New Law To Make It Illegal To Report NSA Action In The News

[Makkonnen]

March Sunday 12th 2006 (17h23) :
New crime to report Bush violating FISA
1 comment(s).
While a draft of the GOP proposed legislation sponsored by DeWine, Snowe, Graham and Hagel is not yet publicly available, some reporters have written about the substantive provisions after receiving a copy of the draft legislation. Not only does this legislation codify the existing illegal NSA program, but it creates new crimes to prevent the press from reporting on any FISA surveillance programs and Bush is the person who writes a list of the terrorists to be subjected to surveillance.
Some of the provisions of this new legislation include:

(1) The law will make it a crime for reporters and newspapers to publish stories that Bush violated the law or to simply report on the existence of the various FISA surveillance programs to the public. This handy provision protects Bush from any future leaks that he is violating the law governing surveillance of Americans. Criminal penalties would be applied to anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" Bush’s NSA program or any other surveillance of Americans under FISA. In addition, the scope of activities covered by criminal penalties is expanded by not including a requirement that the "information has to be harmful to national security or classified." Increased penalties of $1 million fines and/or 15 years in jail should be plenty deterrence for the media to not report on such surveillance in the future.

(2) The legislation codifies the primary components of Bush’s existing illegal NSA surveillance of Americans. In other words, Bush may continue the surveillance program which violated American’s rights, but now he may continue with the cover that Congress is making the program legal. The problem with Bush’s NSA program was not just that it was illegal because it violated wiretapping laws and Congressional oversight laws, but also because it violated and lowered American civil right standards by permitting political appointees to make decisions that our system has wisely reserved to judges. These problems remain:

— Under the Bush NSA plan, the White House briefed 8 lawmakers; under the proposed legislation, Bush will brief 7 lawmakers.
— Under both the Bush NSA plan and the proposed legislation, Bush does not need to obtain a warrant unless he feels like it.
— Under both the Bush NSA plan and the proposed legislation, the Attorney General is required to certify the surveillance in 45 days.
— Under the Bush NSA plan, warrant requirements are supervised by NSA agents and shift supervisors and the proposed legislation provides that oversight to lawmakers, or at least to 4 GOP Senators who conclude continued surveillance is warranted.

In addition, the current 72-hour grace period during which the government may wiretap before obtaining a FISA warrant would be expanded to 45 days. "After 45 days, the law would require the Attorney General to take one of three steps: end the wiretap, get a warrant from the secret FISA court, or inform the new oversight panels about the wiretap."

And, the White House will brief the 7-member panel but members are prohibited from disclosing information.

Curious that the White House commenced immediately the provision to brief the 7-member panel even before this legislation is passed. Given that this bill was "negotiated" or should we say drafted by the White House, commencing implementation of the bill before it is a law may be the White House way to assure that it is passed.

(3) The Congressional plan expands the scope of people subject to surveillance to include Americans who are "working in support of a terrorist group or organization." "Given Bush’s record of stretching words to his advantage - and his claim that anyone who isn’t `with us’ is with the terrorists - the vague concept of `working in support’ could open almost any political critic of the Bush administration to surveillance."

This clause is particularly troublesome given that political, civil rights, environmental and other advocacy groups were deemed domestic terrorists sufficient for the Pentagon, National Guard and Army, police and FBI/Homeland Security to conduct surveillance. And, even bloggers have been painted with the potential terrorist label in US war games.

A rather curious provision in the legislation "allows the surveillance of terrorist groups on a list written by the president." Why is Bush determining who is a terrorist? And, if this law is supposed to keep Americans safe in this "war on terror," what about the "lone wolf" planning an attack that is not associated with a known terror group?

(4) No effective judicial review if American wrongly swept up into Bush’s surveillance programs. Court can not protect civil and constitutional rights. In a case challenging Bush`s illegal NSA spying, the judge issued a secret ruling that even barred defense counsel, who has a federal security clearance, from reading the substance of the ruling.

