one case.

I have, in the past few days, had disputes with fellow bloggers in the vast blogosphere  concerning the nature of the NSA ... the one that is recently gobbling up all of your private data as fast as it can (A Tale of Coup Cities - 4) cheered on by the royals of Stalingrad (The Queens of Stalingrad, The Queens of Stalingrad - 2).

My contention is that the NSA is a military operation as pointed out by two lawsuits against the military for violating the civil rights of hundreds of millions of American citizens (ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller).

Our old friend reality seems to back up my contention:
In accordance with Department of Defense Directive 5100.20, dated December 23, 1971, the Director of the NSA must always be a commissioned officer of the military services. Because the assignment is currently part of a tri-hatted position, the Director of the NSA is appointed to the grade of a four-star general or admiral during the period of his incumbency. The Deputy Director is always a technically experienced civilian.

The current director is General Keith B. Alexander, USA.
(Wikipedia, NSA, emphasis added). The military decides this, not the congress not the president, and not the courts.

That directive is interesting:
A. Subject to the provisions of NSCID No. 6, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, and pursuant to the authorities vested in the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Agency is a separately organized agency within the Department of Defense under the direction, supervision, funding, maintenance and operation of the Secretary of Defense.
F. The Director and Deputy Director of the National Security Agency shall be designated by the Secretary of Defense, subject to the approval of the President. The Director shall be a commissioned officer of the military Services, on active or reactivated status, and shall enjoy not less than three star rank during the period of his incumbency.

G. The Director, National Security Agency/ Chief, Central Security Service shall report to the Secretary of Defense.
(DODD 5100.20, emphasis added). Thus, it is clear that hundreds of millions of Americans did not and perhaps still do not understand that the military is spying on them every day of their lives.

It seems clear that Dredd Blog was not being extreme by asking:

Will The Military Become The Police - 3

Will The Military Become The Police? - 2

Will The Military Become The Police?

Especially in light of their declaration that they may have to take military action within the United States if the people don't like the economic austerity:
A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” said the War College report.

The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.
(Why Is The Government Conditioning Us To Austerity?, quoting newspaper). The military can use private data to determine enough things about us to do what J. Edgar Hoover used to do.

That is, Hoover used data to intimidate officials, including presidents (The Queens of Stalingrad - 2).

The military can use it against us like Hoover did, as if we were enemies of our own freedoms, when in fact it is they who are the grave danger to freedoms:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.
(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?, quoting President Madison). Madison should know, he wrote the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.

A congressman has been quoted as saying:
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
(CNET). This is in accord with Echelon and other public statements.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

The following whistleblower video is by Russell D. Tice, who had a 20 year intelligence career:

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller

In this series we will follow a lawsuit by the ACLU against those who are administering the massive spying on innocent American citizens.

The complaint in PDF format is here, however, for easy viewing I have put it into HTML format below, so we will be able to refer to it in subsequent posts of this series.

One thing that caught my eye was that the NSA is a military spy agency (see paragraph number 12 below), so as Dredd Blog has been saying for the longest time, the military portion of MOMCOM is out of control (Will The Military Become The Police - 3).

Here is the complaint data:


                                                                           Case No. 13-cv-03994-UA
v.                                                                        Hon. William H. Pauley

JAMES R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as
Director of National Intelligence; KEITH B.
ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director
of the National Security Agency and Chief of the
Central Security Service; CHARLES T. HAGEL, in
his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; ERIC
H. HOLDER, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States; and ROBERT S.
MUELLER III, in his official capacity as Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,


1. This lawsuit challenges the government’s dragnet acquisition of Plaintiffs’ telephone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1861.1 In response to information published by the media, the government has acknowledged that it is relying on Section 215 to collect “metadata” about every phone call made or received by residents of the United States. The practice is akin to snatching every American’s address book—with annotations detailing whom we spoke to, when we talked, for how long, and from where. It gives the government a comprehensive record of our associations and public movements, revealing a wealth of detail about our familial, political, professional, religious, and intimate associations.

2. The government has confirmed the authenticity of an order issued six weeks ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) requiring Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (“VBNS”) to turn over, every day, metadata about the calls made by each of its subscribers over the three-month period ending on July 19, 2013. Government officials have indicated that the VBNS order is part of a program that has been in place for seven years and that collects records of all telephone communications of every customer of a major phone company, including Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint.

