noworldsystem.com


Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Wired
March 10, 2010

Josh Gerstein over at Politico sent Threat Level his piece underscoring once again President Barack Obama is not the civil-liberties Knight In Shining Armor many were expecting.

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the 18 states, including the federal government, that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.

Wondering whether DNA sampling is legal?

The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

 



Student arrested over “Nobama” sticker gets settlement

Student arrested over “Nobama” sticker gets settlement

Howard Pankratz
The Denver Post
January 7, 2010


Blake Benson showed up for a Michelle Obama speech at Dakota Ridge High School wearing a “Nobama” sticker on his shirt. (provided by ACLU)

A Dakota Ridge High School student who wore a “Nobama” sticker taped across the front of his shirt prior to an appearance by Michelle Obama will receive $4,000 from Jefferson County authorities, the ACLU of Colorado announced today.

The $4,000 settlement agreement with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and the Jefferson County School District avoided a potential lawsuit, according to a news release from Taylor Pendergrass, ACLU staff attorney.

On Nov. 3, 2008, Blake Benson showed up outside the high school gym as others were lined up to enter the gym to hear Michelle Obama speak.

Benson was one of three students who chose to “stay and campaign” for Sen. John McCain at the school prior to the speech.

According to the ACLU, Dakota Ridge school officials told Benson to leave. When he refused, officials had Benson handcuffed, searched and arrested for interference — a charge that carries up to six months in jail and a $750 fine.

Read Full Article Here

 



Senate panel approves Patriot Act renewal

Dem-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee extends PATRIOT Act provisions

Capitol Hill Blue
October 9, 2009

Key US lawmakers passed legislation Thursday extending three key provisions of the PATRIOT Act, the sweeping intelligence bill enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Backing a White House request, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the measure 11 votes to 8 to extend until 2013 three clauses that would have expired by 31 December. The bill now heads to the full Senate for a vote.

The provisions include the “roving wiretap” clause, used to monitor mobile communications of individuals using multiple telephone lines, and the “lone-wolf” provision, which enables spying on individuals suspected of terrorist activity but with no obvious connection to extremist groups.

Lawmakers also extended the life of controversial section 215, known as the “library records provision” that allows government agencies to access individual’s library history.

The committee had earlier met in a closed-door meeting with members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the intelligence community on ensuring their actions would not impede investigations already underway.

The senators also debated freeing up law enforcement actions that have been hampered by legislation and court rulings since the first program was launched by former president George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11, which enabled collecting sensitive information for years without a court order.

Republicans senators have remained critical of placing restrictions on the intelligence community, saying they should more of a free hand in the early stages of investigations.

But their Democratic counterparts have decried the fact that the provisions still do not in their view adequately respect the privacy of ordinary Americans.

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold said he feared handing a “blank check” to law enforcement agencies and criticized the Democrat-controlled committee for not passing safeguards that even Republicans supported during the Bush administration.

“Among the most significant problems is the failure to include an improved standard for Section 215 orders, even though a Republican controlled Judiciary Committee unanimously supported including the same standard in 2005,” he said in a media advisory.

“But what was most upsetting was the apparent willingness of too many members to defer completely to behind the scenes complaints from the FBI and the Justice Department, even though the administration has yet to take a public position on any of the improvements that I and other senators have proposed. … [While] I am left scratching my head trying to understand how a committee controlled by a wide Democratic margin could support the bill it approved today, I will continue to work with my colleagues to try to make improvements to this bill.”

Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office said the rights group was “disappointed” that further moves were not made to protect civil liberties.

“This truly was a missed opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to right the wrongs of the PATRIOT Act,” he said.

“We urge the Senate to adopt amendments on the floor that will bring this bill in line with the Constitution.”

Obama Supports Renewing The PATRIOT ACT

 



Outsourcing Torture To Continue Under Obama

Outsourcing Torture To Continue Under Obama

Anthony Gregory
Campaign For Liberty
August 25, 2009

Flashback: Obama Orders Continuation Of Illegal CIA Renditions

About two years ago, candidate Obama, writing in Foreign Affairs, strongly criticized Bush’s practice of “extraordinary renditioning.” Under this policy, terror suspects were apprehended, transferred, sometimes through secret prisons and black cites, and handed over to foreign regimes like Egypt and Morocco. Sometimes this involved torture. Maher Arar, for example, was a Canadian citizen later determined to be innocent, captured in New York and sent to Syria where he was tortured in brutal ways. See this piece in the New Yorker chroniciling other such horror stories.