(5) This new law will retroactively validate Bush’s illegal NSA spying from 2002 until now, thereby precluding impeaching Bush for violating the law. Congressional ratification, which may occur expressly or by enacting a law that has the effect of approving previously unauthorized acts by Bush, such as this NSA law, has the legal effect of retroactively giving the "force of law to official action unauthorized when taken." In other words, Bush’s warrantless spying on Americans is now deemed under the law as illegal acts, but after this new legislation is enacted, those same illegal acts will now be authorized.

As former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor said "it takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/11/162835/832



By : Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse
March Sunday 12th 2006

 

[Winchesta Heat]

Wtf??

 

[GET YOU HOT]

THEN, IT'S UP TO US, RIGHT?....

"The law does not allow me to testify on any aspect of the
National Security Agency, even to the Senate Intelligence
Committee" ---General Allen, Director of the NSA, 1975


Part 1: Massive Domestic Spying via NSA AKA.. ECHELON

This is highly detailed documentation of NSA spying.
This spying is illegal, massive, and domestic.
The documentation is comprehensive, especially since
it is now brought together in this one section.

o Part 2: On Monitoring and Being Monitored

In this section, I describe the capabilities of ECHELON
keyword monitoring. A detailed example --- how to use
keywords to pick out conversations of interest --- is given.
I also put forth a case of what it means to be monitored
heavily by the government.

o Part 3: 1984 Means a Constant State of War

The politics of war, and the Orwellian tactics employed by
by the U.S. Government to control its citizens.

o Part 4: Why unlimited cryptography must be legislated NOW

In additional to the reasons given in the previous sections,
the 'debate' reasons constantly given by the government
are reviewed and debunked. And our nation's experts say it
will hurt security. The GAO says the same thing.

o Part 5: There is no part five.

o Part 6: Louis Freeh & The Creeping Police State Basically, Louis Freeh is the anti-Christ leading us to Hell.
National ID cards are effectively being implemented without
needing to issue cards. The U.S. Government is trying to
monitor all phone calls and banking transactions, and have
all equipment worldwide designed for their monitoring. They
are bent on controlling the world to the point of there being
no crime left on the planet. Of course, democracy destroyed
is the direct result.


This publication advocates THESE major items:

o Passage of ProCode/SAFE legislation, allowing U.S. companies to
export unlimited strength cryptography, free from "Key Recovery".
Key Recovery means messages are no longer a secret, because the
Government has screwed around with it.

o Killing the CALEA legislation, which orders all communications
equipment be DESIGNED so the Government can spy on it.

o Dismantling domestic ECHELON, the Government listening in on our
domestic phone calls.

o A Cabinet-level U.S. Privacy Commission, with teeth.


The "average" American has no idea why cryptography is important to them.

It is the only way to begin preventing massive illegal domestic spying.

Currently, there are no restrictions on domestic use of unlimited strength
cryptography. That is not because the Government hasn't complained about
child pornographers or terrorists or other criminals who might use it.

No, that's the reason they are giving for why U.S. companies can't EXPORT
products, such as web browsers, outside U.S. territory, without compromising
it with Government "Key Recovery"; i.e. made stupider and breakable.

Why such an indirect control on what they claim is a domestic problem?

Because that is how 'The Creeping Police State' works.

Slowly, bit-by-bit.

Slowly, State-by-State everyone in the U.S. is being fingerprinted.

The FBI is now advocating biometric capture of all newborns too.

This is an interesting manifesto, please take the time to read it.

Cryptography can be used to keep private: Internet traffic, such as email,
and telephone conversations (PGP phone). A version of PGP phone that looks
and works like a normal telephone --- but can't be spied upon --- would
eventually become wide-spread.

It begins to change the mind-set that the Police State is inevitable.
Major references...

In the last several years intelligence operatives, specifically including
SIGINT (signal intelligence) people, have started telling the story about
the massive domestic use of computer monitoring software in the U.S.

Including our domestic phone calls, Internet, fax, everything.

I'm going to quote a number of articles and books; they involved talking
to over 100 of these intelligence operatives.


