October 19, 2011

Source: Corbett Report – James Corbett

Manhattan Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein has declinedto hold the CIA in contempt for destroying videos that it had been ordered by the courts to preserve.

The case revolves around 92 videos, depicting hundreds of hours of interrogations of detainees. The tapes allegedly contained evidence of torture, and the CIA was ordered by numerous courts to produce the videos in relation to lawsuits arising from torture allegations. The 9/11 Commission also demanded that the tapes be produced. Instead, the agency destroyed them.

Although the Obama Justice Department had already decided last year that no criminal charges would be filed for this blatant obstruction of justice, Judge Hellerstein’s recent ruling insures that the agency will not even face civil sanctions or so much as a contempt order for willfully breaking the law.

In his ruling, Judge Hellerstein, the very judge who had ordered the CIA to produce the tapes in September of 2004, notes that the agency had instead provided a description of what they say was on the tapes and “implemented new protocols” to insure that they don’t destroy evidence again, so there is no need to hold them accountable in any way.

Judge Hellerstein’s decision is not without precedent.

In 2010, Obama’s Office of Legal Council wrote a memo arguing the legality of Obama’s secret list of assassination targets, a list that apparently includes American citizens who have not been convicted or even charged of a crime. The memo was used as the legal justification for the extrajudicial assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen who the President ordered murdered early last year.

Now, the Obama White House is arguing that they don’t even have to show the justification for ordering the unconstitutional assassination of one of its own citizens.

Still, concerned citizens are attempting to challenge the Obama regime’s power grabs in court.

Earlier this year, Senator Wyden revealed that the federal government has a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act that allows the government much more power than is suggested by the wording of the act itself.

When Charlie Savage of the New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the interpretation, he was denied on the basis that the interpretation is classified.

Last week, Savage and the Times sued the federal government for refusing to release the documents. The case is currently before Judge William Pauley of the US District Court.

Related Posts:

• Bold Alligator: Massive 11-Nation Military Drill Aimed At Fending Off Iran In The Straits of Hormuz
• Marines ‘assault’ US beaches in amphibious drill
• Common Food Items Could Contain 180 Times More Fluoride Than Tap Water
• New York City Surveillance Center Staffed with Employees from Large Wall Street Firms
• The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America

September 11, 2011

Source: Activist Post

The weekend of the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, has caused many to reflect on the event itself, as well as the decade that we have experienced since. There have indeed been many casualties to recall. One of the saddest casualties is the First Amendment to the nation’s founding document; it is effectively dead in 33 states according to a ACLU compilation of incident reports across America. A targeted program of surveillance and harassment has become fully centered on the population itself.

This was first made evident in the 2009 MIAC report, which cited supporters of prominent political candidates like Ron Paul, as well as an assortment of other activists who support peace, freedom and liberty, as potential threats. Law enforcement has been directed to treat such “dangers” with suspicion and extreme caution.

The ACLU has compiled an interactive map of those states which have logged incidents of police harassment and surveillance of Americans engaging in other apparently un-American activities, namely: peaceful protest, photographing public servants while on duty, questioning American leadership and policy, recording one’s surroundings while in public, and having certain religious or political affiliations that could apparently be tied to extremism.

Here are just a few examples among dozens of incident reports cited by the ACLU that show the range of First Amendment violations.

Maine – FBI Intercepts and Stores E-mails Planning Peaceful Protests.
The FBI intercepted and stored e-mail communications pertaining to protests at the Brunswick Naval Air Show and against the christening of an Arleigh Burke Class destroyer organized by Veterans for Peace and co-sponsored by Pax Christi Maine, PeaceWorks, WILPF, Peace Action Maine, Smilin’Trees Disarmament Farm, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Maine Coalition for Peace & Justice, Island Peace & Justice, Winthrop Area People for Peace, and Waldo County Peace & Justice

New York – Police Detain Muslim-American Journalism Student for Taking Photos for a Class Assignment.
Mariam Jukaku, a 24-year old Muslim-American journalism student at Syracuse University, was stopped by Veterans Affairs police in New York for taking photographs of flags in front of a VA building as part of a class assignment. After taking her into an office for interrogation and taking her driver’s license, the police deleted the photographs from her digital camera before releasing her.