Obama’s criticism of renditioning, along with his general criticism of the Bush administration’s violations of habeas corpus, was one of his most serious indictments of the war on terrorism as managed by the Republicans.

Now the New York Times reports that “[t]he Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to insure they are not tortured.”

How will they monitor such treatment? The administration “would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.” This is the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton — the same politician whom Ann Coulter had said she’d vote for over John McCain because Clinton was more pro-torture!

The Times goes on to report:

“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.a new administrative interrogation unit, to be housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which will oversee the interrogations of top terror suspects using largely non-coercive techniques approved by the administration earlier this year.”

Read Full Article Here

 



RED ALERT: Total Takeover Of America Near Completion

RED ALERT: The Total Takeover Of America Enters Its Final Phase

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
June 29, 2009

The wholesale looting of America and the transfer of wealth and power over to a private banking elite who are setting up a world government, along with the complete obliteration of any remaining freedom to protest, resist, or even speak out against this agenda, is now entering its final phase as numerous different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and portray a clear picture of tyranny.

We are about to sound the death knell for the United States if every one of the following attacks on our liberty, free speech, sovereignty, and right to not be ruled over by an unelected banking dictatorship is not fiercely opposed and crushed.

RED ALERT 1

The passage of the “Climate Bill” by the House and its likely approval by the Senate represents the entrée for the complete and total subjugation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction – all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.

This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status. It represents a transfer of power and wealth from both the U.S. government and the American taxpayer over to the system of world government and global regulation now being erected by means of the climate change hoax.

This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining – this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.

As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

We must rally now to lobby members of Congress who voted for the legislation and demand they change their vote before July 2nd. Failing that, we must demand that the Senate does not rubber stamp this nightmare legislation. Failing that, we must support and organize to craft more legislation based on the example of Arizona, who recently passed state Senate legislation refusing to comply with insane climate laws coming from the federal level.

RED ALERT 2

The seemingly endless economic “bailouts” represent the wholesale looting of the American taxpayer and the grand theft of trillions of dollars by private banking interests who refuse to even disclose where the money went.

Not satisfied with stealing tens of trillions, under the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, the Federal Reserve is now trying to enrich itself with dictator powers that will give it complete control over the U.S. economy, handing them the authority to “regulate” and shut down any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.

We must rally now and lobby more members of Congress to support Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve and highlight the fact that Bernanke is spewing financial terrorism when he threatens an economic collapse should the Fed be opened up to scrutiny.

RED ALERT 3

Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).

S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”

In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.

RED ALERT 4

The Senate bill S.787, otherwise known as the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA), would replace language in the regulatory act currently using “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States.”

What this means is that “the government would essentially be able to regulate everything from standing water in floodplains to creeks that run behind business and residences,” according to an Environmental Leader report.

This represents a complete takeover of private land and waterways by the federal government, a total assault on private property rights and a complete federalization of America’s land and water.

“In a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer and ranking member James Inhofe, the American Farm Bureau Federation said that the proposed law would “extend to all water — anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater,” stated the letter. “For the first time in the 36-year history of the act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation.”

If this bill becomes law, it will empower the federal government to seize private property on a whim, using similar powers that Communist China employed during Chairman Mao’s “great leap forward,” where landowners had their property violently confiscated and stolen by the government.

If this bill passes the Senate, private property rights in the United States are effectively null and void and the federal government would legally have the power to bulldoze families from their homes as routinely happens in Communist China.

RED ALERT 5

Amongst the myriad of assaults on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens undertaken by the Obama administration during the course of its first year in office, the one that stands out as the most alarming is the attempt to ban people who appear on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

But isn’t stopping terrorists from buying guns surely a sensible measure to take? The problem is that the terrorist watch list, sometimes called the no fly list, is not a list of likely terrorists, it is a sprawling database of of innocent people that contains the names of over one million Americans. This is a rise of 32% since 2007 alone.

Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes, reverends, the former assistant attorney general, toddlers and children, the ACLU administrator, people with difficult names and all American names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become caught in the vast tentacle of this list, documents the ACLU.

Moreover, once a person is included on the terrorist watch list it is virtually impossible to get off it.

The terrorist watch list is an ever-expanding tool with which to deny Americans basic rights as well as to strip them completely of the Fourth Amendment.

Now it is being used to prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. Legislation sponsored by the The Government Accountability Office seeks to “close the gap” and prevent victims of the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms.

This represents a new end run around the Second Amendment and a concerted effort on behalf of the federal government to classify millions of innocent Americans as potential terrorists, thus stripping them of their Constitutional right to own firearms.