Buy this book: "Secret Power" by Nicky Hager, ISBN 0-908802-35-8.
It describes in detail the ECHELON platform. It's one of the most important.
New Zealand people are quite unhappy at their place within ECHELON.


Buy this book: "Spyworld: Inside the Canadian and American Intelligence
Establishments" By Mike Frost [NSA trained sigint person] and Michel
Gratton, Toronto Doubleday 1994.

Mr. Frost describes missions in the U.S. where he was trained by the NSA
to handle domestic jobs that would be illegal for the NSA.

These books are quite damning, in a heavily documented way.


This is an AMAZINGLY COMPREHENSIVE BOOK:

"Above the Law", by David Burnham, ISBN 0-684-80699-1, 1996

Buy this book: "The Secret War Against the Jews", Authors: John Loftus and
Mark Aarons, ISBN 0-312-11057-X, 1994. Don't let the title throw you: the
authors spoke with a great many intelligence people, and cleverly probed
NSA/CIA/FBI by submitting items for publication approval, and when they
censored something... Bingo.

Because of the Catch-22 situation, the NSA gave up trying to censor many
books, since it can be used to confirm questions they would otherwise have
refused to answer.

This is a U.S.-centric message, but keep reading even if you are not in the
U.S.; British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand citizens are also directly
affected.

This message is about ECHELON, which is an unbelievably huge world-wide
spying apparatus, including the domestic phone calls of many countries.

United States citizens' phone calls are being monitored in a dragnet
fashion not even George Orwell http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/could have imagined.

This was all paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Built in secret. Not debated.

The CALEA legislation is a shameful takes-us-into-the-abyss domestic spy bill.
It is for the FBI to simultaneously monitor HUGE amounts of our phone calls.

And when the judiciary found out about NSA monitoring U.S. citizens'
overseas telephone calls without a warrant: they approved the loss
of our Fourth Amendment rights.

Giving Presidential Directives the same force of law as the Constitution.

Congress has lost it too.

* The New York Times, undated
*
* The House is not expected to vote on the search-and-seizure bill until
* at least Wednesday. But tonight the Republicans defeated a Democratic
* amendment that SIMPLY REITERATED THE WORDS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF
* THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
*
* The vote was 303 to 121.
*
* The Democrats were trying to portray the Republicans as wanting to
* eliminate the constitutional protection against unlawful searches.
*
* Indeed, they cornered the Republicans into saying that the measure
* containing the Fourth Amendment would gut the seizure bill.

Just what is it going to take to restore the U.S. Constitution?

Unlimited unregulated cryptography legislation is a beginning baby-step.

Otherwise it might take another civil war. The NSA will not let go quietly.

Sound over-the-top? Wait until you understand the massive surveillance system
that our government has put in place, just how powerful it is, and how they've
used it repeatedly to control lawful peaceful political protest.

WRITTEN BY GUY...
"You bastards!" ---guy

 

[Mo Pizorn]

The only time people try to pass laws like this is when they are planning to do or cover up something illegal.

 

[Greed]

US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales
1 hour, 54 minutes ago

The federal government appears to have the authority to prosecute journalists or newspapers for publishing classified information, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Sunday.

The Justice Department is investigating who disclosed the government's secret domestic surveillance program to The New York Times, which broke the story in December.

"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said told ABC's "This Week," when asked if the government could prosecute journalists for publishing classified information.

The domestic spying program allows the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, while pursuing al Qaeda suspects.

Critics say the program raises constitutional concerns and violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law requiring court warrants for all intelligence-related eavesdropping inside the United States.

Gonzales did not rule out prosecuting the Times or its reporters for publishing the leak.

"We are engaged now in an investigation about what would be the appropriate course of action in that particular case, so I'm not going to talk about it specifically," Gonzales said.

"But as we do in every case, it's a case-by-case evaluation about what the evidence shows us, our interpretation of the law. We have an obligation to enforce the law and to prosecute those who engage in criminal activity," he said.

Gonzales also was asked about a report last week that the government was reviewing the phone records of U.S. journalists without their knowledge.