North Carolina — Pentagon Surveils Veteran.
Debbie Clark, who was honorably discharged from the US army after eight years of active duty and who is married to an active duty military man, found herself under Pentagon surveillance when she participated in a protest at Fort Bragg in March 2005 led by veterans and military families.

Texas — Fusion Center Describes Conspiracy to Spread Tolerance.
In February 2009, a DHS-supported North Central Texas Fusion System intelligence bulletin described a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S. Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department, and hip hop bands to spread tolerance in the U.S. The bulletin was reportedly distributed to over 100 different agencies.

Colorado — FBI JTTF Monitors American Indian Movement, Peace Groups, and Environmental Groups.
In August 2005, the ACLU obtained the documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request containing information on the Colorado American Indian Movement and the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. The files show that JTTF agents opened “domestic terrorism” investigations after they read notices on web sites announcing an antiwar protest in Colorado Springs in 2003 and a protest against Columbus Day in Denver in 2002.

Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Department Surveils Political Enemies.
An internal report accuses the Maricopa County’s Chief Deputy Sheriff of using Maricopa’s anti-corruption unit to conduct politically motivated investigations and of surveiling Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio’s political rivals.

California — Military Monitors Campus Anti-Recruiting Protests. Two Department of Defense (DOD) Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON) from April 2005 describe anti-recruiting protests by students at the University of California campuses of Berkeley and Santa Cruz. The source for both TALON reports, a “special agent of the federal protective service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,” relayed protest information he received through email alerts.

Undercover Campus and County Sheriffs Attend Cal State Fresno Lecture on Veganism. On November 10, 2004, the California State Fresno student group Campus Peace and Civil Liberties Coalition (CPCLC) hosted an on-campus lecture by a speaker formerly employed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The lecturer addressed approximately 60 people about the benefits of a vegan diet. Six of those 60 attendees were undercover police officers—three from the county sheriff’s de­partment and three from the campus police department.

The scope of the incidents compiled on the ACLU map reflects a new America; one where the Bill of Rights and Constitution have been re-defined as the most serious threat, rather than the greater threat that exists from promoting an atmosphere of hysteria and fear that is inevitably leading to the eradication of protections afforded by those very documents.

First, do you believe that it is only 33 states? Do you believe that the principles of freedom outlined in the Bill of Rights and Constitution make America less safe in The Age of Terror? Are these incident reports examples of your tax dollars well-spent? Please use the comment section below to give us your thoughts, as well as other incidents that exemplify the loss of our Constitutional rights.

Related Posts:

• It is Good to See Actor Vince Vaughn to Endorse Ron Paul. Hollywood Does Have A Few Good Men.
• NYPD Holds College Student in Jail for Three Days Because She Wasn’t Carrying ID
• Code of Mysterious German Secret Society the ‘Oculist Order’ Cracked Centuries Later
• Finally News Coverage of the NY Protest.. Pro Zionist Protesters Gather Outside the UN
• Atlanta Increases Surveillance of City

NSA Collects as Much Data as Is Stored in the Entire Library of Congress Every Six Hours [???]

May 23rd, 2011

I try to avoid the black/grey/white propaganda narratives surrounding the alleged Bin Laden assassination. The whole thing is so absurd that it’s just impossible for me to take it seriously at all. However, in my routine monitoring of stories about the NSA, I came across the claim that the agency is processing an amount of data that’s equivalent to what’s stored in the Library of Congress every six hours.

Ok, so I tried to figure out how much data a Library-of-Congress-every-six-hours represents.

It turns out that the claim is completely meaningless! It tells us nothing about how much data the NSA is intercepting/archiving/processing because there are no digital versions of vast portions of the full Library of Congress collection.

Read this: How ‘Big’ Is the Library of Congress?

So it begs the question, just how “big” is the Library of Congress, in terms of our content, but especially if one tried to equate it to the digital realm?

I won’t go into any of the specific claims that are being made, but they’re easy to find out there in the ether, and suffice it to say that the Library would stand behind very few if any of them. There are certain things we can quantify, but far more that are purely speculative.

For instance, we can as of this moment say that the approximate amount of our collections that are digitized and freely and publicly available on the Internet is about 74 terabytes. We can also say that we have about 15.3 million digital items online.

