Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying

By Mark M. Jaycox

Shortly after the June leaks, numerous polls asked the American people if they approved or disapproved of the NSA spying, which includes collecting telephone records using Section 215 of the Patriot Act and collecting phone calls and emails using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The answer then was a resounding no, and new polls released in August and September clearly show Americans' increasing concern about privacy has continued.

Since July, many of the polls not only confirm the American people think the NSA's actions violates their privacy, but think the surveillance should be stopped. For instance in an AP poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they oppose the NSA collecting data about their telephone and Internet usage. In another national poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, 74 percent of respondents said the NSA's spying intrudes on their privacy rights. This majority should come as no surprise, as we've seen a sea change in opinion polls on privacy since the Edward Snowden revelations started in June.

What's also important is that it crosses political party lines. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found 70 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans believe the NSA's spying programs intrude on their privacy rights. This change is significant, showing that privacy is a bipartisan issue. In 2006, a similar question found only 50 percent of Republicans thought the government intruded on their privacy rights.

Americans also continue their skepticism of the federal government and its inability to conduct proper oversight. In a recent poll, Rasmusson--though sometimes known for push polling--revealed that there's been a 30 percent increase in people who believe it is now more likely that the government will monitor their phone calls. Maybe even more significant is that this skepticism carries over into whether or not Americans believe the government's claim that it "robustly oversees" the NSA's programs. In a Huffpost/You Gov poll, 53 percent of respondents said they think "the federal courts and rules put in place by Congress" do not provide "adequate oversight." Only 18 percent of people agreed with the statement.

Americans seem to be waking up from its surveillance state slumber as the leaks around the illegal and unconstitutional NSA spying continue. The anger Americans--especially younger Americans--have around the NSA spying is starting to show. President Obama has seen a 14-point swing in his approval and disapproval rating among voters aged 18-29 after the NSA spying.?

These recent round of polls confirm that Americans are not only concerned with the fact that the spying infringes their privacy, but also that they want the spying to stop. And this is even more so for younger Americans. Now is the time for Congress to act: click here now to join the StopWatching.Us coalition.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Nanny State: Mandatory Helmets For Walking
- NSA's Massive Utah Datacenter Having Serious Electrical Problems: Has Already Had 10 Fiery Explosions
- James Clapper Thinks That NSA Employees Will Sell Out Our Nation After A Few Days Without A Paycheck
- BBC Caught Staging Syria Chemical Weapons Propaganda?
- Government 'Shut Down' Doesn't Prevent Opening of $2 Billion NSA Spy Center
- NYT Reporting NSA Spying On Anyone SUSPECTED Of A Crime!
- Downloading Is Mean! Content Industry Drafts Anti-Piracy Curriculum for Elementary Schools
- TSA To Roll Out "Covert Surveillance" Vans

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

NSA Spying Threatens Law-Abiding Americans

By Randall Holcombe

I was talking with an older German citizen about the NSA?s data collection program that has recently been the subject of much debate. He worked for the East German government during the Cold War and viewed the NSA?s activities as similar to the Stasi?s under communist rule, but potentially more threatening.

The argument often given for the NSA?s activities is to stop terrorist activities before they occur. Rather than waiting for someone to break the law, our government hopes to stop them before they act. President Obama has told us that many potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted thanks to the NSA?s analysis of their huge database containing all our phone calls, emails, internet searches, and so forth.

The Stasi ? the East German secret police ? undertook significant data collection themselves, but in the pre-computer era were necessarily less effective and less comprehensive than the NSA. My German acquaintance told me that in East Germany they viewed a good Stasi agent as someone who could identify traitors before even the traitors themselves realized they would act against the government. Traitors had certain characteristics in common, and by analyzing individuals, the Stasi was able to spot individuals with those characteristics that could indicate they would act against the state.

The NSA does the same thing, but with much more data. I have heard people say that if you don?t have anything to hide, you shouldn?t be concerned about all the information the government is collecting about you. But that?s not necessarily true when the government is collecting information in an attempt to identify potential law breakers before they actually break the law. Your innocent activities might have some of the characteristics that place you with others who the government views as threats. Then it comes to view you as a threat, even though you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Is this excessive paranoia? I don?t think so. Unless you believe the government can identify future terrorists without error, innocent people are sure to find themselves under suspicion. Government must cast a wide net to identify future terrorists. You may recall former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on a terrorist watch list because of information about someone with a similar name. Do you think this could happen to a U.S. Senator but not to you?

Once under suspicion, you could have trouble boarding aircraft, like Senator Kennedy, you could have trouble getting credit, and as someone under surveillance you could expect to be followed, harassed for minor traffic infractions, have your income taxes audited, and more. You become a suspect.

So, the NSA surveillance program gives people reason to be careful not to engage in activities that might rouse suspicion, even if they are completely innocent. The problem is, what activities the NSA views as suspicious are secret, so people can?t really avoid them. Are your internet searches completely benign? Are you making sure not to put NSA keywords in your emails? Are you emailing or phoning suspicious people? Maybe you should use those programs that anonymize searches and emails. But, I?d guess those would be one of the first indicators the NSA would look at to ferret out potential terrorists.

