Why Did The FBI Not Warn Occupy Wall St Activist of Assassination Threats?

12160

PDF -Nationwide FBI [Redacted] monitoring fileon #OWS describes OWS as a "criminal and terrorist threat"

Released FBI documents reveal plans to assassinate Occupy Wall Street Leaders With Snipers

FBI knew of plot to kill OWS activists, remained silent
Only one month into the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations last year, plans were formulated to identify key figures in the movement and execute them with a coordinated assault using sniper rifles, new documents reveal.

Confessions of an Undercover Cop

Bafta-winning film-maker Brian Hill unravels the extraordinary story of Mark Kennedy, the undercover police officer who infiltrated groups of environmentalists to inform on their planned protests.

U.S. Secret Service Bans Sale of Silver and Gold Liberty Dollars on Ebay

Market Daily News

Mac Slavo: In early 2011 Bernad Von Nothaus was convicted by the US government and identified as a domestic terrorist by Federal prosecutors for minting his own silver and gold coinage, and then offering those coins for sale to clients. He dubbed the  coins “Liberty Dollars” and by doing so brought upon himself the ire of the U.S. Secret Service, Federal Reserve and a host of other government agencies.




According to the government, Von Nothaus was a counterfeiter, though he made no attempts to actually counterfeit U.S. currency, but rather, provide another mechanism of exchange through the use of precious metals.

After Von Nothaus’ conviction, the Secret Service warned they would be confiscating all Liberty Dollar coins manufactured by Nothaus’ company, NorFed.

[Must Read: Paper-Gold Fraud Now Out In The Open]

Since the shutdown of VonNothaus’ operation, many of the coins have been offered for sale or trade on mega-auction site Ebay, and this week the Secret Service took action. They contacted Ebay, which in turn advised sellers of the coins on their site that they could no longer engage in the trade of silver coins with the Norfed Liberty Dollar hallmark:

The United States Secret Service has requested the removal of all Norfed Liberty dollars on the eBay site as counterfeits. … Please do not relist this item(s). We appreciate that you chose to list this coin on our site and understand there was no ill intent on your part. Your listing fees have been credited to your account.

There is nothing special about the Liberty Dollar coins other than the fact that they are pure silver; and, of course, that they actually have intrinsic value as compared to general circulation U.S. legal tender which is, by most accounts, essentially worthless in terms of metal value.

[Must Read: When The “PRICE” of Gold or Silver Means Nothing?]

The government disagrees with this argument, and in a press release issued by the US Department of Justice, said that the trade of such coins amounts to nothing short of terrorism because it poses a direct threat to the stability of the United States:

Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism, U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country, she added. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.

The Secret Service has gotten involved in order to ensure buyers don’t get confused by thinking they are acquiring legal U.S. tender. Apparently they believe that someone who buys a silver coin for $35 may, in a state of confusion, then attempt to exchange it for a $1 soda pop in the open market.

Today they are targeting the Liberty Dollar because it “represents a clear and present danger to the economic stability” of the United States. It wouldn’t be that far a stretch of the imagination to suggest the government could make the same argument for any mechanism of exchange or store of value, especially those which contain gold and silver.

[Related: Silver’s Smoking Guns, Part III: Market Paradox]

They confiscated gold in the 1930′s for much the same reasons. They may very well do it again, but this time you may be a terrorist if you have silver or gold coins at home when they come looking.

Bradley Manning: Unlawful Treatment | Interview with Alexa O'Brien

The U.N.'s Internet Sneak Attack

Letting the Internet be rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla.

Wall Street Journal
Gordon Crovitz


Who runs the Internet? For now, the answer remains no one, or at least no government, which explains the Web's success as a new technology. But as of next week, unless the U.S. gets serious, the answer could be the United Nations.

Many of the U.N.'s 193 member states oppose the open, uncontrolled nature of the Internet. Its interconnected global networks ignore national boundaries, making it hard for governments to censor or tax. And so, to send the freewheeling digital world back to the state control of the analog era, China, Russia, Iran and Arab countries are trying to hijack a U.N. agency that has nothing to do with the Internet.

For more than a year, these countries have lobbied an agency called the International Telecommunications Union to take over the rules and workings of the Internet. Created in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, the ITU last drafted a treaty on communications in 1988, before the commercial Internet, when telecommunications meant voice telephone calls via national telephone monopolies.

Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations.

Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day.