3. Plaintiffs the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation are current VBNS subscribers whose communications have already been monitored by the government under the VBNS order and whose communications continue to be monitored under that order now. Plaintiffs the New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation are former customers of VBNS whose contract of service recently expired but whose telephony metadata likely remains in government databases. The government’s surveillance of their communications (hereinafter “Mass Call Tracking”) allows the government to learn sensitive and privileged information about their work and clients, and it is likely to have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and others who would otherwise contact Plaintiffs for legal assistance. This surveillance is not authorized by Section 215 and violates the First and Fourth Amendments. Plaintiffs bring this suit to obtain a declaration that the Mass Call Tracking is unlawful; to enjoin the government from continuing the Mass Call Tracking under the VBNS order or any successor thereto; and to require the government to purge from its databases all of the call records related to Plaintiffs’ communications collected pursuant to the Mass Call Tracking.


4. This case arises under the Constitution and the laws of the United States and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court also has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. The Court has authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202. The Court has authority to award costs and attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c)(2).


6. The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan organization that engages in public education and lobbying about the constitutional principles of liberty and equality. The ACLU has more than 500,000 members, including members in every state. The ACLU is incorporated in Washington, D.C. and has its principal place of business in New York City.

7. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (“ACLUF”) is a 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public about civil-liberties issues and employs lawyers who provide legal representation free of charge in cases involving civil liberties. It is incorporated in New York State and has its principal place of business in New York City.

8. The New York Civil Liberties Union (“NYCLU”) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan organization that functions as the ACLU affiliate in New York and that has as its mission the advancement and protection of civil liberties and civil rights. The NYCLU is incorporated in New York and has its principal place of business in New York City.

9. The New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation (“NYCLUF”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to defend civil rights and civil liberties and to preserve and extend constitutionally guaranteed rights to people whose rights have historically been denied. The NYCLUF provides counsel in lawsuits seeking to advance civil liberties and civil rights. It is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York City.


10. Defendant James R. Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”). DNI Clapper has ultimate authority over the activities of the intelligence community.

11. Defendant Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander is the Director of the National Security Agency (“NSA”) and the Chief of the Central Security Service. Lt. Gen. Alexander has ultimate authority for supervising and implementing all operations and functions of the NSA, the agency responsible for conducting surveillance authorized by the challenged law.

12. Defendant Charles T. Hagel is the Secretary of Defense. Secretary Hagel has ultimate authority over the Department of Defense, of which the NSA is a component.

13. Defendant Eric H. Holder is the Attorney General of the United States. Attorney General Holder has ultimate authority over the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and is responsible for overseeing aspects of the challenged statute.

14. Defendant Robert S. Mueller III is the Director of the FBI and is responsible for applications made to the FISC under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

15. In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) to govern surveillance conducted for foreign-intelligence purposes. The statute created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”), a court composed of seven (now eleven) federal district court judges, and empowered the court to grant or deny government applications for surveillance orders in foreign-intelligence investigations.

16. Congress enacted FISA after years of in-depth congressional investigation by the committees chaired by Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike, which revealed that the Executive Branch had engaged in widespread warrantless surveillance of United States citizens—including journalists, activists, and members of Congress—“who engaged in no criminal activity and who posed no genuine threat to the national security.”

Section 215 of the Patriot Act

17. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is often referred to as FISA’s “business records” provision. When originally enacted in 1998, this provision permitted the FBI to apply to the FISC for an order to obtain business records of hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities.

18. Section 215 broadened this authority by eliminating any limitation on the types of businesses or entities whose records may be seized. In addition, Section 215 expanded the scope of the items that the FBI may obtain using this authority from “records” to “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).”

19. Section 215 also relaxed the standard that the FBI is required to meet to obtain an order to seize these records. Previously, FISA required the FBI to present to the FISC “specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain [was] a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” In its current form, Section 215 requires only that the records or things sought be “relevant” to an authorized investigation “to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”

20. Production orders issued under Section 215 are accompanied by gag orders generally forbidding recipients from revealing “that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things.” Recipients may challenge gag orders “[n]ot less than 1 year after the date of the issuance of the production order.” If a recipient challenges a gag order, the FISC must treat the government’s claim “that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations . . . as conclusive.”

21. For the past several years, members of Congress have been warning the public that the Executive Branch was exceeding the limits of the Patriot Act. In 2009, Senator Russ Feingold stated during a hearing that “there . . . is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know,” adding later that “Section 215 has been misused.” In 2011, Senator Ron Wyden declared, “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.” Similarly, Senator Mark Udall protested that “Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out.”