Over time, expect the definition of a terrorist to grow to eventually encompass anyone who would work against the government, much as the definition of organized crime has grown well beyond the Mafia the definition originally target

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Manning Speaks: "I am a Good Person"
- Judge Refuses To Dismiss Suit Against Feds Who Arrested Former Marine For His Controversial Facebook Posts
- Owner of Snowden's Email Service on Why He Closed Lavabit Rather Than Comply With Gov't
- "Parallel Construction": Government Term for Lying About Its Investigations
- Former NSA Boss Calls Snowden's Supporters Internet Shut-ins; Equates Transparency Activists With Al-Qaeda
- DEA Conceals Reliance on Surveillance Conducted by Intelligence Agencies
- Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy
- Greenwald: Is U.S. Exaggerating Threat to Embassies to Silence Critics of NSA Domestic Surveillance?

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

The United States Government Does Not Want Americans To Travel Abroad

No other government on the face of this Earth wants to make it?s citizens more ill-at-ease, deathly afraid, or made to feel so guilty for stepping outside of it?s national boundaries as the United States of America. Rather than encouraging Americans to embrace overseas travel as one of the most educational, enjoyable, and emotionally and spiritually satisfying endeavors that people can undertake in the course of our painfully short lives, U.S. government departments and institutions are notorious for wanting to make even just the IDEA of pursuing international travel as unpleasant and unsettling as they can possibly muster.

You must look no further than the U.S. State Department?s ?Global Travel Alert? issued this past Friday (August 2nd 2013) to grasp the sheer ridiculousness and paranoia of the U.S. governments stance on it?s citizens travelling abroad. The alert, which is based upon the ?most specific, credible threat information in years? (but of course lacking any actual date or timing), warned of the potential for terrorist attacks, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, to be carried out by operatives of Al Qaeda and their associates.

It came less than a day after the department announced that it was closing U.S. diplomatic missions in the Middle East, North Africa and elsewhere through the weekend because of a (of course) ?unspecified? terrorism threat. The global travel alert if effective through the end of August.

So going by the State Department?s advice and logic on this ?global? travel alert, we?re all supposed to reconsider our travel plans to ANYWHERE outside the United States? Or at least for the remainder of August? Even if I just want to camp out at Uluru in the middle of Australia, the Islamic bad guys are going to be out for my blood? Yep, the whole concept of a United States issued ?global travel alert? is just?.that?.LAME.

Let?s just flip the coin here for a moment. Have you noticed there is no such thing as a ?domestic travel alert? issued by the United States Department of State? I mean if you really think about it there SHOULD be. The United States literally has all of the most dangerous cities in the world under the umbrella of the term ?First World?. Comparing U.S. cities like Camden, New Orleans, Detroit, Memphis, or South Side Chicago with the likes of European cities such as Vienna, Zurich, Helsinki, Munich, or Copenhagen is somewhat akin to contrasting Hell with Heaven, at least certainly from a safety standpoint.

Yet the host countries of those cities don?t issue ?global travel alerts? specifically pointing out the United States as an area of greater safety concern (which it plainly is). They realize that the world is not perfect, and some safety risks which can theoretically happen anywhere are not going to be allowed to ruin their holiday plans.

You wanna talk about forces at work which are trying to ruin your holiday plans? Just take a look at the U.S. State Department?s website, particularly if you direct yourself to the ?threats to safety and security? section under ?country specific information?. A lot of the stuff you will read in this area of the website is absolutely horrifying. Seriously, just what sort of coffin-sized box do they want Americans to live in? Here are some direct quotations from a number of countries we would otherwise consider among the safest places in the world to visit.

AUSTRALIA ? Australia has an alert system for possible terrorist attacks. The threat levels range from ?low? to ?high.? The Australian Attorney General?s Office web site has up-to-date information regarding the current terrorism threat level. Depending on the alert, you should maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to increase your security awareness. (Threats To Safety And Security)

NEW ZEALAND ? Violent crime against tourists is rare; however, if you are traveling alone, you should be especially vigilant and avoid isolated areas. (Crime)

NORWAY ? Like other countries in the Schengen area, Norway?s open borders with its Western European neighbors also allow the possibility of terrorists entering/exiting the country with anonymity. Be vigilant with regard to your personal security. (Threats To Safety And Security)

FINLAND ? Finland remains largely free of terrorist incidents. However, like other countries in the Schengen area, Finland?s open borders with its Western European neighbors allow the possibility of terrorist groups anonymously entering and exiting the country. (Threats to Safety And Security)

Notice how the State Department clearly is not a fan of Europe?s open borders policy? They would much prefer to have the personal freedoms and civil liberties of Europeans be squandered, and have a T.S.A. equivalent for Europe rule over the continent with an iron fist in order to catch those pesky ?terrorists? who must be freely crossing the border between Germany and Denmark on a daily basis.

As for countries like Cuba, it is interesting to point out how the U.S. State Departments description of the country is frighteningly comparable to the modern day United States, though they want to pretend to remain oblivious to this fact. Also, in a bizarre twist to readers expectations (especially if the department is actually telling solo travelers in New Zealand to ?avoid isolated areas? which is exactly what most travelers to the country hope to spend a lot of time doing) they actually give a rare display of praise for North Korea.