This represents a new end run around the Second Amendment and a concerted effort on behalf of the federal government to classify millions of innocent Americans as potential terrorists, thus stripping them of their Constitutional right to own firearms.

RED ALERT 6

Our right to protest against any of the egregious assaults on the Constitution that are listed above is itself being removed by new law enforcement and Pentagon training manuals and guidelines that define protesting as domestic terrorism.

Current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.

Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.

The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.

No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion – the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists. The last time this happened was under King George shortly before the American Revolution.

ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT

If we don’t stand up in unison and exercise our right to protest and free speech now more than ever before, while pointing out that the real terrorists are those who would seek to destroy the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, then we may find ourselves doing our protesting behind the barbed wires and the concrete blocks of an internment camp.

The hour is late, the clock stands at one minute to midnight, and the federal government, through all the examples documented above, is on the verge of implementing nothing less than a total environmental, financial and societal dictatorship and killing what once was the United States of America.

Almost identical programs of total enslavement are also being pushed through in almost every other major western country at the same time.

If we don’t stop obsessing about the minutia of life and actually concentrate on the imminent destruction of the very principles of our livelihoods, the bedrock freedoms that allow us to operate in relative comfort on a daily basis and be reasonably secure in our own homes, being able to pay our bills, put food on the table, earn money, and air our grievances when government threatens to impinge on those basic freedoms, then there will be nothing left but a rotten hollow carcass and a memory of what America once strived to be – land of the free, home of the brave – not land of the thief, home of the slave.

 



Joe Biden’s pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record

Joe Biden’s pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record

CNET
August 23, 2008

By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET’s Technology Voters’ Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP.

That’s probably okay with Barack Obama: Biden likely got the nod because of his foreign policy knowledge. The Delaware politician is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee who voted for the war in Iraq, and is reasonably well-known nationally after his presidential campaigns in 1988 and 2008.

Copyright
But back to the Delaware senator’s tech record. After taking over the Foreign Relations committee, Biden became a staunch ally of Hollywood and the recording industry in their efforts to expand copyright law. He sponsored a bill in 2002 that would have make it a federal felony to trick certain types of devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs. Biden’s bill was backed by content companies including News Corp. but eventually died after Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Yahoo lobbied against it.

A few months later, Biden signed a letter that urged the Justice Department “to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks.” Critics of this approach said that the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and not taxpayers, should pay for their own lawsuits.

Last year, Biden sponsored an RIAA-backed bill called the Perform Act aimed at restricting Americans’ ability to record and play back individual songs from satellite and Internet radio services. (The RIAA sued XM Satellite Radio over precisely this point.)

All of which meant that nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA’s Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. (Photos are here.)

Now, it’s true that few Americans will cast their votes in November based on what the vice presidential candidate thinks of copyright law. But these pro-copyright views don’t exactly jibe with what Obama has promised; he’s pledged to “update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.” These are code words for taking a more pro-EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) than pro-MPAA approach.

Unfortunately, Biden has steadfastly refused to answer questions on the topic. We asked him 10 tech-related questions, including whether he’d support rewriting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as part of our 2008 Technology Voters’ guide. Biden would not answer (we did hear back from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Ron Paul).

In our 2006 Technology Voters’ Guide, which ranked Senate votes from July 1998 through May 2005, Biden received a mere 37.5 percent score because of his support for Internet filters in schools and libraries and occasional support for Internet taxes.

Privacy, the FBI, and PGP
On privacy, Biden’s record is hardly stellar. In the 1990s, Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and introduced a bill called the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, which the EFF says he was “persuaded” to do by the FBI. A second Biden bill was called the Violent Crime Control Act. Both were staunchly anti-encryption, with this identical language:

It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law.

Translated, that means turn over your encryption keys. The book Electronic Privacy Papers describes Biden’s bill as representing the FBI’s visible effort to restrict encryption technology, which was taking place in concert with the National Security Agency’s parallel, but less visible efforts. (Biden was no foe of the NSA. He once described now-retired NSA director Bobby Ray Inman as the “single most competent man in the government.”)

Biden’s bill — and the threat of encryption being outlawed — is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who’s now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden’s legislation “that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups.”

While neither of Biden’s pair of bills became law, they did foreshadow the FBI’s pro-wiretapping, anti-encryption legislative strategy that followed — and demonstrated that the Delaware senator was willing to be a reliable ally of law enforcement on the topic. (They also previewed the FBI’s legislative proposal later that decade for banning encryption products such as SSH or PGP without government backdoors, which was approved by one House of Representatives committee but never came to a vote in the Senate.)