22. On June 5, 2013, The Guardian disclosed that, under Section 215, the NSA has been acquiring the metadata for every phone call made or received by customers of VBNS “on an ongoing daily basis.”

23. Since the disclosure of the VBNS order last week and the government’s official acknowledgement of it, the outcry in Congress has increased sharply. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, an author of the Patriot Act and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of Section 215’s passage, called the Section 215 surveillance program “an abuse of that law.” He wrote that, “based on the scope of the released order, both the administration and the FISA court are relying on an unbounded interpretation of the act that Congress never intended.”


24. Plaintiffs are non-profit organizations that engage in public education, lobbying, and pro bono litigation upholding the civil rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Collectively, Plaintiffs have more than 500,000 members, including members in every state. Plaintiffs’ employees routinely communicate by phone with each other as well as with journalists, current and potential clients, legislators and legislative staff, and members of the public. These communications relate to Plaintiffs’ advocacy, representation of clients, and efforts to lobby Congress. Plaintiffs’ communications are sensitive and often privileged.

25. For example, Plaintiffs frequently place or receive phone calls from individuals relating to potential legal representation in suits against the federal government or state governments. Often, the mere fact that Plaintiffs have communicated with these individuals is sensitive or privileged.

26. In ongoing litigation, Plaintiffs often communicate with potential witnesses, informants, or sources who regard the fact of their association or affiliation with Plaintiffs as confidential. Particularly in their work relating to national security, access to reproductive services, racial discrimination, the rights of immigrants, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Plaintiffs’ work often depends on their ability to keep even the fact of their discussions with certain individuals confidential.

27. Similarly, Plaintiffs often communicate with government and industry whistleblowers, lobbyists, journalists, and possible advocacy partners who consider the confidentiality of their associations with Plaintiffs essential to their work.

28. Plaintiffs ACLU and ACLUF are current customers of Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (“VBNS”) and Verizon Wireless. VBNS provides the ACLU’s and ACLUF’s wired communications, including their landlines and internet connection. Verizon Wireless provides their wireless communications, including their mobile phones.

29. Plaintiff NYCLU was a customer of VBNS until early April 2013. Until that time, VBNS provided the NYCLU’s wired communications, including their landlines.

30. On June 5, 2013, The Guardian published a FISC order directing VBNS to produce to the National Security Agency “on an ongoing daily basis . . . all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’” of its customers’ calls, including those “wholly within the United States.” Secondary Order at 2, In re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Prod. of Tangible Things from Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc. on Behalf of MCI Commc’n Servs., Inc. d/b/a Verizon Bus. Servs., No. BR 13-80 (FISC Apr. 25, 2013), available at The VBNS order was issued on April 25, 2013 and expires on July 19, 2013. The order was issued ex parte, and there is no procedure for Plaintiffs to challenge it in the FISC.

31. In the few days since The Guardian disclosed the VBNS order, government officials have revealed more about the government’s surveillance under Section 215. On June 6, Defendant Clapper officially acknowledged the authenticity of the VBNS order and disclosed details about the broader program supported by the FISC’s orders issued under Section 215. Among other things, he stated that: “[t]he judicial order that was disclosed in the press is used to support a sensitive intelligence collection operation”; “[t]he only type of information acquired under the Court’s order is telephony metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls”; and “[t]he [FISC] reviews the program approximately every 90 days.”

32. The following day, President Barack Obama also commented publicly on the Section 215 order. Like Defendant Clapper, the President acknowledged that the intelligence community is tracking phone numbers and the durations of calls.

33. Members of the congressional intelligence committees have confirmed that the order issued to VBNS was but a single, three-month order in a much broader, seven-year program that the government has relied upon to collect the telephone records of all Americans. Senator Dianne Feinstein has stated that “this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the [FISC] under the business records section of the Patriot Act.” Senator Saxby Chambliss has likewise stated that “[t]his has been going on for seven years.”