NORTH KOREA ? North Korea does not release crime statistics. Violent crime is rare, and street crime against foreigners is uncommon in Pyongyang. (In truth, crime against travelers to North Korea is almost non-existent).

Beyond the endless scaremongering, there is another major reason why the U.S. government doesn?t want you to travel abroad. In the 21st century, they desperately want to avoid having you see for yourself just HOW FAR BEHIND our country has fallen. Our government has an incredibly fragile ego, and desperately wants to continue to tout that the United States is the ?greatest country on Earth?, which many of us are now aware is a totally false exclamation.

It is an embarrassment for the U.S. government when Americans visit South Korea, Germany, France, Italy, and even Turkey and witness first-hand just how wonderful, efficient, and fast the domestic intercity train systems run. It is an embarrassment for Americans to witness how the streets are kept cleaner and the highways better maintained in countries across Europe, and even in parts of Mexico. It is an embarrassment when they visit Australia, and drop their jaws at the revelation many of the locals are working jobs earning the annual equivalent of anywhere between $70,000 ? $120,000 U.S. dollars, which do not require any university education (and therefore no crippling student loan debt-slavery).

It is an embarrassment when Americans talk with university students in Scandinavia and realize it is not costing them a penny. It is an embarrassment when they walk the streets of Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro and safely come to the conclusion that the locals are more health conscious, better dressed, self-confident, and consistently attractive than pretty much anywhere at home. It is an embarrassment coming to the realization that Santiago, the capital of Chile and among the most populous cities in ?dangerous? Latin America, is actually a safer city than any U.S. metropolitan area of comparable size.

Basically, the U.S. government does not want you to become aware about a lot of really, really, good things that are available to people in other parts of the world that are severely lacking at home. They do not want you coming back to the United States and raving to your friends about how wonderful your destination was, having ideas of moving abroad to a country with better employment opportunities and/or financial rewards (Australia, Germany, Norway, etc.), or planning on early retirement to a country with wonderful year-round weather and a low cost-of-living in Latin America or Southeast Asia.

They don?t want you to figure out that it is possible to have a rich and full life without automobile dependency, which is a reality in many other countries. They don?t want you to visit a country that actually learns how to get along with the planet and requires only a token military budget, and where discretionary government funds can be spent on much more constructive or life-affirming pursuits.

NO. They want you to STAY in the United States and forever remain a dutiful U.S. taxpayer, slave to big oil and student loans, and to sit down and shut up as drones and bombs obliterate yet another country that has never harmed the United States in any way (it was Yemen this week right?). Traveling abroad, spending your money elsewhere, having a wonderful time, and then perhaps ultimately wanting to move yourself and your assets away, will make them very, very, grumpy indeed.

After all, it is easy for a population to be brainwashed into thinking that their country is the ?best in the world? when they have absolutely no frame of reference to any of the other 200+ sovereign states which exist in the world today. It?s easy to get a large segment of the population to actually believe countries like Iran are hostile when Hollywood propaganda films like ?Argo? portray every local as a bloodthirsty zealot out to claim an American scalp. Unfortunately for them, the reality is that Iranians are without doubt some of the friendliest and most hospitable people on this Earth, and embrace American travelers with cheerful gusto and sincere smiles.

Of course, you can simply ignore the government propaganda campaigns and societal warnings all you want. There is nothing stopping a U.S. citizen from taking off overseas, provided you have a valid passport, sufficient funds, and a thirst for adventure. What cannot be stopped is the end game, the dreaded T.S.A. ?Chat Down? when you return to the U.S.A. But I?ll leave that for another article.

So in the meantime, whatever you do, even though the risk of a supposed ?terrorist? attack is the most elevated in the Middle East and North Africa, pay heed to the State Department?s ?global travel alert? and cancel that trip you had planned to Norway or New Zealand later next week. Those countries are far too dangerous right now (maybe forever) and you?re going to be KILLED! Stay right here at home in the United States and spend your tourist dollars in New Orleans, Memphis, Camden, and the south side of Chicago instead. You?ll be 100% totally safe and secure!
_
This article first appeared on Ingenious Press. Follow us on our Facebook and Twitter Pages for weekly updates on independent news and other alternative media.

View the original article here

Americans Giving Up Passports Jump Sixfold as Tougher Rules Loom

By Dylan Griffiths

Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship surged sixfold in the second quarter from a year earlier as the government prepares to introduce tougher asset-disclosure rules.

Expatriates giving up their nationality at U.S. embassies climbed to 1,131 in the three months through June from 189 in the year-earlier period, according to Federal Register figures published today. That brought the first-half total to 1,810 compared with 235 for the whole of 2008.

The U.S., the only nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that taxes citizens wherever they reside, is searching for tax cheats in offshore centers, including Switzerland, as the government tries to curb the budget deficit. Shunned by Swiss and German banks and facing tougher asset-disclosure rules under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, more of the estimated 6 million Americans living overseas are weighing the cost of holding a U.S. passport.

?With the looming deadline for Fatca, more and more U.S. citizens are becoming aware that they have U.S. tax reporting obligations,? said Matthew Ledvina, a U.S. tax lawyer at Anaford AG in Zurich. ?Once aware, they decide to renounce their U.S. citizenship.?

