Many different sources are talking about the latest scandal surrounding the warrantless wiretapping program. Incriminating evidence against California rep Jane Harman was apparently captured some time ago on a legal NSA wiretap. However, Attorney General Gonzales supposedly intervened to drop the case against her because (and this is where the irony meter explodes) Bush officials wanted her to be able to publicly defend the warrantless wiretap program. “Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as “the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee” to repeatedly praise the NSA program as ‘essential to U.S. national security’ and ‘both necessary and legal.’” []
Related articles by Zemanta
- A Hard Breaking Work of Staggering Non-Geniuses (firedoglake.com)
- Jane Harman Caught On NSA Wiretap Lobbying For AIPAC? (oliverwillis.com)
- Obama Administration Continues Warrantless Spying (comsecllc.blogspot.com)
- Sources: NSA “overcollection” of domestic data exceeded law (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Whistleblower: NSA Targeted Journos, Snooped on All U.S. Communications (wired.com)
- NYT: More Illegal NSA Wiretapping of Americans. . . and Congress (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8ff091bb-0b33-4b7b-9473-7efa886c2851 "Rep Jane Harman Focus In Yet Another Warrantless Wiretap Scandal")
Anonymous 1:42 am on April 22, 2009 Permalink |
Who were the people behind Jane Harman introducing “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?” This bill might again be introduced.
The Act” while not written exactly like the Nazi 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Reich Constitution, had the potential of bringing America to the same place trashing America’s civil liberties. Harman’s bill would have driven lawful political activists underground, perhaps creating the domestic terrorists Bush said we needed to be protected from. Under Harman’s bill HR 1955, Americans could be alleged without evidence by government to support domestic terrorism based on their speech, writings and association. Similarly on February 28, 1933 Hitler signed the Discriminatory Decrees banning free speech and association that “might cause” public disturbance or adversely affect the peace and security of the German State—according to police.
Harman’s “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” when closely examined, defined “homegrown terrorism” as “any planned act” that might use force to coerce the U.S. Government or its people to promote or accomplish a “political or social objective.” No force had to occur. Government would only have to allege an individual or group thought about using force.
Had Jane Harman’s bill passed in its present form, police provocateurs could easily have destroyed lawful anti-war groups, persons and organizations by simply misdirecting a few members to commit crimes so government could allege an entire organization supported homegrown terrorism.
Anonymous 1:44 am on April 22, 2009 Permalink |
Where Did Government Put Your NSA-Wiretapped Phone, Fax and Private Email Communications?
In 2008 Telecoms were granted government immunity after they helped U.S. Government spy on millions of Americans’ electronic communications. Since, Government has not disclosed what happened to NSA’s millions of collected emails, faxes and phone call information that belong to U.S. Citizens? Could those wiretaps perhaps illegal, become a problem for some Americans? Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what NSA electronic surveillance could be used by police or introduced into court by the government to prosecute citizens.
In 2004, former Attorney General John Ashcroft asked government prosecutors to review thousands of old intelligence files including wiretaps to retrieve information prosecutors could use in “ordinary” criminal prosecutions. That was shortly after a court case lowered a barrier that blocked prosecutors from using illegal-wire tap evidence in Justice Dept. “Intelligence Files” to prosecute ordinary crimes. It would appear this information, may also be used by government to prosecute civil asset forfeitures.
See:http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5452
Considering this court case, it might be possible for NSA to share its “recent” electronic-domestic-spying with countless U.S. police agencies; including government contracted–companies and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate seizing Americans’ property—-to keep part of the bounty. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture.
There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.” Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property.
In the U.S. private security companies and their operatives work so closely with law enforcement to forfeit property—providing intelligence information, they appear to merge with police.
Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to telecom-NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal, to secure evidence to arrest Americans and or civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to help pay their salaries and operating costs?
Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws: those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde’s 2000 bill HR 1658—for “retroactive civil asset forfeiture” of “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning “property already tainted by crime” provided “the property” was already part of or “later connected” to a criminal investigation in progress” when HR.1658 passed. That can apply to more than two hundred federal laws and violations.
To help protect Americans from continuing police forfeiture abuse, Congress should pass legislation that raises the standard of evidence Government uses for Civil Asset Forfeiture from a mere “Preponderance of Evidence”, to “Clear and Convincing Evidence.