“Joe Biden made his second attempt to introduce such legislation” in the form of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which was also known as the Digital Telephony law, according to an account in Wired magazine. Biden at the time was chairman of the relevant committee; he co-sponsored the Senate version and dutifully secured a successful floor vote on it less than two months after it was introduced. CALEA became law in October 1994, and is still bedeviling privacy advocates: the FBI recently managed to extend its requirements to Internet service providers.

CALEA represented one step in the FBI and NSA’s attempts to restrict encryption without backdoors. In a top-secret memo to members of President George H.W. Bush’s administration including Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and CIA director Robert Gates, one White House official wrote: “Justice should go ahead now to seek a legislative fix to the digital telephony problem, and all parties should prepare to follow through on the encryption problem in about a year. Success with digital telephony will lock in one major objective; we will have a beachhead we can exploit for the encryption fix; and the encryption access options can be developed more thoroughly in the meantime.”

There’s another reason why Biden’s legislative tactics in the CALEA scrum amount to more than a mere a footnote in Internet history. They’re what led to the creation of the Center for Democracy and Technology — and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s simultaneous implosion and soul-searching.

EFF staffers Jerry Berman and Danny Weitzner chose to work with Biden on cutting a deal and altering the bill in hopes of obtaining privacy concessions. It may have helped, but it also left the EFF in the uncomfortable position of leaving its imprimatur on Biden’s FBI-backed wiretapping law universally loathed by privacy advocates. The debacle ended with internal turmoil, Berman and Weitzner leaving the group and taking their corporate backers to form CDT, and a chastened EFF that quietly packed its bags and moved to its current home in San Francisco. (Weitzner, who was responsible for a censorship controversy last year, became a formal Obama campaign surrogate.)

“Anti-terror” legislation
The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of “terrorism” that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review. The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode “constitutional and statutory due process protections” and would “authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations.”

Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. “I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,” he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as “the Democratic Party’s de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism.”

Biden’s chronology is not accurate: the bombing took place in April 1995 and his bill had been introduced in February 1995. But it’s true that Biden’s proposal probably helped to lay the groundwork for the Bush administration’s Patriot Act.

In 1996, Biden voted to keep intact an ostensibly anti-illegal immigration bill that outlined what the Real ID Act would become almost a decade later. The bill would create a national worker identification registry; Biden voted to kill an Abraham-Feingold amendment that would have replaced the registry with stronger enforcement. According to an analysis by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the underlying bill would have required “states to place Social Security numbers on drivers licenses and to obtain fingerprints or some other form of biometric identification for licenses.”

Along with most of his colleagues in the Congress — including Sen. John McCain but not Rep. Ron Paul — Biden voted for the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (which was part of a larger spending bill). Obama voted for the bill containing the Real ID Act, but wasn’t in the U.S. Senate in 2001 when the original Patriot Act vote took place.

Patriot Act
In the Senate debate over the Patriot Act in October 2001, Biden once again allied himself closely with the FBI. The Justice Department favorably quotes Biden on its Web site as saying: “The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.”

The problem is that Biden’s claim was simply false — which he should have known after a decade of experience lending his name to wiretapping bills on behalf of the FBI. As CDT explains in a rebuttal to Biden: “The Justice Department had the ability to use wiretaps, including roving taps, in criminal investigations of terrorism, just as in other criminal investigations, long before the Patriot Act.”

But Biden’s views had become markedly less FBI-friendly by April 2007, six years later. By then, the debate over wiretapping had become sharply partisan, pitting Democrats seeking to embarrass President Bush against Republicans aiming to defend the administration at nearly any cost. In addition, Biden had announced his presidential candidacy three months earlier and was courting liberal activists dismayed by the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping.

That month, Biden slammed the “president’s illegal wiretapping program that allows intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans without a judge’s approval or congressional authorization or oversight.” He took aim at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for allowing the FBI to “flagrantly misuse National Security Letters” — even though it was the Patriot Act that greatly expanded their use without also expanding internal safeguards and oversight as well.

Biden did vote against a FISA bill with retroactive immunity for any telecommunications provider that illegally opened its network to the National Security Agency; Obama didn’t. Both agreed to renew the Patriot Act in March 2006, a move that pro-privacy Democrats including Ron Wyden and Russ Feingold opposed. The ACLU said the renewal “fails to correct the most flawed provisions” of the original Patriot Act. (Biden does do well on the ACLU’s congressional scorecard.)