Fatca requires foreign financial institutions to report to the Internal Revenue Service information about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers, or held by foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest. It was estimated to generate $8.7 billion over 10 years, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Read More

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- "Startup Cities," Honduras, and Experiments in Freedom. Professor Tom W. Bell Talks With Reason.
- Schiff: A-Rod Would be a Better Fed Chairman Than Bernanke or Yellen
- Detroit Broke City
- What Does Heart Surgery Really Cost, And Why Is It 70 Times More Expensive In The US?
- Ron Paul: Why I'm holding my gold
- Feds vs. Raisins: Small Farmers Stand Up to the USDA
- Your Tax Dollars At Work: How Commerce Dept. Spent $2.7 Million Cleaning Out Two Malware-Infected Computers
- Peter Schiff: The Golden Cycle

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make

by Michael Snyder

How would you describe an industry that wants to put more Americans in prison and keep them there longer so that it can make more money?? In America today, approximately 130,000 people are locked up in private prisons that are being run by for-profit companies, and that number is growing very rapidly.? Overall, the U.S. has approximately 25 percent of the entire global prison population even though it only has 5 percent of the total global population.? The United States has the highest incarceration rate on the entire globe by far, and no nation in the history of the world has ever locked up more of its own citizens than we have.? Are we really such a cesspool of filth and decay that we need to lock up so many of our own people?? Or are there some other factors at work?? Could part of the problem be that we have allowed companies to lock up men and women in cages for profit?? The two largest private prison companies combined to bring in close to $3,000,000,000 in revenue in 2010, and the largest private prison companies have spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade.? Putting Americans behind bars has become very big business, and those companies have been given a perverse incentive to push for even more Americans to be locked up.? It is a system that is absolutely teeming with corruption, and it is going to get a lot worse unless someone does something about it.

One of the keys to success in the private prison business it to get politicians to vote your way.? That is why the big private prison companies spend so much money on lobbying and campaign contributions.? The following is an excerpt from a report put out by the Justice Policy Institute entitled "Gaming the System: How the Political Strategies of Private Prison Companies Promote Ineffective Incarceration Policies"...

For-profit private prison companies primarily use three strategies to influence policy: lobbying, direct campaign contributions, and building relationships, networks, and associations.

Over the years, these political strategies have allowed private prison companies to promote policies that lead to higher rates of incarceration and thus greater profit margins for their company. In particular, private prison companies have had either influence over or helped to draft model legislation such as "three-strikes" and "truth-in-sentencing" laws, both of which have driven up incarceration rates and ultimately created more opportunities for private prison companies to bid on contracts to increase revenues.

If you can believe it, three of the largest private prison companies have spent approximately $45,000,000 combined on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade.

Would they be spending so much money if those companies did not believe that it was getting results?

Just look at what has happened to the U.S. prison population over the past several decades.? Prior to 1980, there were virtually no private prisons in the United States.? But since that time, we have seen the overall prison population and the private prison population absolutely explode.

For example, between 1990 and 2009 the number of Americans in private prisons grew by about?1600 percent.

Overall, the U.S. prison population more than quadrupled between 1980 and 2007.

So something has definitely changed.

Not that it is wrong to put people in prison when they commit crimes.? Of course not.? And right now violent crime is rapidly rising in many of our largest cities.? When people commit violent crimes they need to be removed from the streets.

But when you put those criminals into the hands of private companies that are just in it to make a buck, the potential for abuse is enormous.

For example, when auditors visited one private prison in Texas, they "got so much fecal matter on their shoes they had to wipe their feet on the grass outside."

The prisoners were literally living in their own manure.

How would you feel if a member of your own family was locked up in such a facility?

And the truth is that there seem to be endless stories of abuse in private prisons.? One private prison company reportedly charges inmates $5.00 a minute to make phone calls but only pays them $1.00 a day to work...

Last year the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation's largest private prison company, received $74 million of taxpayers' money to run immigration detention centers. Their largest facility in Lumpkin, Georgia, receives $200 a night for each of the 2,000 detainees it holds, and rakes in yearly profits between $35 million and $50 million.

Prisoners held in this remote facility depend on the prison's phones to communicate with their lawyers and loved ones. Exploiting inmates' need, CCA charges detainees here $5 per minute to make phone calls. Yet the prison only pays inmates who work at the facility $1 a day. At that rate, it would take five days to pay for just one minute.

Speaking of work, private prisons have found that exploiting their inmates as a source of slave labor can be extraordinarily profitable.? Today, private prisons are stealing jobs from ordinary American workers in a whole host of industries.? The following is from an article by Vicky Pelaez...

According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people.

And many of the largest corporations in America have rushed in to take advantage of this pool of very cheap slave labor.? Just check out some of the big names that have been exploiting prison labor...

At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom's, Revlon, Macy's, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call "highly skilled positions." At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.

But of course some of the biggest profits for private prisons come from detaining young people.? Today, private prison companies operate more than 50 percent of all "youth correctional facilities" in the United States.