34. News reports since the disclosure of the VBNS order indicate that the mass acquisition of Americans’ call details extends beyond customers of VBNS, encompassing all wireless and landline subscribers of the country’s three largest phone companies. See Siobhan Gorman et al., U.S. Collects Vast Data Trove, Wall St. J., June 7, 2013, (“The arrangement with Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, the country’s three largest phone companies means, that every time the majority of Americans makes a call, NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation, according to people familiar with the matter. . . . AT&T has 107.3 million wireless customers and 31.2 million landline customers. Verizon has 98.9 million wireless customers and 22.2 million landline customers while Sprint has 55 million customers in total.”); Siobhan Gorman & Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, Government Is Tracking Verizon Customers’ Records, Wall St. J., June 6, 2013, (“The National Security Agency is obtaining a complete set of phone records from all Verizon U.S. customers under a secret court order, according to a published account and former officials.”).

35. As customers of VBNS, Plaintiffs ACLU and ACLUF are covered by the now-public order of the FISC requiring VBNS to turn over all of its customers’ call records—including all of Plaintiffs’ call records—on an ongoing basis. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff NYCLU was covered by a similar order prior to the expiration of their contract with VBNS. Also upon information and belief, Plaintiffs ACLU and ACLUF are covered by a similar order directed to Verizon Wireless. The information collected includes Plaintiffs’ numbers, the numbers of their contacts, the time and duration of every single call they placed or received, and the location of Plaintiffs and their contacts when talking on mobile phones. This information could readily be used to identify those who contact Plaintiffs for legal assistance or to report human-rights or civil-liberties violations, as well as those whom Plaintiffs contact in connection with their work. The fact that the government is collecting this information is likely to have a chilling effect on people who would otherwise contact Plaintiffs.


36. The Mass Call Tracking exceeds the authority granted by 50 U.S.C. § 1861, and thereby violates 5 U.S.C. § 706.

37. The Mass Call Tracking violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

38. The Mass Call Tracking violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.


WHEREFORE the plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
1. Exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

2. Declare that the Mass Call Tracking violates 50 U.S.C. § 1861 and 5 U.S.C. § 706;

3. Declare that the Mass Call Tracking violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution;

4. Permanently enjoin Defendants from continuing the Mass Call Tracking under the VBNS order or any successor thereto;

5. Order Defendants to purge from their possession all of the call records of Plaintiffs’ communications in their possession collected pursuant to the Mass Call Tracking;

6. Award Plaintiff fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412;

7. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

End of Complaint

A class action lawsuit also points out that the NSA is a military spy agency (see paragraph 13 here).

Sign ACLU Petition against spying on Americans here.

The next post in this series is here.

On The Origin of Security

A whiff of NSA "Security"
The attacks continue against those of us who want to stick with traditional America and its Constitution.

Some of it is because we reject those whose minds inhabit Stalingrad, Bullshitistan, the home of the imagination of the McTell news Stalinists, and some of it is because they really do not know what planet they are on or what country they are in (The Queens of Stalingrad - 2).

They are on the attack again against our traditional desire for freedom from government intrusion, due in part to their vapid imaginations having now perverted the meaning of the word "security" as defined in the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

We who adhere to constitutional law have a different definition of security than those in the media who are hawking a phony security.

The constitutional definition of "security" in this context is in the 4th Amendment:
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.
(4th Amendment, emphasis added). This means that security comes from the definition of "reasonable" in that Amendment, with respect to searches or seizures.

Reasonable searches, those that do not cause insecurity, must be based on:
1) probable cause (more than mere suspicion)
2) oath or affirmation
3) a particular description
a) of the place to be searched
b) of the persons or things to be seized
(Nolo). The NSA dragnet seizure of everyone's innocent private telephone information that destroys security is exemplified in this example:
Example: Hoping to obtain a warrant to search Olive Martini’s backyard, a police officer submits an affidavit to a magistrate. The affidavit states that “the undersigned is informed that Olive operates an illegal still in her backyard.” The magistrate should not issue a search warrant based on this affidavit. Because the affidavit is too vague and the source of the information is unstated, there’s no way for the magistrate to evaluate its reliability. The affidavit doesn’t establish probable cause.
(The Criminal Law Handbook, by P. Bergman and S. J. Berman). Where any of the required warrant information is missing, but a search takes place regardless, it is a destruction of security, not the establishment of security.