“Baby-food bombs”
The ACLU also had been at odds with Biden over his efforts to censor bomb-making information on the Internet. One day after a bomb in Saudi Arabia killed several U.S. servicemen and virtually flattened a military base, Biden pushed to make posting bomb-making information on the Internet a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in jail, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

“I think most Americans would be absolutely shocked if they knew what kind of bone-chilling information is making its way over the Internet,” he told the Senate. “You can access detailed, explicit instructions on how to make and detonate pipe bombs, light-bulb bombs, and even — if you can believe it — baby-food bombs.”

Biden didn’t get exactly what he wanted — at least not right away. His proposal was swapped in the final law for one requiring the attorney general to investigate “the extent to which the First Amendment protects such material and its private and commercial distribution.” The report was duly produced, concluding that the proposal “can withstand constitutional muster in most, if not all, of its possible applications, if such legislation is slightly modified.”

It was. Biden and co-sponsor Dianne Feinstein introduced their bill again the following year. Biden pitched it as an anti-terror measure, saying in a floor debate that numerous terrorists “have been found in possession of bomb-making manuals and Internet bomb-making information.” He added: “What is even worse is that some of these instructions are geared toward kids. They tell kids that all the ingredients they need are right in their parents’ kitchen or laundry cabinets.”

Biden’s proposal became law in 1997. It didn’t amount to much: four years after its enactment, there had been only one conviction. And instead of being used to snare a dangerous member of Al Qaeda, the law was used to lock up a 20-year old anarchist Webmaster who was sentenced to one year in prison for posting information about Molotov cocktails and “Drano bombs” on his Web site, Raisethefist.com.

Today there are over 10,000 hits on Google for the phrase, in quotes, “Drano bomb.” One is a video that lists the necessary ingredients and shows some self-described rednecks blowing up small plastic bottles in their yard. Then there’s the U.S. Army’s Improvised Munitions Handbook with instructions on making far more deadly compounds, including methyl nitrate dynamite, mortars, grenades, and C-4 plastic explosive — which free speech activists placed online as an in-your-face response to the Biden-Feinstein bill.

Peer-to-peer networks
Since then, Biden has switched from complaining about Internet baby-food bombs to taking aim at peer-to-peer networks. He held one Foreign Relations committee hearing in February 2002 titled “Theft of American Intellectual Property” and invited executives from the Justice Department, RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft to speak. Not one Internet company, P2P network, or consumer group was invited to testify.

Afterwards, Sharman Networks (which distributes Kazaa) wrote a letter to Biden complaining about “one-sided and unsubstantiated attacks” on P2P networks. It said: “We are deeply offended by the gratuitous accusations made against Kazaa by witnesses before the committee, including ludicrous attempts to associate an extremely beneficial, next-generation software program with organized criminal gangs and even terrorist organizations.”

Biden returned to the business of targeting P2P networks this year. In April, he proposed spending $1 billion in U.S. tax dollars so police can monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity. He made that suggestion after a Wyoming cop demonstrated a proof-of-concept program called “Operation Fairplay” at a hearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

A month later, the Senate Judiciary committee approved a Biden-sponsored bill that would spend over $1 billion on policing illegal Internet activity, mostly child pornography. It has the dubious virtue of being at least partially redundant: One section would “prohibit the broadcast of live images of child abuse,” even though the Justice Department has experienced no problems in securing guilty pleas for underage Webcamming. (The bill has not been voted on by the full Senate.)

Online sales of Robitussin
Around the same time, Biden introduced his self-described Biden Crime Bill of 2007. One section expands electronic surveillance law to permit police wiretaps in “crimes dangerous to the life, limb, and well-being of minor children.” Another takes aim at Internet-based telemedicine and online pharmacies, saying that physicians must have conducted “at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient” to prescribe medicine.

Another prohibits selling a product containing dextromethorphan — including Robitussin, Sucrets, Dayquil, and Vicks — “to an individual under the age of 18 years, including any such sale using the Internet.” It gives the Justice Department six months to come up with regulations, which include when retailers should be fined for shipping cough suppressants to children. (Biden is a longtime drug warrior; he authored the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act that the Bush administration used to shut down benefit concerts.)

Net neutrality
On Net neutrality, Biden has sounded skeptical. In 2006, he indicated that no preemptive laws were necessary because if violations do happen, such a public outcry will develop that “the chairman will be required to hold this meeting in this largest room in the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the way down to the White House.” Obama, on the other hand, has been a strong supporter of handing pre-emptive regulatory authority to the Federal Communications Commission.