Many of the engineers and developers who built and operate these networks belong to virtual committees and task forces coordinated by an international nonprofit called the Internet Society. The society is home to the Internet Engineering Task Force (the main provider of global technical standards) and other volunteer groups such as the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Research Task Force. Another key nongovernmental group is Icann, which assigns Internet addresses and domain names.

Supreme Court rules cops can be filmed

Russia Today

Smile for the camera, coppers — the US Supreme Court has decided to let stand a lesser ruling that allows citizens in the state of Illinois to record police officers performing their official duties.

Up until just last year, an anti-eavesdropping legislation on the books across Illinois meant any person within the state could be imprisoned for as much as 15 years for recording a police officer without expressed consent. In August 2011, a federal appeals court struck down the law, but an Illinois prosecutor has asked the Supreme Court — unsuccessfully — to challenge that ruling.

On Monday, the top justices in the US said that they would not hear the case and will instead rely on last year’s ruling where a federal appeals court in Chicago agreed that the eavesdropping law, as written, “likely violates” the First Amendment.

“The Illinois eavesdropping statue restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny” and that the “statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opined previously.

Under that ruling and thanks to the Supreme Court’s refusal to weigh in this week, last year’s decision to not allow the enforcement of that law will stand, essentially making it for once-and-for-all perfectly legal at the highest level to tape record cops on the job.

Harvey Grossman, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, says in a statement that the ACLU was "pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to take this appeal.”

“The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police,” Grossman says. “The advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient and easy to accomplish."

The ACLU says they will now attempt to secure a permanent injunction in the case of Anita Alvarez v. ACLU of Illinois so that state attorneys will be barred from attempting to enforce the eavesdropping law ever again, “so that the ACLU’s program of monitoring police activity in public can move forward in the future without any threat of prosecution.”

Scottsdale cops arrest 4409 nine hours after posting this video

Freedom's Phoenix

Judge sets bond at ridiculous amount of $3,500 for a simple misdemeanor in order to purposely relocate him to Sheriff Joe's 4th Avenue Jail.

Please donate to the bail fund if you can. No plea in this case and he will take it clear to the Arizona Supreme Court. Check the youtube channel or FreedomsPhoenix.com for further info

MORE INFO AND CODES ON http://www.Formula4409.com

Judge tosses Occupy Chicago park arrests

Chicago Tribune
David Heinzmann

The mass arrests of Occupy Chicago demonstrators that city leaders held up as a model for how to respect protesters' rights has been ruled unconstitutional and tossed out of court by a Cook County judge.

In a 37-page ruling issued today, Associate Judge Thomas Donnelly ruled the October 2011 arrests were unconstitutional because the city routinely chooses not to enforce the curfew for events the city supports, such as the 2008 Election Night rally for President Barack Obama. The judge noted that no arrests were made at that event, even though it went well past curfew.

Assange slams Obama's claims of advocating freedom of speech

PressTV

The founder of the WikiLeaks website has ridiculed US President Barack Obama’s claim of supporting free speech in the Middle East while persecuting his group for publishing leaked US diplomatic cables.

Speaking Wednesday in a New York event via a video feed from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he is holed up for fear of being extradited to the US by British officials, Julian Assange mocked President Barack Obama for defending free speech in Muslim nations during his Tuesday address to the UN General Assembly as he underlined his own case of being targeted by US authorities for exercising his right of free speech.

Assange reportedly insisted that Obama has "done more to criminalize free speech than any other US president."

"It's time for President Obama to keep his word... and for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks," he said.

Assange described as 'audacious' the US government efforts "to take credit for the last two years of progress," given the history of US sponsorship of toppled Arab dictators.

Assange further emphasized, "It must have come as a surprise to the Egyptian teenagers who washed American teargas out of their eyes (during the revolution that toppled US-backed regime of Hosni Mubarak) to hear that the US supported change in the Middle East."

Citing Obama's rhetoric at his UN address glorifying the freedom of expression, Assange also pointed to the reported treatment of US soldier Bradley Manning in a US prison, where he was allegedly held in isolation, stripped and left unclothed for hours in his cell, as well as the harsh condemnation of Wikileaks by senior American officials.

The remarks came at a packed gathering of diplomats on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly and hosted by Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, who announced that he would meet with his British counterpart William Hague on Thursday to again demand a safe passage to Ecuador for Assange by the UK.

Patino also blamed British authorities for violating Assange’s rights, reiterating that he may have to remain in the embassy in London for up to ten years.

Assange sought refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London three months ago from extradition to Sweden and eventually to the US, where he has been harshly condemned by top officials for leaking classified American military and diplomatic documents that reveal targeting of Iraqi civilians by invading American troops as well as backing despotic rulers in the Middle East and elsewhere, among other things.