On MSNBC's Morning Joe show today, Comrade Richard Haas of the Orwellian Chatosphere's "Ministry of Truth" says:
destruction of security = security
war = Peace
Freedom = slavery
Ignorance = strength
What Haas says is bunk and intellectual tripe, not fit for use by decent citizens; but Haas is not a lone groupie in his trance like state of insecurity:
Sen. Ron Wyden says Director of National Intelligence James Clapper did not give him a "straight answer" to his question about the NSA data collection operation at an Intelligence Committee hearing in March. That's despite the fact that Clapper knew the question was coming. Here's Wyden's statement:
“One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community.  This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence.  So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance.  After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer.  Now public hearings are needed to address the recent disclosures and the American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives.”
Clapper has argued that the question was unfair, "like 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?'" and that he and Wyden just weren't talking about the same thing when they talked about "collection." But now we know that Clapper had a day to clarify with Wyden what he was going to be asked. That there could be any question about what Wyden was asking—about the NSA program that he had been briefed on and which has now been make public—has been laughable all along. Now that we know Clapper was clued in ahead of time, it's even more absurd.
(Daily Kos). Clapper was asked by Senator Wyden if the NSA was doing what everyone knows the NSA was doing (Obama Administration Rides Into The W Sunset) --but he lied about it.

Par for the course for these Stalinist Authoritarians who have an extreme aversion to truth and the American Way.

A complaint was filed against them in federal court (see complaint here).

The next post in this series is here.

Stuck inside a mobile with the Memphis Blues again ...": lyrics here.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The Queens of Stalingrad - 2

We Have Your Papers
Jilted into a lifelong homosexual relationship with a fellow employee at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), J. Edgar Hoover became a drama queen early in his career.

He wrote the book for all the current Queens of Stalingrad who spy on Americans because they do not like the constraints of the Fourth Amendment.

A recent movie by Clint Eastwood starring Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover reveals what the ongoing adopted bastard child of Hoover's FBI -- the U.S. Surveillance State -- is capable of doing (J. Edgar).

Written history also points out how the current government is the very embodiment of Hoover's Stalinist ideology:
Hoover, influenced by his work at the Library of Congress, decided to create a massive card index of people with left-wing political views. Over the next few years 450,000 names were indexed and detailed biographical notes were written up on the 60,000 that Hoover considered the most dangerous. Hoover then advised Palmer to have these people rounded up and deported.

On 7th November, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested in twenty-three different cities. However, the vast majority of these people were American citizens and had to be eventually released. However, Hoover now had the names of hundreds of lawyers who were willing to represent radicals in court. These were now added to his growing list of names in his indexed database.
(John Edgar Hoover, emphasis added). His psychological problems led him on to further, massive abuses in the name of "protecting the people" which is to this day a euphemism for "national security", which means "illegitimate government interests":
The FBI and Bay Area police were rounding up alien Japanese again today. The searches and arrests, said Nat J.L. Pieper, FBI chief here, were being made “on allegations of contraband and known association with Japanese nationalistic groups.”
Within a week the reception center at Manzanar, in the Owens Valley, will be ready to receive hundreds of alien and American-born Japanese who must evacuate the Pacific Coast military area.

More than 100 carpenters and mechanics directed by Lieut. Col. W.B. Higgins, of the Corps of Engineers, are rushing construction of the center for the Wartime Civil Control Administration. The WCCA is the military-civilian organization that will handle evacuation and resettlement problems, under supervision of Lieut. Gen. John L. DeWitt, commander of the Western Defense Command and Fourth Army.

They will be classified as to professions and occupations, and remain at the centers only until they are able to complete plans for re-establishing themselves in back-from-the-coast regions from which they are not banned by military decree.

Persons facing evacuation were warned today against “stalling” or unintentionally taking too much time to straighten our their affairs before leaving the military areas.

The next step in operation of the WCCA, General DeWitt said, will “border on enforced removal.”
(The San Francisco News, March 18, 1942). The dementia of Hoover has become institutionalized over the years, after beginning merely as paper index cards with private data written on them:
COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.

The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971. COINTELPRO tactics have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination. The FBI's stated motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order."
(Wikipedia, "COINTELPRO", see also Freedom Archives). An insurgency against this Hoover coup was mounted by the Church Committee:
A series of troubling revelations started to appear in the press concerning intelligence activities. First came the revelations of Christopher Pyle in January 1970 of the U.S. Army's spying on the civilian population and Sam Ervin's Senate investigations produced more revelations. Then on December 22, 1974, The New York Times published a lengthy article by Seymour Hersh detailing operations engaged in by the CIA over the years that had been dubbed the "family jewels". Covert action programs involving assassination attempts against foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens.