 

Tommy Chong: Biden ’authored the bill that put me in jail’

KXMB
August 24, 2008

It turns out that Obama’s new running mate is one of the leading crusaders in the war on drugs. Which isn’t something that’s likely to sit well with Obama’s base of young, college-aged supporters

Earlier this week, in an interview with the Washington Post, Tommy Chong was asked what the average citizen can do to further the cause of decriminalization. “Check out the people you’re voting for,” Chong replied. “For instance, Joseph Biden comes off as a liberal Democrat, but he’s the one who authored the bill that put me in jail. He wrote the law against shipping drug paraphernalia through the mail – which could be anything from a pipe to a clip or cigarette papers.”

Barack Obama’s V.P. selection Sen. Joe Biden also spnsored the Rave Act, which targets music events where drug use is allegedly prevalent.

Read Full Article Here

Experts: Many Americans Lost Homes Due to a Bill Championed by Biden
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5670703&page=1

Barack Obama: The Next PRESIDENT Is Joe Biden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElChQ6g2Io

VP Choice Biden Unpopular in Iraq: He’s creator of the idea of dividing Iraq
http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnLN96984.html

Biden’s Bill: The Patriot Act
http://www.tnr.com/columnist..582-b6ec-444834c9df73&k=93697

Biden called for unilateral Iraq invasion – in 1998
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5492

 



Provocateurs Call For Violence to Demonize DNC Protesters

Provocateurs Call For Violence to Demonize DNC Protesters
Media reports attempt to link individuals who screamed “Kill Michelle Malkin” to talk show host Alex Jones

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 26, 2008

The spectacle of two individuals caught on camera calling for violence and then affiliating themselves with peaceful demonstrators in Denver has raised questions about who is behind apparent “agent provocateurs,” intent on demonizing legitimate protest groups at the Democratic National Convention.

Several news outlets reported that nationally syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones had “threatened” neo-conservative pundit Michelle Malkin during a confrontation between the two yesterday.

The same websites then claimed that people affiliated with Jones had screamed “Kill Michelle Malkin” and advocated violence against the columnist.

“Jones and his lackeys chased Michelle around the protest threatening to kill her!” claims the Gateway Pundit blog.

Other news sources, including People’s Press Collective and Political Byline, re-iterated the false charge and alleged that Jones had threatened Malkin.

In reality, the You Tube video of the incident shows two young men in court jester outfits approach Jones, claim they are fans of his and then put their arms around him for a photo opportunity. They then go off camera and advocate the murder of Malkin, continuing their threats despite the best efforts of Jones’ colleague Luke Rudkowski to make them cease their outburst.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-DoxqvqjxM

Tellingly, the man in green (and Jones’ “lackey” according to the reports) also shouts, ”Alex Jones is a capitalist stooge.”

This incident was clearly a staged set-up to fool the watching media into thinking that people affiliated with Jones were calling for violence, thus demonizing Jones himself and the rest of the peaceful protesters who were confronting Malkin.

It was “frat-boy type” instigators, notes Aaron Dykes, editor of The Jones Report, “wearing court jester hats and making inflammatory statements.” Dykes further states that, after chanting for Malkin’s death, these instigators asked why Alex had called for violence against Malkin.

Alex Jones nor any of his colleagues have ever called for violence against Michelle Malkin or any other individual. Confrontational protest is one thing, but assault and death threats are something that Alex Jones has vehemently denounced throughout his years of activism.

For clues about who the mysterious “court jesters” really belong to, consider the fact that members of the Re-Create 68 protest group, a self-proclaimed left-wing anarchist organization, voiced their support for right-wing Malkin throughout the confrontation with Jones, with one member, Kenneth Sanchez, at one point yelling “Michelle Malkin is a true patriot!”

According to other protest groups, Re-Create 68 is a COINTELPRO-style project designed to discredit legitimate antiwar groups by instigating violence in Denver during the DNC. According to Alex Jones, members of Re-Create 68 have habitually attempted to taunt police and provoke riots during the first few days of the convention.

Discovering the true identity and affiliation of the two individuals seen in the video calling for violence is key to preventing the wholesale demonization of legitimate protest groups as well as stopping a potential police crackdown which may come as a result of these instigators provoking riots.