Meanwhile, the Sydney Morning Herald has reportedly published “declassified US air force counter-intelligence reports,” that refer to Assange and Wikileaks as "enemies of the United States," placing him and his website in a similar legal category as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. 

Julian Assange threatened legal action over WikiLeaks documentary

South by Southwest film festival was warned against showing the film, titled WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies

Guardian
Josh Halliday

Julian Assange threatened to sue the film festival South by Southwest
if it aired a documentary titled WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies.

Julian Assange threatened legal action against a film festival in an attempt to pressure them not to show a documentary on the history of WikiLeaks.

Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, threatened to sue the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival in the United States if they broadcast the documentary, WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, earlier this year.

The legal threats came to light after media regulator Ofcom rejected a detailed complaint from Assange about the programme on Monday.

Assange had complained that the programme, which first aired on More4 in the UK on 29 November 2011, was libellous, unfair and had invaded his privacy.

The Australian whistleblower, who is fighting extradition to Sweden where he faces sexual assault allegations, attempted to get the programme banned from public screenings in the US, sending a tersely-worded email, seen by the Guardian, headed "LETTER BEFORE ACTION" to festival organisers. Assange is understood to have sent a similar email to US cable news broadcaster CNBC.

In the email, which carried Assange's signature, he told a SXSW organiser: "Please also send me full details of SXSW's formal complaints procedure. This latter request is made without prejudice to any subsequent legal action I may take against SXSW for the screening of this libellous programme."

He claimed in the email that Oxford Film & Television, the independent British production firm behind the programme, was "under investigation by the UK statutory regulator Ofcom for multiple breaches of the Broadcasting Code".

Ofcom had undertaken an investigation into whether Assange's complaints about the programme were justified and ruled on Monday they were not.

SXSW aired the feature film version of the programme as planned on 9 March and CNBC showed a shortened version of the documentary in the US on 1 March.

Patrick Forbes, the head of documentaries at Oxford Film & Television, welcomed the Ofcom ruling and praised SXSW and CNBC for not caving in to legal pressure from Assange.

Forbes said the threat of a lawsuit meant his company had to pay for costly legal insurance, and that Assange's threats may have hampered the programme's chances of attracting a US cinema deal.

"Julian Assange attacked this film and accused us of being unfair to him. I am delighted that Ofcom has rejected his detailed complaints about our methods and entirely vindicated the programme and its making," Forbes told the Guardian.

"The film provides the definitive account of a turning point in history. As is the way with such moments, passions run high. But we have striven to make it as a accurate and fair a film to everyone involved as is possible. And I am very glad that Ofcom has recognised that."

Assange responded to the Ofcom ruling in a lengthy statement on the WikiLeaks website late on Monday. He said the ruling "glosses over many substantive points of fact" and accused the programme-makers of a producing a "biased and one-sided smear documentary".

A spokesman for Assange declined to comment further. WikiLeaks had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Assange is currently taking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden. His most recent public appearance, on the balcony of the embassy in Knightsbridge, included a lengthy attack on critics of WikiLeaks, whom he described as a threat to freedom of expression.

He wrote to the Leveson inquiry into press standards in April, claiming he had "suffered extensive libels" comparable to Gerry and Kate McCann, who received significant damages from a number of national newspapers over coverage of the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.

He had previously had a complaint not upheld by the Press Complaints Commission about 45 articles, in publications including the Guardian and the Independent, which he claimed were inaccurate and unfair.

Indefinite Detention Ban Stayed By Appeals Judge In NDAA Case

Huffington Post
Michael McAuliff

A federal appeals judge gave the Obama administration the OK to keep enforcing its indefinite detention policy Tuesday, issuing a temporary stay of a ruling that had found the practice unconstitutional.

The stay, issued by Judge Raymond Lohier of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, lasts until Sept. 28, when a three-judge appellate panel will hear the case.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who sits in the Southern District of New York, had ruled against the administration last week, issuing a permanent injunction against section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 on the grounds that it violates the First and Fifth Amendments.

Forrest also denied a stay request, rebuffing the argument of federal lawyers that stopping enforcement of the law does "irreparable harm" to the government.

The law allows the executive branch to hold without trial any person, including Americans, "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces."

President Barack Obama issued a statement when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act saying he would not hold people without trial and later issued regulations that bar the practice. Yet his Justice Department has vigorously defended the law, filing immediate appeals after each loss in Forrest's court.

Obama and the federal government were sued by a group of activists and journalists, including former New York Times writer Chris Hedges, academic Noam Chomsky and activist reporter Tangerine Bolen.

Forrest ruled that the law is so vague that simply by doing their usual work, the plaintiffs could conceivably be deemed to "substantially support" an "associated force" of the Taliban or al Qaeda, and thereby fall under the law's sway.

Occupy not safe from FBI surveillance

One of the main issues many Occupy Wall Street protesters spoke of during the last year was their concern that they were being watched by the police. The American Civil Liberties Union has obtained documents they had to file a lawsuit to get their hands on, and in these paper they've found proof that federal surveillance targeted protesters at Occupy encampments. J D Tuccille, managing director for Reason 24-7 News, joins RT's Kristine Frazao to discuss the matter.

U.S. Department of State has an "Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism"

American Goy

No kidding.

Wikipedia on the subject.

The Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Affairs (DRL) at the United States Department of State. It is headed by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS). The office "advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the United States and internationally, develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism."

The Office was created by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. Gregg Rickman was sworn the first SEAS on May 22, 2006. The office has remained opened since the beginning of the Obama administration. On November 23, 2009 a new special envoy, Hannah Rosenthal was sworn into office by Obama administration. Rosenthal is former head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and former executive director of the Chicago Foundation for Women.

There is no department to protect American interests and American citizens, however.

Not needed.

Interestingly, there is no department to protect african, European, moslem or any other ethnic or religious group.

Lets delve in, shall we?

Law web page at Cornell University, fragments (you are encouraged to read the whole short page at Cornell):

22 USC § 2731 - Monitoring and combating anti-Semitism

(a) Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism

(1) Establishment of Office

The Secretary shall establish within the Department of State an Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism (in this section referred to as the “Office”).

(b) Purpose of Office

Upon establishment, the Office shall assume the primary responsibility for—

(1) monitoring and combating acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement that occur in foreign countries;

(c) Consultations

The Special Envoy shall consult with domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and multilateral organizations and institutions, as the Special Envoy considers appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this section.

What we have here is an office of State Department whose function is to support Jews worldwide. In pursuit of this function, its officials can meet and work with officials from other countries, independently from other State Department organizations.

State Department Official Page:

Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism

The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism advances U.S. Foreign Policy on anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. The Special Envoy develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department's annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and the Special Envoy provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

So what have they been up to?
Travel to Hungary

July 19-22: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal was in Hungary met with Hungarian Government officials, Parliamentarians and representatives from the Jewish and Roma communities

Yes, the poor gypsies, hated by all Europeans, for absolutely no reason at all other than bigotry and the general evilness of White people.

Travel to Germany

July 9-12; 15-19: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal visited Germany, where her father was honored by the City of Mannheim, she participated in the Centropa Teachers Academy, and met with German government officials, non-governmental organizations, and youth in Berlin.


Meeting the anti-fa and other assorted PC fascists in Germany and giving encouragement to youth organizations.

Splendid.

The previous head honcho was one Gregg Rickman (a non Jewish last name if I ever saw one, n'est ce pas?).

Here is his biography:

Gregg Rickman was sworn in as the Secretary of State’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism on May 22, 2006. In this position, he is responsible for the global monitoring of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement and the creation of policies to combat such acts.

From 1995-1998, he directed the three-year United States Senate Banking Committee investigation,

And what a good job he and his ilk have done investigating our (well, calling banksters "our people" is STRETCHING the truth a bit, as they themselves consider themselves NOT of our people and are a separate racial/religious cult) own beloved banksters!

including five Congressional hearings, into the disposition of assets of Holocaust victims held by Swiss banks since World War II, ending with a $1.25 billion settlement on behalf of the survivors.

Ah, the crux of the matter!

As to whether ANY Holocaust survivors have gotten any of these monies, please peruse my previous research, The Holocaust Industry.

He has served as the Director of Congressional Affairs at the Republican Jewish Coalition, where he worked on legislative issues of concern to the Jewish community including anti-Semitism, counter-terrorism, and immigration.

Got it!?

Got it!?

The issue that are the most important to elite Jews are anti-semitism, counter-terrorism AND IMMIGRATION.

How much clearer does it need to be spelled out?

Most recently, he served on the staff of the House International Relations Committee where he served first on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia and handled numerous issues including anti-Semitism and Holocaust restitution


Shakedowns.

Money.

Again.

Am shocked.

Please give me any other ethnic and/or religious group which has its own department concerned with its welfare at our(?) American (???) State Department.

Guidance on First Amendment Rights of Occupy Wall Street Participants From Rutgers–Newark Law School Clinic

Rutgers

NEWARK, NJ – A legal memorandum prepared by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law–Newark to help Occupy Wall Street (OWS) leaders and participants understand their constitutional rights to assembly and expression concludes that much of the OWS conduct falls within the protections of the First Amendment. “More problematic,” the memo concludes, “is establishing that First Amendment protection extends to sleeping and camping activities.” Click here to read the memo.

Written by Professor Frank Askin, Director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic, and three of his students, the memo identifies several U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the rights of free speech and assembly in parks and other public arenas. States the memo: “The movement’s efforts involving rallies, marches, distribution of literature, displaying signs and posters and engaging in conversations regarding the movement’s platform are well within the protection of the First Amendment.”

As for sleeping and camping, the memo notes: “Recently, courts have assumed that sleeping and camping are symbolic expressions protected by the First Amendment, but reasonable, time, place and manner restrictions have, generally, precluded the protestors from actually sleeping and camping in public fora.” The memo describes the court rulings in two cases involving demonstrators seeking to maintain a 24-hour presence in a public space.

A significant section of the memo is devoted to the various factors that courts may consider when deciding whether to uphold free speech restrictions of privately-owned public spaces (POPS), such as Zuccotti Park in New York City, site of the first OWS activities. The memo advises: “Individuals contemplating the exercise of their right to protest within a privately-owned public space should keep in mind the following: (1) find out the regulations that are applicable to a particular POPS and check to make sure they have been legally authorized; (2) research the relevant legal opinions in the jurisdiction; and (3) investigate whether there are favorable arguments that can be raised in jurisdictions where there are no applicable precedents regarding POPS.”

The memo, titled “The Right to Peaceably Assemble: U.S. Constitutional Law and Occupy Wall Street,” was prepared by the clinic as part of the Protest and Assembly Rights Project, a national consortium of law school clinics formed to address the U.S. response to Occupy Wall Street.

Media Contact: Janet Donohue
973-353-5553
E-mail: jdonohue@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Photos of dead police officer posted outside Tennessee farm

Yahoo News
Eric Pfieffer

Two brothers who shot and killed a sheriff's deputy have placed photos of the slain lawman outside the entrance of their farm, calling it a "warning" to other law enforcement officials.

The Associated Press reports that the photos show the "bullet-riddled bodies" of Roane County Deputy Bill Jones and ride-along Mike Brown, who were shot and killed on May 11, 2006, after arriving at the home of Rocky Houston to deliver an arrest warrant.

"It goes without saying that any public display on their own property of these photos in whatever manner by the Houstons is despicable and certainly runs counter to the Houstons' claims of innocence," District Attorney General Russell Johnson said in a news release.

However, it also appears that the sign is perfectly within the Houstons' First Amendment rights.

"We are trying to report federal crimes, and we feel like our plea has fallen on deaf ears," Rocky Houston told AP.

Rocky and Leon Houston were acquitted of murder charges when prosecutors were unable to prove that they fired first after Jones and Brown entered their property. The Houston brothers insist that the two men showed up to kill them and opened fire without warning.

Both brothers were acquitted in separate trials in 2009 and 2010. However, Brown's family was awarded $5 million in damages in a wrongful death suit against the Houstons, which was settled in April 2012.

Chief Deputy Tim Phillips, who was friends with Jones, says the posted images are painful to view. "To see anybody, let alone someone that you knew, someone who wears the same uniform and does the same job as you, it's really disturbing to see that whether it's on a billboard or whether it's on the Internet. It's awful," Phillips told local TV outlet WATE.

The Houston brothers obtained copies of the crime scene photos during their trial and have posted them, along with various legal documents, on at least six different locations on their property.

A local resident briefly posted the photos to Facebook, but they were removed after a request from Johnson.

Members of Congress Demand Answers for Homeland Security’s Unjust Domain Name Seizures

Electronic Frontier Foundation
Trevor Timm

This morning, a bipartisan group of Representatives, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), sent a pointed letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano protesting the recent spat of domain name seizures—executed on dubious copyright grounds—that have been censoring websites with no due process.

“Our concern centers on your Department’s methods, and the process given, when seizing the domain names of websites whose actions and content are presumed to be lawful, protected speech,” the letter said, which was also signed by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Ut.).