These revelations convinced many Senators and Representatives that the Congress itself had been too lax, trusting, and naive in carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
(Wikipedia, "Church Committee"). The news we hear this very day, about NSA spying on Americans, is deep-seated deja vu, as well as proof that long time officials in our government have been bound and determined to fight and destroy the U.S. Constitution --after taking an oath to protect and preserve it.

These dangerous drama queens of Washington Stalingrad, D.C., who are parroting McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and a long line of jingoists in our history, are also examples of a decadent social sickness (The Germ Theory of Government).

Since the government does not prosecute themselves, they are like those who refuse immunization based on mystical beliefs, doomed to spread the disease far and wide.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Queen Jane Approximately


Now when all the clowns that you have commissioned
Have died in battle or in vain
And you’re sick of all this repetition
Won’t you come see me, Queen Jane?
Won’t you come see me, Queen Jane?

When all of your advisers heave their plastic
At your feet to convince you of your pain
Trying to prove that your conclusions should be more drastic
Won’t you come see me, Queen Jane?
Won’t you come see me, Queen Jane?

Now when all the bandits that you turned your other cheek to
All lay down their bandanas and complain
And you want somebody you don’t have to speak to
Won’t you come see me, Queen Jane?
Won’t you come see me, Queen Jane?

Monday, June 10, 2013

FISA Court Rules Domestic Spying Violates Constitution

Will The Real Mr. America Please Stand Up?
The Department of Just Us over in Stalingrad does not want an 86 page opinion of the FISA court released to the public.

Why that decision is so important, for one thing, is that whistleblowers are showing that the U.S. government has suffered a coup (A Tale of Coup Cities - 4).

The damage is incalculable, in that, as it ends up the Fourth Amendment has been stricken from the Constitution without a constitutional convention (The Queens of Stalingrad).

Here is the status of a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Just Us to release the FISA court opinion to the public:
In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.
(Mother Jones, "[DOJ] Fights Release", emphasis added). The press and public found out about at least one opinion thusly: July 2012, Wyden was able to get the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify two statements that he wanted to issue publicly. They were:
* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

* I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.
For those who follow the secret and often complex world of high-tech government spying, this was an aha moment. The FISA court Wyden referred to oversees the surveillance programs run by the government, authorizing requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. Wyden's statements led to an obvious conclusion: He had seen [at least one] secret FISA court opinion that ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law. But, yet again, Wyden could not publicly identify this program.
(ibid, Mother Jones). There is a government watchdog group that got wind of the court opinion and took action:
Enter the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public interest group focused on digital rights. It quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Justice Department for any written opinion or order of the FISA court that held government surveillance was improper or unconstitutional. The Justice Department did not respond, and EFF was forced to file a lawsuit a month later.

It took the Justice Department four months to reply. The government's lawyers noted that they had located records responsive to the request, including a FISA court opinion. But the department was withholding the opinion because it was classified.
(ibid, Mother Jones, emphasis added). There is more to it which exposes that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing:
EFF pushed ahead with its lawsuit, and in a filing in April, the Justice Department acknowledged that the document in question was an 86-page opinion the FISA court had issued on October 3, 2011. Again, there was no reference to the specific surveillance activity that the court had found improper or unconstitutional. And now the
"The Trial"
department argued that the opinion was controlled by the FISA court and could only be released by that body, not by the Justice Department or through an order of a federal district court. In other words, leave us alone and take this case to the secret FISA court itself.

This was puzzling to EFF, according to David Sobel, a lawyer for the group. In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union had asked the FISA court to release an opinion, and the court had informed the ACLU to take the matter up with the Justice Department and work through a district court, if necessary.

So there was a contradiction within the government. "It's a bizarre catch-22," Sobel says. On its website, EFF compared this situation to a Kafka plot: "A public trapped between conflicting rules and a secret judicial body, with little transparency or public oversight, seems like a page ripped from The Trial."
(ibid, Mother Jones, emphasis added). The chattering doublspeak class in Stalingrad are talking about how legal it is to violate the Fourth Amendment.

So, it is important to have the FISA court decision made public so we can actually find out how legal or illegal government spying on Americans is.

UPDATE: The FISA court ruled (order is here) in favor of the EFF and said the opinion could be made public if the federal district wants it released pursuant to a FOIA lawsuit by EFF against the DOJ.

A word from a whistleblower, Mr. Snowden: