Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Re: Top 10 Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Anthony Namaste
Date: August 07, 2007 1:15 PM
Body: soothe



Top 10 Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans Program




1. MYTH: This is merely a “terrorist surveillance program.”

REALITY: When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.


2. MYTH: The program is legal.

REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.


3. MYTH: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows this.

REALITY: The resolution about using force in Afghanistan doesn’t mention wiretaps and doesn’t apply domestically, but FISA does – it requires a court order.


4. MYTH: The president has authority as commander in chief of the military to spy on Americans without any court oversight.

REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration’s claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to “condense power into a single branch of government,” contrary to the Constitution’s checks and balances.


5. MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is.

REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.


6. MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you.

REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people’s everyday communications are not monitored or cataloged by the NSA or other agencies.


7. MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.


8.MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.

REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.


9. MYTH: FISA takes too long.

REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency, FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are available at all hours.


10. MYTH: Only liberals disagree with the president about the program.

REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president’s claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight.

Labels: , , ,

Google

Sunday, July 01, 2007

RE: Demonstrable case of Google censorship?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: R4ND0mLI9HT
Date: Jul 1, 2007 1:19 PM


As long as we're on the subject of Big Brother Google, a couple of tools: 1) Scroogle Scraper, which allows Google searches without your search terms and IP address being recorded forever for the benefit of [whom]? 2) TrackMeNot, which makes it difficult to track your Google searches because it automatically sends a random one out every few seconds, creating data smog. Breathe deep, Google and NSA!

Oh yeah, and btw, I've been saying for a while that Hillary has already been selected as the next US 'president.'

SOURCE

Google Censors Me for Hillary

As distasteful as the prospect might be to almost anyone you talk to, the political signs are all pointing to Hillary Clinton as our next president. Her political trajectory is almost identical to that of the current similarly unpopular and dislikable occupant of the oval office. First, with little to recommend her for the position, she is made a United States Senator, much like George H.W. Bush's ne'er-do-well eldest was made Governor of Texas. Then we are told that she has done such a good job in the position that she wins re-election by a landslide, setting her up for a run for the presidency. Actually, she is so generally disliked that she can't announce in advance open public appearances because they are likely to attract outspoken opponents, which is quite similar to George W's appearances only to carefully controlled audiences. Her primary asset--much like George W's was--is a mysterious ability to raise campaign funds.

She also gets a tremendous amount of publicity. In addition to the almost constant mention of her on the news, a great number of books have been written about her. I have had some unfavorable things to say about a couple of the lesser known ones, Judith Warner's Hillary Clinton, the Inside Story, and Gail Sheehy's Cover-up Book," Hillary's Choice. But the commentary that the people behind Google really don't want you to read is about the fake Hillary attack book, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, by Edward Klein. My commentary is called "Hillary Biographer Crude Propagandist."

In that article I reveal the devious methods by which the paid shill Klein promotes Hillary's candidacy while appearing to do the opposite. I'm sure the powers that be don't want you reading things like that, but that's probably not what got the article blacked out from Google. I also have a great deal of information in the article about Hillary's personal life that you won't find in the hundreds upon hundreds of pages in the aforementioned books.

So what is the evidence that Google has banned reference to the article. Try searching for the odd combination of words that appear in the article, "Hillary Klein veterinarian." (I did it without quotation marks.) But before you do it on Google, do it on Yahoo.com, Ask.com, and AlltheWeb.com. In each of the latter three search engines, the "Crude Propagandist" article is the first thing that comes up. But on Google, the near-monopoly search engine, the article doesn't come up at all. You can even add "Parade of Lies" and "David Martin" and who knows what else from the article to the search string, and it still doesn't come up.

As a result of this article, that might change, or the other search engines might take it down, but as of this last day of June 2007, I rest my case.

David Martin, June 30, 2007

Labels: , ,

Google

Saturday, April 21, 2007

RE: Reminder:The FEDS can use your cell as a listening device

Yet another reason to not have a cellular phone


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Wendy Bird
Date: Apr 20, 2007 5:52 PM


posted by
Matty the truth seeker


HECKTOR DANGUS, ESQ.








Labels: , , , , , ,

Google
eXTReMe Tracker