The Representatives’ letter focused on the case of former hip hop website Dajaz1. Dajaz1’s domain name had been seized for over a year, despite evidence that the website had lawful material, and that “many of the allegedly infringing links to copyrighted songs, and specifically the links that were the basis of the seizure order, were given to the site’s owner by artists and labels themselves” including Kanye West, Diddy, and a vice president of a major record label.

Adding to the injustice, the government refused to cooperate with Dajaz1’s attorneys for months, and sought numerous extensions of the seizure authority in secret. When the court records were finally released, it showed that the government was waiting on the RIAA to evaluate a "sampling of allegedly infringing content" and respond to other “outstanding questions.”  While the RIAA fiddled, Dajaz1 lost the right to speak and the public lost its right to read what was published there.

Finally, after a year, control over dajaz1.com was handed back to the owners with no apology, and no explanation.  It is disturbing enough that DHS has been effectively acting as the tax-funded hired gun of the content industry, but, even more horrifying, it censored the wrong targets, for no good reason, for a year.

Dajaz1’s case is far from unique, as we found out earlier this week when a similar situation happened to Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org, the popular sports streaming sites that were seized—again with no due process—back in February 2011. The sites, which have been in the midst of a court fight to return its domains, had been arguing that linking was not infringing, noting that a Spanish court had already found the sites legal. Yet the government still held onto their domain for 18 months.  On Wednesday, they again handed back their domains with no explanation. 

As we explained:

Dropping the case was, of course, the right move. The government's copyright arguments were incredibly weak (it’s pretty well-settled that linking is not infringement). Even more troubling, the seizures also captured plenty of legal and protected speech. Indeed, many (including EFF) have been making these arguments for well over a year. The real question is why it took so long. 

We also demanded the government should explain why it reversed its position, and provide a clear policy rationale so websites around the world could assess their risk for unexplained and unjustified seizures.

The Representatives want answers to the same questions. At the end of their letter, they ask seven specific questions about DHS’ policy, their rationale, and what procedures they plan on implementing so websites’ rights aren’t trampled on again. You can read the full letter here.

EFF is encouraged that Congress is taking an increased interest in making sure First Amendment protected speech is not censored on the Internet due to draconian copyright policy, and we look forward to the Justice Deparment and Homeland Security’s official response.  

'Reps, Dems do not want people’s voice be heard'

PressTV

Republicans and Democrats are not interested in having the voice of American people be heard as they discuss “the most minor differences between the two parties,” says American journalist Don DeBar.

In a phone interview with the U.S. Desk on Thursday, DeBar said Republicans and Democrats are not “having an actual debate” at their national conventions.

“There is no desire in having the people’s voice be heard because they’re suppressing that in the street with tear gas and batons once it reaches a certain level”, said DeBar.

Stressing that the two parties’ conventions in Tampa and Charlotte have created many problems for poor people, DeBar said: “they don’t really care whatsoever for the impacts that their convention has on the actual people that live in either of those two cities”.

Furthermore, the journalist said the Republicans were practicing public-private partnership in Tampa as they take the money required for their expenses out of the public’s pocket while placing the benefits in the hands of the wealthy.

“The very site of the Republican National Convention, in fact, is one of the so-called public-private partnerships where the expenses are all public and the benefits are all private”, he said.

Anarchists and lawbreakers: Media ramps up propaganda prior to RNC

PressTV

Jacob Crawford has produced a video for Indybay.org documenting the brazen scare tactics and fear-mongering used by the establishment media in the days and weeks before the RNC show now underway in Tampa, Florida.

The video reveals just how politically naive and one-dimensional the corporate media is - for instance, describing the hacker group Anonymous as anarchists (see Biella Coleman‘s disputation of this). It reveals the establishment’s overall agenda to discredit and delegitimatize all the RNC protesters and conflate them with violent anarchists (who have been repeatedly exposed as agents provocateurs). Anarchists are now portrayed as a domestic terror threat by the government and the corporate media.

The simple and mythical nature of the propaganda is designed to play on the emotions of the politically uninitiated and produce a knee-jerk reaction against street demonstrations previously protected by the First Amendment.

Earlier this month, prisonplanet.com reported on a bulletin released by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warning that “anarchist extremists” may use IEDs, or Improvised Explosive Devices, during both conventions.

Left unmentioned is the fact downtown Tampa is now a virtual police state and this is a now feature of all “official” events, from globalist confabs to political conventions. Speaking engagements by establishment political candidates have provided the TSA with an excuse to rifle through bags and conduct impromptu searches.

Tampa cops have used control freak rules dictating what citizens can carry in public during the convention to circumvent the protests of puppeteer activists.