Two ABC News reporters said on a network Web site that a top federal law enforcement official told ABC the government was tracking phone numbers that the journalists were dialing in a bid to identify confidential sources.

"I think there's misunderstanding about these activities. ... We don't engage in domestic-to-domestic surveillance without a court order," Gonzales said.

"I will say that I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect, the right of the press. But it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060521...p9Z.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

 

[QueEx]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

<font size="5"><center>Appeals Court Backs Bush on Wiretaps</font size></center>

Jun 10, 2:01 AM (ET)
Associated Press
By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court sided with the Bush administration Friday on an electronic surveillance issue, making it easier to tap into Internet phone calls and broadband transmissions.

The court ruled 2-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission, which says equipment using the new technologies must be able to accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.

Judge David Sentelle called the agency's reading of the law a reasonable interpretation. In dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said the FCC gutted an exemption for information services that he said covered the Internet and broadband.

The FCC "apparently forgot to read the words of the statute," Edwards wrote.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said the decision ensures that law enforcement's ability to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance will keep pace with new technology.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, primary sponsor of CALEA, called the court's decision contrary to congressional intent, saying it stretches a law written for "the telephone system of 1994 to cover the Internet of 2006."

Education groups challenged the FCC rule because they said the requirements would impose burdensome new costs on private university networks. They argued that broadband Internet access is an information service beyond the reach of CALEA.

The American Council on Education said it was encouraged by part of the court's ruling that the law does not apply to private networks, which include many research institutions and corporations.

But more broadly, "we believe we had established a strong legal case that CALEA did not apply to providers of facilities-based Internet access or voice-over-IP," the education council said.

Challengers to the FCC rule focused on a Supreme Court case upholding the FCC's classification of broadband as an integrated information service under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Therefore, the education groups said, broadband providers must fall within the exemption for information services in CALEA.

But the appeals court said CALEA and the Telecom act are different laws and that the Supreme Court did not find that broadband Internet access was exclusively an information service.

The two laws reflect different objectives and the commission made a reasonable policy choice, wrote Sentelle, an appointee of President Reagan.

Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a private group, said the decision "threatens the privacy rights of innocent Americans as well as the ability of technology companies to innovate freely."

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who sided with Sentelle, is an appointee of President George W. Bush. Edwards was appointed by President Carter.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20060610/D8I560L80.html

 

[QueEx]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

<font size="4">You May Remember Janice Rogers Brown</font size>

Judging Janice Rogers Brown

By Harold Johnson and Timothy Sandefur
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 5, 2003

California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, President Bush's nominee to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is the target of some of the most inflammatory opposition since Clarence Thomas took his seat before the Senate Judiciary Committee more than a decade ago. Don't expect this strafing to end with the committee's vote on Brown (along party lines, most likely), which might happen this week. As things stand now, she could be the latest Bush nominee to face a filibuster when her nomination reaches the Senate floor.

As with the Thomas nomination, both supporters and detractors are playing the race card. Opposition groups say Brown isn't "really" black because she has been critical of government policies of redistributing wealth and giving preferences to racial minorities in public contracting. Supporters, emphasizing her background as the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper in the segregated South, accuse her foes of racism against black conservatives.

Both sides should focus more on Justice Brown's actual record and ideas. They will discover a jurist of insight and integrity - and learn valuable lessons about the judiciary's proper role in a government system that is supposed to be dedicated to individual rights.

According to conservative boilerplate, a judge's task is to apply, narrowly, the written law and resist temptation to become a policymaker. Brown's understanding is more expansive. Although she regularly insists that courts are not, indeed, to behave like legislatures, she rejects any notion of the judge as a robotic strict constructionist. In her jurisprudence, courts should function, first and last, as defenders of freedom.

Consider her dissent last year in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco, a case that upheld the heavy fee that San Francisco exacts from residential hotels if they seek permission to convert to tourist use. Brown expressed concern that owners of these small hotels were "a relatively powerless group" who had little influence with the political authorities. The city had simply declared that either they would continue serving a transient population or pay into a fund for the homeless, if they insist on becoming hotels for tourists and business people. As Brown saw it, singling out these small hotels for this social-welfare duty amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use. The Fifth Amendment, she observed, prohibits government from forcing "some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."