 

Malkin’s Photographer Caught On Tape Attempting To Frame Alex Jones

Prison Planet
August 27, 2008

One of Michelle Malkin’s stooges is caught on tape lying to police in an attempt to frame Alex Jones, claiming that Alex punched her bodyguard and shouted death threats, when in reality Malkin’s bodyguard assaulted Alex and his crew, and the death threats were made by provocateurs completely unaffiliated with Alex Jones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOX6SBkCcK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q33CuV429E

 

Media Distorts Malkin Confrontation

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 26, 2008

Reading Fort Collins Now, formerly Fort Collins Weekly, one has to ask if Julia Cobb got her journalism degree out of a crackerjack box. Reporting on the events outside the DNC yesterday, Cobb describes Alex Jones’ confrontation with the neocon Michelle Malkin as follows:

But soon, the attention was diverted from the peaceful protest by an altercation between a member of the conservative media and a citizen attending the protest. This was the second incident of its kind; on Sunday, protesters took exception to a Fox News reporter trying to question Ward Churchill, controversial former professor at the University of Colorado. Today it was radical Alex Jones, from the group 9/11 Truth, which believes that the September 11 terrorist attacks were planned by the U.S. government, verbally confronting Michelle Malkin, a conservative columnist and Fox News contributor.

“You support torture. Shame on you, you fascist piece of trash,” Jones yelled. He also accused Malkin of supporting the U.S. Marines when they drown puppies.

Malkin found an ally in Recreate 68’s Sanchez, who pushed his way into the crowd of TV cameras to yell at Jones: “Michelle Malkin is a true patriot!”

Sanchez later said he had no idea why Jones was attending the protest and added that Recreate 68 does not support Jones’ ideas. He added that although they strongly disagree with her views, Recreate 68 supports Malkin’s right to free speech.

Drown puppies? Lance Cpl. David Motari didn’t drown a puppy. He threw it over a cliff. This was a big story back in March, but for some reason Ms. Cobb didn’t bother to do any research.

She also did not mention the fact that Michelle Malkin insisted the puppy was not real. “The puppy doesn’t move. It’s clear to me that it’s either dead or a stuffed toy. The sound effects of a dog yapping seem to have been dubbed in,” Malkin wrote on her blog on March 3. “Disturbing whether the dog is real or fake, dead or alive? Yes. A hanging offense? No. But the clip is a useful cultural Rorschach test. Those who buy into the soldier-as-monster narrative are up in arms — demanding that the soldiers be hunted down and shot.”

Malkin then includes a few obscenity laced quotes that accompanied the video on YouTube. “I’m sure Gloria Steinem and the Berkeley City Council would agree,” she adds. This is the same Gloria Steinem who enjoyed “a 10-year association with the CIA,” according to Nancy Borman and the Village Voice. As a member of the CIA’s Mockingbird corporate media — Malkin works for Fox News — it would seem Michelle Malkin has more in common with Ms. Steinem than she would care to admit.

It is bizarre to claim Malkin “found an ally” in Recreate 68’s Kenneth Sanchez, who along with co-founder Mark Cohen attempted to “levitate” the U.S. Mint in Denver. Of course, this is not even original, it was ripped off from Abbie Hoffman. Back in 1967, 50,000 hippies attempted to levitate the Pentagon, turn it orange, and drive out the evil spirits responsible for the Vietnam War. Mark Cohen, wearing a red velvet wizard costume, and Recreate 68 managed to attract 50 people to this less than original stunt.

It makes sense Sanchez would declare Malkin a “true patriot,” although Recreate 68 allegedly disagrees with her views. According to Truth Alliance, Recreate 68 is a COINTELPRO project designed to discredit legitimate antiwar groups by instigating violence in Denver during the DNC. Malkin did her part, adding to the hype on her blog on March 21 when she wrote that Recreate 68 is part and parcel of “the history of left-wing violence against law enforcement” and admonished the cops to “take the nutballs seriously.” In response, nutball Sanchez embraced Malkin and disavowed the “radical” Alex Jones.

“Recreate 68 co-founder Glenn Spagnuolo agreed [with Sanchez] saying [Alex Jones] is “the true agent provocateur, he was so busy hating, he missed all the love.” Spagnuolo’s “love” is rather peculiar, as the point of Recreate 68 is to initiate a re-run of the 1968 police riot in Chicago. Is it possible Mr. Spagnuolo echoes Yippie Jerry Rubin, who wished for martial law in Chicago? Love has nothing to do with bashing heads.

 

Federally Funded Re-Create 68 Provocateur, Jerry Rubin

Rat Tube
August 26, 2008

Rat Says: Within the first nanosecond of seeing this clown (Jerry Rubin) I thought to myself, ‘could this be any faker’? This guy is void of sincerity and his clown suit seems forced and uncomfortable on him. What is so telling is the formulaic M.O. that the foundations use that hired him….. they are using the same scripts with ReCreate68.

But it takes two to tango and in this case it is Fox that has chosen (or better yet designated) to bed the fake anarchists. What you see on the ‘old media’ is all WWF.