“One deputy told a group of protestors carrying an oversized puppet of Mitt Romney the sticks they were using to hold up the puppet’s arms were against the rules,” Bay News 9 reported today.

The “code” imposed on the residents of Tampa, Florida, is another example of the state acclimating the public to the incremental imposition of a police state under the guise of national security and supposedly protecting us from phantom terrorists.

Muslim Missouri Democratic Party caucus chairman launches 9-11 Truth PAC

Editor's Note: Alam is obviously mistaken when he claimed that "no jews died on 9/11".   That said, it's good to find you who benefited from 9/11.

Flashback: The Homeland Security Program Made for Jewish Non-Profits

While nothing in its policy guidelines say it’s supposed to be this way, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has distributed the vast majority of its nonprofit security grants to Jewish organizations.

During one three-year period (2007-2010), Jewish groups received 73% of DHS’ Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) awards. This share grew larger in 2011 (80%) and still larger in 2012 (97%).

In total dollars, Jewish institutions will take in $9.7 million in NSGP grants this year out of $10 million available.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explained the results of the program’s grant awards this way: “Unfortunately there are risks attendant on the Jewish community that are not attendant on all other communities.”

FreeBeacon
Adam Kredo

A Democratic Party caucus chairman who has speculated about Jewish involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks has launched a new political action committee dedicated to supporting “anti-Zionist” Muslim candidates who believe “the ‘war on terror’ is a hoax and that the official story of 9/11 is not true,” according to the group’s website.

MD Rabbi Alam is an Obama campaign ally and Missouri-based Democratic activist who came under fire in July after he told the Free Beacon that “not a single Jew” was killed during the 9/11 attacks. (Alam is not a rabbi.)

A veteran Democrat, Alam lost a bid last week to become his party’s nominee for Missouri’s next secretary of state. However, his conspiratorial views about 9/11 and the Jewish people continue to garner the most attention.

Though Alam apologized for his provocative comments, the mission statement of his newly created political action committee suggests the Democratic candidate has not fully renounced his most inflammatory opinions—even as Alam argues that he has done so.

Called the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC), the group aims to get “Muslims elected to office” and become more active in the American political system. Alam is listed at the website’s owner.

The ideal AMPAC candidate would be “pro-peace, anti-Zionist, and opposed to usury,” the website explains in a question-and-answer section that Alam also blasted to his supporters via email.

An FAQ posted on the organization’s website asserts AMPAC will champion “the views and values of Muslims.”

These values include: The “widespread agreement in the community … that the ‘war on terror’ is a hoax and that the official story of 9/11 is not true.”

American Muslims, the mission statement maintains, “have suffered extreme discrimination due to the phony ‘war on terror,’” which is why “this issue deserves to be at the top of Muslims’ list of political priorities.”

Are such views too “radical” for the public discourse, the FAQ wonders?

The answer is no: “The history of the Jewish-Zionist lobby AIPAC [the nonpartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee] shows that it is more effective to be ‘radical’ and express one’s views strongly and honestly, than to be fearful and timid.”

AMPAC will be bipartisan, the website states, despite the fact that “Alam is a well-known Democrat.”

“In the Republican Party, Mitt Romney is a strong supporter of Zionism and the ‘war on terror’ while [Texas Republican] Ron Paul is not, so we would be inclined to support Paul over Romney,” the site explains. “We believe Muslims should support Ron Paul and other like-minded Republicans.”

Asked about AMPAC’s controversial standpoints, Alam told the Free Beacon that he does not support any of the opinions described above.

“I don’t even know what you’re talking about,” Alam stated when a reporter repeated his organization’s more polemical talking points.

“I was given those things in an email and copy and pasted it in an email and sent it out,” Alam maintained, describing the email that bears his name. “I did not even read it.”

“It there’s a question, we’ll clean it up,” he added, calling the FAQ “miswritten or a misunderstanding.”

Asked if he considers himself “anti-Zionist,” Alam responded, “No, I do not.”

However, he could not fully explain why AMPAC would support candidates who explicitly hold such views.

Alam went on to cite a recent essay he penned on minority relations as proof of his open-minded politics.

To help spread AMPAC’s message, Alam will host a weekly conference call for the next 60 months with Kevin Barrett, a Bay Area talk show host at conspiracy-minded No Lies Radio, which subscribes to Alam’s beliefs that 9/11 may have been an inside job.

The Anti-Defamation League has designated Barrett one of the most prominent promoters of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories relating to 9/11.

Among other topics, Barrett has investigated whether “US government big lies [reached] a critical mass in the 1960s with JFK, RFK, MLK, and a fake moon landing? Is the New World Order getting ready to kill us off?”