Brown writes with a flair that can delight laymen and law students while disgruntling stodgier observers. In her San Remo dissent, she turned the full rhetorical force on the power-tripping bureaucrats in the City by the Bay:

"Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco," she observed. The City had become a "neo-feudal regime." She reprimanded fellow jurists who automatically give a pass to confiscatory land-use restrictions. "Once again a majority of this court has proved that 'if enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.' But theft is theft. Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery."

In one of the few uses of the word, ever, in the history of American case law, Brown called San Francisco a "kleptocracy." She excoriated the city's refusal to acknowledge that "the free use of private property is just as important as ... speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion."

Brown's judicial philosophy amounts to what is sometimes called the "Madisonian" view, because it reflects the allegiance to higher law and transcendent rights embraced by the "Father of the Constitution." Not everything is open to majority rule, and courts must ensure that the majority does not run roughshod over groups that are unpopular or lack political power. As Brown put it in another dissenting opinion, "Courts must be especially vigilant, must vigorously resist encroachments that heighten the potential for arbitrary government action." This principle, inevitably, leads back to matters of race.

Last year, in a case involving some of the most extreme police tactics ever sanctioned by the state's Supreme Court, Justice Brown's dissent went squarely to the issue of racial justice - displaying a skepticism of government power sets her apart from conventional conservative jurists. People v. McKay involved a police officer who pulled over a bicyclist who was riding against traffic. When the rider failed to produce a driver's license or other identification, the officer arrested him and searched him. Justice Brown noted that it is not illegal to ride a bicycle without identification, and riding the wrong way on a bike is "such a minor offense that it hardly seems worth the officer's time to issue a citation." The Court's decision upholding the arrest and search, Brown concluded, stretched the Fourth Amendment's protections to the breaking point. "If full custodial arrest is authorized for trivial offenses, the power to search should be constrained," she wrote.

But then Brown took a step back to look at the issue more broadly. She believed the Court was ignoring an obvious and troubling issue: broadening police discretion threatens to perpetuate racially discriminatory police practices: "I do not know Mr. McKay's ethnic background. One thing I would bet on: he was not riding his bike a few doors down from his home in Bel Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos Verdes--places where no resident would be arrested for riding the 'wrong way' on a bicycle whether he had his driver's license or not. Well...it would not get anyone arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood."

Janice Brown's belief that no one should be treated less equally because of skin color is recorded most ringingly in Hi Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose, a 2000 case that involved Proposition 209, California's constitutional amendment banning race and sex favoritism by government. At issue was a city public-works program that required applicants for contracts to engage in special "outreach" efforts to contact disadvantaged subcontractors - not on a colorblind basis, but targeting racial minorities. All seven justices agreed that Proposition 209 bars such color-coded schemes in the awarding of government contracts. The court issued four separate opinions that expressed the point with varying degrees of clarity and conviction. By far the strongest, however, is Brown's - the court's main opinion, in which she was joined by three other justices. She gave Proposition 209 a broad and forceful reading, interpreting it to outlaw not just explicit quotas but also race and gender "goals," because "a participation goal differs from a quota or a set-aside only in degree."

Brown set the measure in historical context, hailing it as a statement of the venerable rule that no one should be treated better or worse than another on account of race. She quoted the late Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel: "[D]iscrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." The U.S. Supreme Court had veered from this principle, Brown noted; Proposition 209 represents a decision by the California electorate to return to it, reasserting a goal of "equal opportunity for all individuals" rather than "entitlement based on group representation."

Brickbats flew from some law professors, who accused Brown of rhetorical overkill or addressing U.S. Supreme Court cases that weren't directly at issue. But studying her opinion will reward any student of the great issues of race and equality in American history. It offers an elegant historical synopsis - and underscores why California was right to reaffirm the principle of colorblind equal rights in its own constitution.

