Post-9/11 Constitutional Violations to Our First A

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
May 29, 2007
by Stephen Lendman Populist Party

Opinions? There should be a few....

Organizations like NCAC, the Jefferson Center, FEN and others courageously defend our First Amendment rights especially under attack post-September 11, 2001. Six weeks later, the USA Patriot Act began assaulting those rights (and Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment ones too) all of which were well eroded already.

Most disturbing in the law is Section 215 under which federal investigators may seek a search warrant relating to an ongoing terrorism or intelligence investigation without meeting probable cause standards for it. It can then be used for intrusive unconstitutional searches without our knowledge for "any tangible things" about our speech-related activities in libraries, bookstores, banks and other repositories of our financial records, places of worship, medical provider records, internet use records, floppy disks, computer hard drives and other documents or places with records or information on our speech-related activities.

Section 505 of the Patriot Act is about as intrusive as Section 215 as it authorizes administrative subpoena targeting of bank and other financial records, credit reports, telephone and e-mail logs and more by use of a National Security Letter (NSL). Again, no probable cause standard is needed, and those receiving NSLs are gagged from disclosing its issuance so those targeted never know. Unlike Section 215, however, NSLs require no judicial oversight, only that they relate, without corroborating evidence, to an ongoing terrorism investigation on federal investigators' say alone.

A scant two decades longer than Orwell imagined, high tech surveillance makes it possible for modern-day thought control police to watch and know our activities, control our lives, and, if they wish, make us believe and accept as true "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, (and) Ignorance is Strength" under an omnipotent state using its will to subvert ours. Where there's a "signing statement," there's a way to do it on top of complicit congressional pre and post-9/11 legislation passed to make it simple enough already.

George Bush is a serial abuser of the presidential practice of attaching "signing statements" to laws passed although nothing in the Constitution allows it. He's done it around 800 times, more than all past presidents combined, using his usurped "Unitary Executive" power to claim the law is what he says it is. He issued one "statement" shortly after 9/11 authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop, for the first time ever, without legally required Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrants on international phone and e-mail communications originating from or received within the US.

Then following the passage of the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act of 2006, he issued another "signing statement" giving himself broad authority to order opening US citizens' mail without a warrant. In so doing, he violated US law and regulations including FISA permitting warrantless surveillance only for foreign intelligence collection between "foreign powers" for up to one year. With a warrant, FISA courts nearly always approve requests allowing surveillance and physical searches of US citizens' "premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by" a foreign power or by an individual thought to be an "agent of a foreign power."

Never satisfied, the Bush administration now wants expanded warrantless spying authority within and outside the country requesting Congress amend the FISA law legalizing what it's already doing anyway, law or no law. On May 2, director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee claiming the president may legally authorize warrantless surveillance (under the Constitution's Article II making him commander-in-chief) but wants FISA amended so it can do it without challenge it'll ignore anyway. It also wants to fix and modernize what McConnell calls "communication gaps" in intelligence gathering including "monitoring" the internet, cell phones and other new technology as well as "transit traffic" international phone calls and emails.

Amendments requested would further erode laws protecting against illegal searches and seizures and our First Amendment rights connected to them. They would also allow surveillance of any non-citizens in the country "reasonably expected to possess, control, transmit, or receive foreign intelligence information while such a person is in the United States," even if they're not a target of an investigation. In addition the administration wants legal cover to spy on anyone it claims engages in activities related to buying or developing WMDs, even with no evidence to prove it. Bottom line: the Bush administration wants Congress to give it near limitless authority to spy on anyone in any way in the name of national security, and sadly, rhetoric aside, this complicit Congress will likely give in, further eroding what little freedom we still have.

Post-9-11, other unconstitutional speech-related monitoring began as well including John Ashcroft's short-lived Terrorism Information and Prevention System (Operation TIPS). The idea was to use civilian informers like postal employees to report "unusual" neighborhood activities, police-state style. The scheme flopped when the postal service refused to be spies. Then there was the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness (TIA) renamed Terrorism Information Awareness to monitor anything about anyone under the spurious cover of it relating to "terrorism." TIA came under considerable congressional flack but some or all its activities continue under new names relating to other Pentagon projects and initiatives so illegal military spying continues unabated.