And sometimes judges have even been bribed by these companies to sentence kids to very harsh sentences and to send them to their facilities.? The following is?from a report about two judges in Pennsylvania that were recently convicted for taking money to send kids to private prisons...

Michael Conahan, a former jurist in Luzerne County, was sentenced on Friday to 210 months in custody by Senior U.S. District Court Judge Edwin M. Kosik II. Conahan was also ordered to pay $874,000 in restitution. [...] As Main Justice reported in August, Ciavarella, former president judge of the Court of Common Pleas and former judge of the Juvenile Court for Luzerne County, was sentenced to 28 years in prison and ordered to make restitution of $965,930. [...]

Conahan's role in the "cash for kids" scheme was to order the closing of a county-run detention center, clearing the way for Ciavarella, once known as a strict "law and order" judge, to send young offenders to private facilities. This arrangement worked out well for Ciavarella and Conahan, as well as the builder of the facilities and a developer, who pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

The arrangement didn't work out so well for the young offenders, some of them sent away for offenses that were little more than pranks and would have merited probation, or perhaps just scoldings, if the judges had tried to live up to their oaths.

Are you starting to see why private prisons are such a problem?

Hundreds of kids had their lives permanently altered by those corrupt judges.

When you allow people to make money by locking other people up in cages, you are just asking for trouble.

The more Americans they put behind bars, the more money these private prisons make.? It is a system that needs to be brought to an end.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Only an Incipient 'Terrorist' Denounces State Murder
- Doug Casey: If I Were President
- Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?
- The War Against Bradley Manning -- A War Against All Who Speak Out Against Injustice
- Patent "Trolls" are Bad. Patents are Worse.
- Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs
- The Will Of The People Doesn't Mean Jack To Drug Warriors
- Americans Can Be Executed Without Charges -- But Criminal Banks Can't Be Prosecuted

Assuming that all victimless crimes are banned and prisons are only a means for providing restitution to victims and families of the victim, aren't private prisons a good thing? I would rather see one of those "Harlem Shake" idiots above behind bars than a drug dealer. Getting restitution (money) for victims families is not justice. Money doesn't bring someone back from the dead. At the end of the day everyone is in it for themselves thats why private prisons are flourishing. There is no justice in this world the only thing you can do is pray and read the bible. This is one of the reasons justice should be kept pure of such perverting influences as personal benefit.

Those who enthuse over the idea of "private justice" should take heed: If government justice is perverted by profit motive, then how much more perverted would be a justice operated by private citizens or companies given the power to grind the axe of their profit motives?

The only answer is less private involvement in justice: Not a perfect answer, but better than the alternative.

Private justice doesn't necessarily mean throwing people in cages, it'd probably revolve around restitution and making victims whole, rather than robbing them and victimizing them a second time by forcing them to pay for their abuser's imprisonment.

"Government justice" is a contradiction in terms.

Oh, yes, probably not in cages. But ... such justice would tend to be in the hands of the motivated. So, as an example, RIAA would want to be in charge of private justice related to copyright infringement; and would have you making restitution for songs you didn't steal (because it's profitable to make you do false restitution), based on a claim that they can only be made whole by that false restitution.

In fact, it's because of RIAA and similar groups that you can be charged $150,000 for a song you accidentally shared. Private justice? Not a bit.

And, really, if you think these prison corporations would go away and give up on having their cages filled...well, their cages would still be filled. Their motivation for profit doesn't go away just because they're in charge of justice...

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?

by Wendy McElroy

On March 5th, a headline in the left-leaning Mother Jones declared, ?Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil.? A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Republican Senator Rand Paul was the cause. (A screenshot of the full letter is here.) Rand had written to John Brennan, the current nominee for Director of the CIA, to ask whether the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil without due process. Brennan requested Holder to address legal aspects of the question, which Obama and his administration have hitherto refused to answer. Holder's March 4 letter may have broken the silence because Rand threatened to filibuster Brennan's nomination if there was no response. (Indeed, Rand was filibustering as I wrote this article.)

Conservatives and libertarians are enraged by Holder's letter; liberals offer a mixed reaction. An admin at the left-leaning Daily Kos site, for example, blasts Mother Jones for inaccuracy. Others claim the Presidential power is nothing new and Holder's comments are unexceptional. Teasing out the truth means deconstructing the letter.

DECONSTRUCTING HOLDER

This letter was written and vetted with meticulous care. Holder did not misstate his position. The letter's vague and non-responsive nature is deliberate and its few specifics are revealing.

Holder opens with an assurance: ?[T]he US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.? [All words in bold are emphasis added]

Obama did not even disclose the existence of a drone program on American soil until his hand was forced; the memos upon which the program's legal authority is based remain secret. This non-transparency makes it impossible to assess Obama's intentions, and reduces Holder's position to ?trust us.? The words ?as a policy matter? are significant because the use of military force instead of law enforcement is dismissed strictly as policy, not on grounds of law or the Constitution. Policies change constantly and often without notice. Moreover, given the extreme militarization of US law enforcement, complete with police drones, it is strange to reassure Americans that they would be killed by law enforcement and not the military. The distinction does obviate some legal questions, however. For example, it bypasses any lingering shred of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the power of a President to use the federal military to enforce law.

