Archive for the PATRIOT Act Category

Chelsea And Ed:  Time For “Con” “dign” Treatment (November 30, 2015)  

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Bureaucracy, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, O'Bama, PATRIOT Act, Privacy, Profile In Courage Award, Supreme Court on November 30, 2015 by e-commentary.org

 

. . .

K          “Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of Edward Snowden’s receipt, along with  several standing ovations in the Swedish parliament, of the Right Livelihood award for his revelations of the scale of government surveillance and monitoring.  And a fortnight ago O’Bama announced the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and forgot to mention Edward.  And right after he released Edward Pollard, a spy who pedaled state secrets for money.”

J          “He released the wrong Ed.  He’s a busy guy.”

K          “The absurdity and the insanity and the dishonesty and the hypocrisy continue in overdrive.”

. . .

K          “For two individuals who did so much to protect our liberty and freedom, neither of them should lose a moment’s freedom or liberty.  Require them each to do one thousand hours of community service.  To send a message that actions have consequences.” 

. . .

K          “The FISA Amendments Act (FAA) is the unconstitutional law that allows the government to wiretap Americans who are communicating with people overseas.  Under the FAA, the government can conduct this surveillance without naming individuals and without a traditional warrant based on a showing of probable cause.”

J          “Despite the Fourth Amendment that requires a warrant.”

K          “Yup.  Despite the Fourth Amendment that requires a warrant.  When the Supreme Court addressed whether the unconstitutional law is unconstitutional the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the law itself and instead ruled that the plaintiffs could not prove the surveillance was ‘certainly impending’.”

J          “We suffer because of the ignorance and intentional naiveté and dishonesty of the Supreme Court.  Goes to show.”

K          “They are only running show trials.  The plaintiffs were held not to have the ‘standing’ necessary to sue.  They were just a group of lawyers, journalists, and human rights advocates who regularly communicate with likely ‘targets’ of FAA wiretapping.”

J          “Seems like a ‘stand up’ group of individuals to me.”

K          “Since the ‘stand up’ group of Americans did not have definitive proof that they were being surveilled under the FAA, they cannot challenge the constitutionality of the unconstitutional statute.”

J          “And the government nearly always keeps its surveillance activities secret.”

K          “But you always knew they were illegally surveilling.”

J          “Sure.”

. . .

K          “‘Condign punishment’ is the ideal punishment that balances the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the society.  ‘Con’ means ‘with’ and ‘dign’ means ‘dignity’ so that condign means to provide ‘with dignity’.”

. . .

K          “Both should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  They have made great personal sacrifices for our freedom.”

. . . 

[President O’Bama failed to name Edward Snowden as a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Again.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/president-obama-names-recipients-presidential-medal-freedom.  He cannot.  Yet he could pardon Ed and Chelsea on the way out.]

[See the e-commentary at Hero or Traitor? (June 10, 2013), Profile In Cowardice Award (May 12, 2014) and Profile in Courage Award, 2015 (May 11, 2015).]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“For especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”  Presidential Medal of Freedom

And Edward Pollard, a spy who pedaled secrets for money, gets released.

America’s Frazzled First Amendment (January 13, 2014)

Posted in Abortion, Courts, First Amendment, Journalism, National Defense Authorization Act / FY 2012, Newspapers, PATRIOT Act, Press/Media, Rating Agencies, Supreme Court, USA PATRIOT Act on January 13, 2014 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has devolved a simple formula for First Amendment analysis:  Who is making the statement and what statement is he, she or it making?  A corporation is extended any and all protection that advances its interests and shields it from liability under the guise of the First Amendment.  An individual is extended First Amendment protection only to the extent that his or her speech is acceptable to the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court.”

L2        “With a few exceptions.”

L1        “A few, but very few exceptions.  The oral argument this week at the Supreme Court involving the reasonable and safe distance between protestors and citizens entering an abortion clinic is less about the First Amendment and more about efforts by the right-wing majority to restrict abortion.”

L2        “Restrict abortion by restricting access.”

. . .

L1        “Some bonehead judges shield the fraudulent statements and misrepresentations of rating agencies’ such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch with First Amendment protection.  A fraudulent statement advanced with the intent to deceive is not entitled to any constitutional protection even if it is advanced by a corporation rather than an individual.”

L2        “The next step by some judges is to insulate any statements however deceptive or fraudulent by other specific industries such as the oil and gas, pharmaceutical, and agricultural industries from liability by bestowing First Amendment protection on them.”

. . .

L2        “The O’Bama Administration has maintained the hostile attitude and increased aggressive actions against whistleblowers and those challenging often illegal government shenanigans.  The executive branch contributes to the problem not to the solution.”

L1        “Their dismissive treatment of the press is taken from Tricky Dick’s play book.  The White House is Fort O’Bama.”

. . .

L1        “Congress could address most of these problems with legislation that most courts would honor and enforce.  Legislation including the USA PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 should be reviewed and amended.”

L2        “Seems that all three branches are a threat to the people today.”  

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled https://e-commentary.org/category/first-amendment/ in particular The Supreme Court On Drugs (June 25, 2007), Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010), Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010), In Sexy Opinion, Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment (March 7, 2011) and At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012); the “e-ssays” at https://e-commentary.org/category/national-defense-authorization-act-fy-2012/ and https://e-commentary.org/category/usa-patriot-act/; and commentary on rating agencies at https://e-commentary.org/category/rating-agencies-2/.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

My Political Ideas                                            Are Too Complex

To Fit On One                                                  Bumper Sticker

Close the Harvard Business School (February 23, 2009)

Posted in Crime/Punishment, Education, Law, PATRIOT Act, Schooling, USA PATRIOT Act on February 23, 2009 by e-commentary.org

The government is closing the prison at Guantanimo.  Problematic yet necessary.  Any change should be purposeful and careful.

The government should close the Harvard Business School, America’s madrossa for economic terrorists.  The USA PATRIOT Act provides one legal vehicle.  Convert the structure into a youth hostel for the young and old.  Many if not most of today’s political and social problems originate or are exacerbated in the schools.  If we do not close a school, it may be time to revisit the curriculum.

Bumper sticker of the week:

Crime should be punished

The Arithmetic of Hope (April 3, 2006)

Posted in Economics, PATRIOT Act, Politics, USA PATRIOT Act on April 3, 2006 by e-commentary.org

1 Senator voted against the UnPatriot Act when it was initially passed.

36 Senators voted against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

44 senators voted against the nomination of Samuel Alito.

48 Senators voted against increasing the debt ceiling to nine (9) Trillion dollars.

(On August 7, 1964, 2 Senators voted against the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,” Ernest Gruening of Alaska and Wayne Morse of Oregon.)

USA PATRIOT ACT (April 4, 2005)

Posted in Bush, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Law, PATRIOT Act, USA PATRIOT Act on April 4, 2005 by e-commentary.org

USA PATRIOT ACT – Undermining and Subverting America by Perverting All Time-honored Rules To Interrupt and Overcome Tyranny

What more needs to be said?