One program is called the Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) to conduct domestic intelligence by amassing a huge data base, again spuriously related to "terrorism." It focuses on war protesters targeted by police state monitoring of their constitutional right to freely oppose the nation's illegal wars of aggression, meaning in Pentagon-think they're threats to national security in the age of George Bush. Now the Pentagon has second thoughts after drawing flack for its illegal intrusions against peace activists. Under secretary of defense, James Clapper, announced through his spokesperson in late April TALON's results have been disappointing and doesn't "merit (being) continued (as) the program (is) currently constituted...in the light of its image in Congress and the media."

What he's likely saying is TALON's activities will be rebranded and continued, the same way all improperly intrusive domestic spying activities drawing flack are carried out in impressive Orwellian style. What he's not saying is all Pentagon domestic spying/surveillance programs violate the Posse Comitatus Act's prohibitions against them. However, last year's Public Law 109-364 (HR 5122 - Defense Authorization Act) revised the 1807 Insurrection Act and 1878 Posse Comitatus allowing the president illegal authority to give the military free reign on claims of a public emergency or that old standby "national security" in the "war on terror." That includes monitoring freely expressed speech and cracking down on it if so ordered.
That's the way things are by the rules of George Bush's Global War on Terror (GWOT) rebranded The Long War about to undergo another rebranding because the current name denotes the wrong message of endless wars and occupation the public is tiring of. The name may change, but the mission won't so long as George Bush remains president. According to him, opposition to his wars gives aid and comfort to the nation's enemies that's tantamount to treason. So is dissent and any criticism of his agenda by his reasoning but not according to the law of the land.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines the strict limits of what George Bush makes light of. It states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Crimes of treason include:

-- armed insurrection or rebellion;

-- mutiny or unlawfully taking over command of the US government or military;

-- sabotage including damaging or tampering with national defense material;

-- sedition intended to incite rebellion;

-- subversion defined as free speech gone too far by blatantly transmitting false information;

-- Syndicalism that's an act of organizing a political party or group advocating the violent overthrow of the government;

-- Terrorism defined as the systematic use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce the government or whole societies by targeting innocent noncombatants.

Speaking for the president, an unnamed White House spokesman said in January, 2003 George Bush "considers this nation to be at war, and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason" although he had no legal basis to say it, and publicly expressed opposition to government policies is not an act of treason as the Constitution defines it above. Nonetheless, according to Bush-think: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," and by implication are guilty of treason. According to Bush, if a US citizen or foreign state "continues to harbor or support terrorism (it) will be regarded by the United States as a hostile power," meaning, justified or not, line up behind George Bush, or else.

It's a dangerous and frightening time in America today as the nation hurtles toward tyranny, and our right to speak out and protest continues being challenged and undermined. That makes the battle for the last frontier of press freedom crucial to preserving our fragile democracy now somewhere between life support and the crematorium.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
RE: Post-9/11 Constitutional Violations to Our Fir

OVM,
Honestly I have to say this is not all that new. If you are studying US history in depth, we faced similar things in the past, especially in between 1910 and 1925 and also in the middle 1930’s leading up a lot of the changes in the mid 50’s.

The problem with the free speech thing is somewhat convoluted in the sense we have three parts of free speech, the accepted standards (that is always changing with society), the artistic standards and true free speech.

As for the freedom of the press, it was never ever intended to be put above the common citizen. The media is cutting their own throat here and they need to be reined in with their BS anyway and come back to reality. In other words, we are all journalist in our own right and the idea that only the ‘anointed’ few have the right to report the news is a slap in our face. They never had the right to be above the law.

As for a fragile democracy, I really hope so because we truly need to go back a representative republic and get rid of this democracy idea. Repeal the 17th, 23rd, 25th and 26th amendments is a good start and than teach people what the 9th and 10th amendment is really about.