“……..The Committee believes, based on this data, that during the much-publicized “7? trial, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Jerry Rubin, and Abbie Hoffman, should have been more properly sitting at the Government prosecutor’s table in the courtroom. Since the Committee does not have much, if any, inside information, we can never know for sure whether we are right. Only a confession or admission by any of the “7? could be more certain—such as the recent confessions of two West Coast agent-provocateur, Louis Tackwood and Eustacio Martinez, that they were posing as “radical revolutionaries”.

1. Background and finances of the “Chicago 7?. Unknown to the public, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, and the others who became the “7?, and persons connected with them in the National Mobilization to End the War in Viet Nam, were funded by federal money, channeled to them through pass-through organizations connected with the government. $192,000 in federal money and $85,000 from the Carnegie Foundation, acting as a conduit for the Central Intelligence Agency, were funneled to Hayden, Davis, et al., through a front calling itself the Chicago Student Health Organization. To maintain the deep “cover” of this latter group, stories were planted in the press describing the group as being “communist” inspired or directed.

Another $193,313 was funneled to the “7? from the federal Office of Economic Opportunity by way of or through subsidiaries of the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C., an alleged “liberal” think tank posing as a left wing group, but acting as a conduit for the C.I.A. Other substantial funds came from the Roger Baldwin Foundation which has, nationwide, taken over the structure of the American Civil Liberties Union. The A.C.L.U., such as it was prior to 1967, ; no longer exists. The Roger Baldwin Foundation is funded by several pass-throughs, or conduits, for the C.I.A., among others being:

J.M. Kaplan Fund, Inc. [of New York]; New World Foundation; Aaron E. Norman Fund, Inc.

This is shown by a detailed analysis of I.R.S. form 990-A, filed by these foundations [one of the few public record tax returns]. Several persons acting for the C.I.A. sit on the Board of Overseers of the Roger Baldwin Foundation : Jacob M. Kaplan and John L.Saltonstall, among others……..” bellaciao.org

 

Dallas Morning News Libels Alex Jones

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 28, 2008

It’s no longer simply the neocon bloggers spreading lies about Alex Jones. Now the Dallas Morning News has engaged in slander. Mark Davis, described as a “radio guy and contributing columnist” to the newspaper’s “opinion blog,” writes:

Conservative writer and blogger Michelle Malkin was apparently attacked by violent idiots yesterday, egged on by one of the most repugnant human beings attending this convention — and the competition for that title is crowded.

I refer to the cretinous Alex Jones, who hosts what passes for a radio talk show on a few stations unwise enough to carry it. His blend of 9/11 conspiracy bunk and other baseless scaremongering makes him a complete idiot, a designation which gives him plenty of innocent company. But in shouting “Kill Michelle Malkin!” at a protest yesterday, he reveals himself to be not just a dismissible loon, but a despicable soul whom I would identify as a blight on my industry if I actually considered him to be a part of it. (Emphasis added.)

In short, according to the Dallas Morning News, Alex Jones called for Michelle Malkin to be murdered. Infowars, Prison Planet, and no shortage of blogs and websites have spent the last two days revealing this for what it is — a complete lie, in fact a neocon dirty trick.

It really is quite amazing the Dallas Morning News would be so careless. It has committed libel, as there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Alex Jones did not call for Malkin’s murder.

In the opinion of this writer, the Dallas Morning News not only needs to apologize and print a retraction, it needs to fire Mark Davis for violating journalistic ethics.

But then I forgot — the corporate media has no ethics.

 

Audio: Malkin Entourage Admits Alex Jones Did Not Say “Kill Malkin”

Infowars
August 29, 2008

In a clip taken from a Pajamas Media podcast, PJM producer Ed Driscoll gets an admission from videographer Andrew Marcus and blogger Charlie Martin that Alex Jones did not call for the murder of Michelle Malkin during a demo to “levitate” the Denver Mint on August 25. This admission by Malkin’s people should put to rest the claims, primarily on neocon blogs and, unfortunately, by Mark Davis at the Dallas Morning News, that Alex Jones threatened Malkin. Marcus and Martin, however, attempt to portray Jones as violent and attempting to incite a “mob,” although Malkin was not touched by Alex Jones and he was in no way responsible for the behavior of people in the crowd, including two individuals who acted as agents provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEng3DLsBNU

Inside Edition Smears Jones For Malkin Confrontation
http://www.prisonplanet.com/inside-e..es-for-malkin-confrontation.html

Alex Jones Confronts Neocon Michelle Malkin — Re-Create 68 Provocateurs Make a Mockery out of the Anti-War Movement
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/0..onts-neocon-michelle-malkin/