Holder continues. The administration has ?a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.? Again, this is a policy statement. Moreover, various federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have identified broad categories of law-abiding Americans as potential terrorists. Gun advocates, military veterans and strict Constitutionalists place consistently high on that list. By broadening the focus to include America's ?interests abroad,? Holder also signals that the Americans targeted need not be violent but merely a threat to US interests. It would be difficult to be more vague.

Holder now approaches the meat of the letter. ?The question you [Rand Paul] have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront.? The statement is entirely incorrect. On February 20th, Paul asked whether Obama had ?the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial.? This is a specific, real world question; it asks an Attorney General to comment on a point of federal law, which he would be or has been instrumental in forging. Holder's dismissal of Rand's question as theoretical, however, allows him to rephrase it in a form he wishes to address.

Holder's non-answer? ?It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.? The rephrasing allows Holder to avoid the key issue of due process. Unfortunately, few people deny the authority of a President to kill violent Americans who threaten national security. But they balk at his signing secret orders to kill Americans without arrest or a trial. Due process is being reduced to Obama's signature on a piece of paper that will never be seen.

Nevertheless, Holder is at least and at last rendering a legal opinion. Yes, under ?extraordinary circumstances,? it is legal ?under the Constitution and applicable laws...for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force? on American soil.

It is impossible to know what constitutes ?extraordinary circumstances.? America has been in a state of war and militarization for almost 12 years since 9/11. It could refer to circumstances law enforcement cannot handle and, so, the military becomes necessary. In reality, ?extraordinary? will mean whatever the administration wishes. The national emergency could be nothing more than a grassroots refusal of Americans to voluntarily surrender guns. At that point, Obama could bypass both Congress and the Constitution by invoking the War Powers Act and declare martial law.

It is also not possible to decipher which ?applicable laws? are referenced. Perhaps Holder is appealing to ?War on Terror? laws such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The latter is a joint resolution passed by Congress in 2001 to authorize the President (then Bush) to use "necessary and appropriate force" against anyone who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" those responsible for 9/11. Indeed, the words used by Holder -- ?necessary and appropriate? ? echo the wording of the AUMF. It is equally unclear which part of the Constitution is referenced. Certainly, it is not the Bill of Rights. This means that neither Congress nor the public will know the circumstances and legal authority under which President believes it is appropriate to kill Americans on US soil.

The two specific examples of ?extraordinary circumstances? only confuse the issue further. He states, ?the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.?

The examples are the bombing or Pearl Harbor and 9/11. They are bizarre. For one thing, neither incident was perpetrated by Americans. Moreover, Holder endorses the Presidential execution of Americans after a crisis has occurred and not to prevent one. This differs sharply from the administration's justification for torture; namely, that information extracted in a ?timely manner? may prevent the loss of American lives.

The ?timely manner? aspect becomes all the more bizarre in light of Holder's concluding sentence: ?Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority.? Pearl Harbor occurred literally out of the blue in the early morning hours; 9/11 was equally unexpected and swift. Does anyone believe Holder thinks there would be time to ?examine the particular facts and circumstances? of a surprise attack that hits like a lightning bolt? Does anyone believe Holder does not know what the administration's response would be down to the color of Obama's underwear?

CONCLUSION

The Obama administration is profoundly secretive and dishonest. Holder's letter is an exercise in obfuscation which, nevertheless, does assert the President's authority to kill Americans on US soil under undefined circumstances.

Certain other circumstances have been defined, however. Obama has already asserted the unprecedented power to kill Americans without due process when they are on foreign soil. Anwar al-Aulaqi was an American by birth and upbringing. He was executed by a drone attack in Yemen on September 30th, 2011. The grounds: suspicion of joining al Qaeda. No evidence of guilt has been presented because Obama has not released it.

It is also clear that the Obama administration is unwilling to explain the details or scope of the President's authority to kill Americans on US soil. At some point, when people consistently and persistently refuse to answer a question with ?no,? a reasonable person realizes the answer is ?yes.?

On March 5th, civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald summed up the situation. ?There is a theoretical framework being built.? It ?posits that the US Government has unlimited power, when it comes to any kind of threats it perceives, to take whatever action against them that it wants without any constraints or limitations of any kind.
_
Wendy McElroy is a frequent Dollar Vigilante contributor and renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books, the latest of which is "The Art of Being Free". Follow her work at http://www.wendymcelroy.com.

View the original article here

Most Americans See Government as "Threat to Rights" For First Time

Trust in established institutions continues to plummet
Paul Joseph Watson

A new poll released by the Pew Research Center has found that a majority of Americans now see the government as a threat to their rights for the first time ever.

A total of 53% of Americans view the government as a threat to their ?personal rights and freedoms,? with 43% not believing it poses a threat and 4 don?t knows.

The?poll also found, ?Only 26% saying they can trust government always or most of the time, while 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or never. Majorities across all partisan and demographic groups express little or no trust in government.?

Just 20% of whites trust the federal government while a mere 26% of Americans across the board view Congress favorably, in comparison with 50% of the public regarding Congress favorably in 2009.

The poll arrives in the aftermath of a separate?Rasmussen survey?that found just 6 per cent of Americans now rate the mainstream news media as ?very trustworthy?.