I wrote a whole bunch more but I am too frustrated to post it.
 

bryan

Veteran Expediter
RE: Post-9/11 Constitutional Violations to Our Fir

Hi

The Constitution is what made this a great country.We are a country of laws and these laws have to pass the Constitutional test.Without it we would be a monarchy.

Bush needs to reread the Constitution and be reminded that he took an oath to uphold it.

What OVM wrote sounds like something you would read about the USSR or China not the USA.Our system of government works when people dont try to subvert the Constitution and the laws of the land.

No we dont need to change the Constitution we need to change the Administration.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
RE: Post-9/11 Constitutional Violations to Our Fir

Yes Bryan..he's twinking with the Constitution, by passing Congress doing an end run...
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
RE: Post-9/11 Constitutional Violations to Our Fir

I hope I am not insulting you two but you both need to understand a few things;

First thing is you have to read the entire constitution, not just the first three amendments. And read the federalist papers.

Many people never get past the first amendement and miss the 9th and 10th amendment and how important they are. The issue you brought up and think that is really important is not as important as not knowing the functions of the constitution and the two amendments I mentioned.

As for history, again we have had to deal with this type of stuff before; jailing journalist, moving entire populations and so on and we have survived.

As for laws being tested against the constitution, that really is not the case and the constitution has little to do with the actual laws but more as an interpretion of a specific case against the constitution as a constitutional issue, nothing more. I mean that cases are supposed to be interpreted based on the constitution when brought to the Supreme Court, not until that time they become subject to judicial review at that level. Our system is setup as a sort of veto system on the laws passed by the congress but there are two problems,one it is not an automatic thing like I said a case has to be brought up and two since the civil war, we have ignored the 10th amendment and allowed the states to be dictated to by the judicial branch of the government – hence the repeal of the 17th amendment is desperately needed.

The other thing you all missed is you are complaining about things that are created without congresses approval, how do you know that the congress didn’t approve them or that they were created under one of the many other laws or under the articles of the constitution? You know that on the technical side of separation of powers, the president has the authority to enact laws under the executive order, which was setup to allow the president to bypass congress on certain subject where they have no jurisdiction over with the recourse of impeachment but that was also screwed up too.

Not defending Bush but you need to take a close look at every president since Lincoln to see that every one of them has done something like this, no exceptions. For God’s sake look at FDR and his obfuscation of the constitution to limit all kinds of freedoms in the mid 30’s through the use of the FBI, or Wilson’s attempt to hold some groups accountable for open freedom of expression under sedition act of 1918 or the fact that the Comstock laws are still on the books since 1873. Look around and see what I mean.

Again to solve the problems, we start with looking at the changes made to the constitution and what happened to the rights of the people, again I say repealing the 17th, 23rd, 25th and 26th amendments is a good start and than teach people what the 9th and 10th amendment is really about.

But in case you don’t know lets look at each of them;

Ninth Amendment: declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained elsewhere by the people.

Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These need to be repealed;
Seventeenth Amendment (1913): Establishes direct election of senators. This is where the states lost their representation to the federal government. Did you know that almost every country in the world has a representative to our federal government but our states don’t? This change would allow the states to choose to elect or select their representatives as intended by the 10th amendment and the founding fathers and add the accoutablity needed in the senate. If you don’t think that this needs to be change, take a serious look at the senate and tell me how many people have been there for more then 2 terms (that’s 12 years)?

Twenty-third Amendment (1961): Grants presidential electors to the District of Columbia. Why give them anything, the reason it is a district and not a state was to have a neutral area that held the seat of the federal government and beyond the political pandering of any population, as what happened in NY and Philly.

Twenty-fifth Amendment (1967): Changes details of presidential succession, provides for temporary removal of president, and provides for replacement of the vice president. I find the entire Pelosi issue dishearting so this needs to go.

Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote simply because of their age. teach them first then allow them to vote.

Hope this get you all thinking.
 
Top