Justice Brown is committed to racial equality because she is committed to individual rights, and to protecting individuals, of all colors, against government abuse, even when the abuse is based in a popular consensus. Just as the small hotel owners of San Francisco should be free unjustified government coercion, and no contractor should be denied business because of race, so Mr. McKay should be free from arbitrary exercises of state power. Since many small entrepreneurs are members of racial minorities, protecting business against intrusive government meddling is more relevant to their welfare than most of the incendiary causes in Jesse Jackson's bag of tricks.

There should be less focus on Justice Brown's color and more on her ideas. They point to a strategy for combating those problems of class and race that still divide us: namely, recovering a concept of limited government, where individual opportunity and individual liberties are respected and protected.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10636

 

[Dolemite]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

fuck brown and her benefactor- she believes in equality for all races yet finds no problem by representing the views of those who do nothing to change the UNEQUALITY in the state of california. How is she or any of her backers making it better for the exceptionally unequal situation facing black Californians? exactly she aint doing shit but maintaining the status quo which preserves and furthers the inequalities that face african-americans in california.

fuck all that equality propaganda

damn que was that to prove a point or were you hypnotized by that?

 

[Dolemite]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

<font size="5"><center>Appeals Court Backs Bush on Wiretaps</font size></center>

Jun 10, 2:01 AM (ET)
Associated Press
By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court sided with the Bush administration Friday on an electronic surveillance issue, making it easier to tap into Internet phone calls and broadband transmissions.

The court ruled 2-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission, which says equipment using the new technologies must be able to accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.

Judge David Sentelle called the agency's reading of the law a reasonable interpretation. In dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said the FCC gutted an exemption for information services that he said covered the Internet and broadband.

The FCC "apparently forgot to read the words of the statute," Edwards wrote.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said the decision ensures that law enforcement's ability to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance will keep pace with new technology.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, primary sponsor of CALEA, called the court's decision contrary to congressional intent, saying it stretches a law written for "the telephone system of 1994 to cover the Internet of 2006."

Education groups challenged the FCC rule because they said the requirements would impose burdensome new costs on private university networks. They argued that broadband Internet access is an information service beyond the reach of CALEA.

The American Council on Education said it was encouraged by part of the court's ruling that the law does not apply to private networks, which include many research institutions and corporations.

But more broadly, "we believe we had established a strong legal case that CALEA did not apply to providers of facilities-based Internet access or voice-over-IP," the education council said.

Challengers to the FCC rule focused on a Supreme Court case upholding the FCC's classification of broadband as an integrated information service under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Therefore, the education groups said, broadband providers must fall within the exemption for information services in CALEA.

But the appeals court said CALEA and the Telecom act are different laws and that the Supreme Court did not find that broadband Internet access was exclusively an information service.

The two laws reflect different objectives and the commission made a reasonable policy choice, wrote Sentelle, an appointee of President Reagan.

Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a private group, said the decision "threatens the privacy rights of innocent Americans as well as the ability of technology companies to innovate freely."

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who sided with Sentelle, is an appointee of President George W. Bush. Edwards was appointed by President Carter.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20060610/D8I560L80.html

thats all propaganda they never were unable to "tap" VOIP or other technologies - the only thing that prevents them wasn't mentioned and that is encryption technology

 

[QueEx]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

fuck brown and her benefactor- she believes in equality for all races yet finds no problem by representing the views of those who do nothing to change the UNEQUALITY in the state of california. How is she or any of her backers making it better for the exceptionally unequal situation facing black Californians? exactly she aint doing shit but maintaining the status quo which preserves and furthers the inequalities that face african-americans in california.

fuck all that equality propaganda

damn que was that to prove a point or were you hypnotized by that?

It was a reminder; of things said and things done.

QueEx

 

[Makkonnen]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

bump

 

[Makkonnen]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

bump - guess we wont have anymore nsa stories after this one

 

[Makkonnen]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

bump

 

[Overkill2k6]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

Not surprising; It's the typical "sweeping shit under the rug to cover shit up" routine...

 

[Makkonnen]

Re: US could prosecute reporters for leaks: Gonzales

bump