Faith in the integrity of established institutions has eroded steadily since the Obama administration took office.

In 2011,?pollster Pat Caddell warned?that Americans were ?pre-revolutionary? after a survey found that just 17 per cent of Americans believed that the U.S. government had the consent of the governed, an all time low.

The founding fathers routinely espoused the view that skepticism of those in power was a healthy and patriotic stance. However, trust in government has plummeted so drastically that it is beginning to pose a threat to the very fabric of society.

That?s why many are concerned that the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies are gearing up for widespread civil unrest by stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

Instead of rebuilding trust in the system by changing their behavior, becoming more transparent, and respecting the Constitution, federal agencies are increasingly treating the American public as an enemy that needs to be closely watched and defended against physically via a massive arms build up.

_
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for?Infowars.com?and?Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Americans Can Be Executed Without Charges -- But Criminal Banks Can't Be Prosecuted

Will Grigg

On the same day that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA over the nominee?s involvement in lethal drone strikes, Attorney General Eric Holder defended arbitrary power before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As we noted earlier, Holder told the Committee that any Congressional action to restrict the targeted killing program would represent an unconstitutional limitation of presidential powers.

?In the same hearing, Holder said that some corrupt banks are simply too big to prosecute. According to Holder, ?some of these institutions become so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that ? if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy. And I do think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.?

In brief: According to Holder, American citizens can be summarily executed without criminal charges, but criminal banks are immune to prosecution.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Only an Incipient 'Terrorist' Denounces State Murder
- Doug Casey: If I Were President
- Private Prisons: The More Americans They Put Behind Bars The More Money They Make
- Obama Can Kill Americans on U.S. Soil Without Due Process?
- The War Against Bradley Manning -- A War Against All Who Speak Out Against Injustice
- Patent "Trolls" are Bad. Patents are Worse.
- Fifteen Benefits of the War on Drugs
- The Will Of The People Doesn't Mean Jack To Drug Warriors

yes they have a creed.and it is all greed,this administration has done a remake of a very good film called paint your wagon.of course they screwed it up or not,but changed the name to paint your out-house. Sounds like the banks in the UK - The taxpayers have bailed these crimminal bakners out - now they are awarding themselves multi million ? in bonuses - Banking appears to be the only industry where failiure is rewarded - any other industry you would be out of a job and probably in prison.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

U.S. Gov't Asks Federal Judge to Dismiss Cases of Americans Killed by Drones

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); Joe Wright

As Americans mourn the deaths of 20 children and 6 adults in the Newtown, CT tragedy - and the gun control debate has reached a fever pitch - autonomous killing systems are being funded by American taxpayers, and drone strikes continue to kill an increasing number of civilians abroad.

Barack Obama and the U.S. government policy makers have shown an incredible level of hypocrisy before; on the one hand lamenting such senseless deaths as have occurred in "mass shootings" while conducting their own mass killing, torture, and terror campaigns in foreign lands.

A culture of violence can't have it both ways, though, and the welcoming of drones into American skies by Congress is sure to unleash physical havoc shortly after concerns over surveillance and privacy are dismissed.

As a clear sign of what can be expected, the U.S. government has asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought by the families of three Americans killed by drone strikes in Yemen. If federal courts rule that these cases are without merit, it will set a dangerous precedent that only the executive branch of government can decide which Americans have a constitutional right to due process, while further enhancing a framework where the government will decide who is fit to be mourned and who should be forgotten.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- North Carolina: Driving While Nervous is Not a Crime
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

House Approves Rep. Lamar Smith's Bill To Keep Spying On Americans

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Mike Masnick

As was expected, despite not knowing the details of how the feds interpret the FISA Amendmens Act, which grants massive spying and surveillance power to the feds -- in fact, while proactively stopping any efforts to find out more about the interpretation, the House of Representatives today approved Lamar Smith's FISA Amendment's Act by a vote of 301-118. You can see which representatives voted which way at that link. The bill would extend the current rules (and the secret interpretation) for another five years. Republicans, who are supposedly against bigger government, only had 7 members vote no, while the remaining 111 no votes came from Democrats.

There had been an attempt to introduce amendments, but that was shot down procedurally. And an hour debate did little to get to the heart of the matter. Rep. Zoe Lofgren fought the good fight, pointing out that "I think the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time... We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States." However, Rep. Dan Lungren -- who previously had insisted that there was no evidence that the NSA was abusing its powers, while refusing to even ask the NSA for basic info on how it was using the powers -- insisted based on absolutely nothing that "this is critical to the protection of the American people."

Even worse, Rep. Terry Gowdy made a ridiculously ignorant statement in response to Lofgren's highlighting of the 4th Amendment:

?Intelligence is the lifeblood of our ability to defend ourselves,? he said. Moments later, he added: ?Are we to believe that the Fourth Amendment applies to the entire world??