During their Friday conference calls—which began August 10—Barrett and Alam examine ways to increase Muslim political engagement, according to an email sent by Alam to his supporters and posted on the website of “Muslims for 9/11 Truth.”

Alam has long liaised with Democratic Party and President Obama, and has vowed to run as a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2016.

He served as chairman of the National Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (NDPAAC)—a Democratic National Committee-sponsored organization that liaises with Asian minorities. He also worked as a “satellite campaign manager” in 2008 for then-candidate Barack Obama. Alam has since been invited to the White House.

Alam was “soundly” defeated last week in his bid to become Missouri’s secretary of state, according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

The failed politician’s efforts to reveal the “truth” about 9/11 are well documented.

He has speculated about Jewish involvement in the September 11th terrorist attacks, and on one Internet posting wondered why “9/11 was a official holidy [sic] for all jewish [sic] people [who] worked in the” World Trade Center.

“I have 100 percent doubts. It doesn’t add up,” Alam told the Free Beacon in July. “My bottom line is the plane is not solely responsible for destroying the whole building.”

Democrats in D.C. have denounced Alam’s views and his association with the DNC.

“That the DNC would in any way affiliate itself with a 9/11 Truther who spews such anti-Semitic lunacy, and defends and repeats such bile when confronted, is beyond deeply troubling, it’s simply wrong,” Josh Block, a Democratic strategist and former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said in July.

For his part, Alam says that he just wants to educate the Muslim community.

What makes our NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution

The Guardian
Tangerine Bolen

Time after time, Obama's lawyers defending the NDAA's section 1021 affirm our worst fears about its threat to our liberty

I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week's hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction. In other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.

To this, Judge Forrest responded that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.

I have mixed feelings about suing my government, and in particular, my president, over the National Defense Authorization Act. I voted for Obama.

But the US public often ignores how, when it comes to the "war on terror", the US government as a whole has been deceitful, reckless, even murderous. We lost nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. Then we allowed the Bush administration to lie and force us into war with a country that had nothing to do with that terrible day. Presidents Bush and Obama, and the US Congress, appear more interested in enacting misguided "war on terror" policies that distract citizens from investigating the truth about what we've done, and what we've become, since 9/11.

POLICE STATE USA: The Paranoid Style of American Governance

Global Research
Prof. James F. Tracy

In 1964 Harper's magazine published the now famous essay, "The Paranoid Style of American Politics," by historian and public intellectual Richard Hofstadter. Appearing in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater's Republican presidential nomination, the tract remains emblematic of liberal anxiety toward serious and in many cases unresolved questions regarding the forces behind American governance. "The Paranoid Style" overall helped establish the term "conspiracy theory" as perhaps the most powerful epithet in the American political lexicon.  "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds," Hofstadter wrote.

"In recent years, we have seen angry minds at work, mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated, in the Goldwater movement, how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But, behind this, I believe, there is a style of mind that is far from new, and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style, simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind." (emphasis added)

Americans typically comfort themselves in the notion that they live in a democracy, with a government that is rational, responsible, and accommodative of their needs. Yet what if the government Americans look to for protection of personal property, the creation and enforcement of fair and just laws, and defense of the nation's borders and interests abroad exhibits the paranoia Hofstadter attributed to John Birchers and Goldwater supporters, complete with deep suspicions and conspiratorial fantasies toward those it is supposed to serve and protect?

The New York Times Health Guide explains a prevailing symptom of Paranoid Personality Disorder as being "highly suspicious of other people." Those afflicted "often feel that they are in danger, and look for evidence to support their suspicions. People with this disorder have trouble seeing that their distrustfulness is out of proportion to their environment." Other symptoms include "concern that other people have hidden motives, expectation that they will be exploited by others, inability to work together with others," "detachment"  and "hostility."

US legislation exhibiting undue suspiciousness toward allegedly strange "others" suggests how the paranoid style has thoroughly imbued American governance, particularly over the past 10 years. An especially strong onset of symptoms is evidenced in the blizzard of new laws, programs, and executive orders dating from September 11, 2001.

Indeed, the US government's dramatic increase in suspicion and contempt toward others over the last decade, combined with its accelerated violent and criminal aggression toward innocents at home and abroad, indicates a potential onset of what might even be deemed paranoid schizophrenia. With the development of such a condition the subject as a whole suffers from acute delusions of persecution and is tormented by illusory forces that it perceives as seeking to inflict harm on it.