But, uh, the concern isn't with the rest of the world. Even without the FISA Amendments Act, the NSA already had the right to seek info on foreign communications. They have no 4th Amendment rights, so that's not even an issue. The issue is that the FISA Amendments Act appears to include some weasel words that have been twisted by the government to suggest that it can spy on Americans too. But Gowdy misleads the public by pretending, falsely, that this is about foreigners? It's not. Has he asked the NSA how many Americans it's spied on? Even the NSA has admitted that it's violated the 4th Amendment under the act in spying on Americans... but Gowdy pretends this is just about foreigners? How do you stand up and call yourself a "Representative" when you can't even get the very basics right?

Of course, House approval is just one step. The Senate version remains on hold thanks to Senator Wyden, who is one of the only elected officials who is actually asking the NSA and the Obama administration to (a) reveal the secret interpretation and (b) disclose how many Americans are being spied on under the rule.

As Julian Sanchez explained recently a former DOJ official has basically revealed part of the secret interpretation, which more or less says that if the target is al Qaeda, then anything goes:

For example, an authorization targeting ?al Qaeda??which is a non-U.S. person located abroad?could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.

Take that and expand it, and you've basically given the feds and the NSA a blank slate to spy on Americans by claiming that if it believes the spying will yield information about a threat, then it's fine. And our "Representatives" are standing up and -- either through ignorance or straight-up dishonesty -- are pretending that this is about spying on foreigners only. Shameful.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- 16-Year-Old Questioned by FBI Over YouTube Video
- Court To Twitter: No Time For Appeal, Hand Over Info Or You're In Contempt
- New Results From Our Nationwide Cell Phone Tracking Records Requests
- Man Investigated By Police For Buying Ammunition
- Google Adds Pirate Bay Domains to Censorship List
- The Prisons We Call "Airports"
- FBI begins installation of $1 billion face recognition system across America
- Hackers Get Personal Info On 12-Million Apple Users... From An FBI Laptop

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use

Liberals and those 18 to 29 most in favor; Americans 65 and older most opposed
by Frank Newport


PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal.

When Gallup first asked about legalizing marijuana, in 1969, 12% of Americans favored it, while 84% were opposed. Support remained in the mid-20s in Gallup measures from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but has crept up since, passing 30% in 2000 and 40% in 2009 before reaching the 50% level in this year's Oct. 6-9 annual Crime survey.

[...]Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age, ranging from 62% approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31% among those 65 and older. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to favor legalizing marijuana. And Democrats and independents are more likely to be in favor than are Republicans.

Read More

Latest Resistance
- Occupy Time Square: 1 Marine vs. 30 Cops (Marine Wins)
- Anarchast: "The History of Anarchism" with Lew Rockwell
- Hundreds Rally to Support Gibson Guitar
- REAL ID: Pinellas Libertarian won't get a driver's license and he won't stop driving
- Ron Paul at the National Press Club
- Chicago Bears Hall of Famer Turns Down Obama White House Invitation, "I'm Not A Fan"
- Ron Paul Interviewed On The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
- Harris Poll: Ron Paul Would Beat Obama 51-49

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

By Mark Hosenball

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Read More

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Woman Photographs Cop Kicking Handcuffed Man Lying On Ground, Cop Seizes Her Camera, Deletes Evidence, Arrests Her & Files Charges Against Her: Lawsuit
- Obama's Very Real Death Panel
- Ron Paul: US could target journalists for killing
- Feds order California pot dispensaries to shut down - despite being legal under state laws
- Houston police accused of eating suspect's pot brownies turn in less marijuana than they claimed to have seized
- Student says he was assaulted by his principle for wearing a gay rights T-shirt
- Police ticket 11-year-old boy hit by car
- Goldman Protesters Are Almost Outnumbered by Security Guards in New Jersey

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Gallup: Americans Choose Gold as the Best Long-Term Investment

Men, seniors, middle-income Americans, and Republicans are more enamored with gold
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist, August 25, 2011

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thirty-four percent of Americans say gold is the best long-term investment, more than say so about four other types of investments. Real estate (19%) and stocks (17%) are distant second choices.

The Aug. 11-14 Gallup poll was conducted at the end of a tumultuous week on Wall Street that sent the price of gold soaring.

Gallup asked a similar question from 2002 to 2010, but that question did not include gold. Real estate, savings accounts, and stocks jockeyed for the top spot during that time. Americans' faith in real estate and stocks suffered amid the 2008 economic crisis, but rebounded somewhat in 2010.

Gold is Americans' top pick as the best long-term investment regardless of gender, age, income, or party ID, but men, seniors, middle-income Americans, and Republicans are more enamored with it than are other Americans.

Women and upper-income Americans are more likely than others in their subgroups to point to real estate as the best long-term investment. After gold, low-income Americans are most likely to pick savings accounts as the best option for long-term investing.

Read More

Latest Economy
- Twist Paves the Way for QE III
- Is Financial Instability The New Normal?
- Gov't paid $600 million in benefits to dead people
- Marc Faber to Reuters: You dont need the fed to tell you something is wrong
- Gold & Silver Crashing Hard: Gold Down to $1630/oz, Silver $29.90/oz
- Is Gold No Longer A Safe Haven? Not According To Capital Economics: "Gold Will Surge When Euro Crisis Escalates"
- Rosenberg Presents The Three Ways Bernanke Disappointed The Market, And Why It Is Dumping
- Commodities Fall to Nine-Month Low

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here