Some may be tempted to extrapolate that those digital items represent a precise percentage of the nearly 142 million items in the Library’s physical collections, and then estimate some kind of digital corollary. But comparing digital and physical items is apples and oranges, at best. A simple example of that fallacy would be represented by a single photograph online depicting several physical objects.

Another source of digital estimates is likely based on the number of books and printed items in our collections, which is currently about 32 million. One could attempt to establish the average length of those items (pages, words, characters, etc.) and extrapolate the digital equivalent of those 32 million physical items.

Assuming one could do that with any degree of accuracy — and that’s a big assumption — it overlooks the fact that those 32 million books represent only about one-quarter of the entire physical collections. The rest are in the form of manuscripts, prints, photographs, maps, globes, moving images, sound recordings, sheet music, oral histories, etc. So how does that other three-quarters of the Library equate digitally? Can one automatically assume the digital resolution at which all maps or photographs, for instance, would be scanned? Those are major wildcards indeed.

And then there are our motion pictures, videos and sound recordings alone — around 6 million items stored at our new Packard Campus for Audio-Visual Conservation in Culpeper, Va. What is their digital equivalent? Most people who record television programs onto a computer or DVR know that a hard drive with hundreds of megabytes or even a terabyte or more can quickly fill up.

So, there you have it: A nonsensical claim, effortlessly woven into the tapestry of other nonsensical claims, to go with your morning coffee.

Via: The Baltimore Sun:

Parachini of RAND said the rule of thumb has been that every six hours, NSA collects an amount of information equivalent to the store of knowledge housed at the Library of Congress.

“The volume of data they’re pulling in is huge,” he said. “One criticism we might make of our [intelligence] community is that we’re collection-obsessed — we pull in everything — and we don’t spend enough time or money to try and understand what do we have and how can we act upon it.”

Related Posts:

• States look to Internet taxes to close budget gaps
• U.S. Intelligence Agencies Pushing Iran’s U.S. Terrorist Attack Plot Propaganda, Again.
• Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets
• U.S. to build new massive prison in Bagram
• Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?

With Obama’s Justice Department threatening to classify previously unclassified material during the upcoming trial of accused NSA whistleblower Thomas A. Drake, Secrecy News reports that prosecutors claim they can do so because “NSA possesses a statutory privilege that protects against the disclosure of information relating to its activities.”

Never mind that security apparatchiks have carried out multiyear, illegal driftnet surveillance operations against the American people, or that the broad outlines of these illicit programs have been known for almost six years when they were first reported by The New York Times. Despite these inconvenient truths, our “transparency” president’s minions are now asserting the right to erase well-known facts from the public record to win a conviction in a high-profile case.

And with a federal Grand Jury now meeting in Alexandria, Virginia to criminally investigate the WikiLeaks organization and its founder, Julian Assange, to determine whether they can be charged with violations of the draconian Espionage Act, the administration is pulling out all the stops by targeting individuals who expose government crimes and corruption.

Accused of leaking information that uncovered high-level corruption at the Pentagon’s electronic intelligence satrapy, Drake is charged with serving as a source for a series of articles published by The Baltimore Sun that provided rich details on cosy relations between NSA officials and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

According to investigative journalist Siobhan Gorman, three years and $1.2 billion after choosing SAIC as the primary contractor for a failed digital communications project called Trailblazer, “SAIC did not provide computer experts with the technical or management skills to complete the project.”

In subsequent reporting, the Sun revealed that “six years after it was launched, the Trailblazer program consists of little more than blueprints on a wall.”

Drake’s revelations of high-level cronyism at the agency which cost taxpayers billions of dollars were further amplified by other reporters. Writing for CorpWatch, investigative journalist Tim Shorrock disclosed that NSA “is the company’s largest single customer, and SAIC is the NSA’s largest contractor.”

Shorrock tells us that “the company’s penchant for hiring former intelligence officials played an important role in its advancement.”

According to CorpWatch, “the story of William Black, Jr.” is emblematic of the clubby, good-old-boy networks that constellate the National Security State. “In 1997,” Shorrock writes, “the 40-year NSA veteran was hired as an SAIC vice president ‘for the sole purpose of soliciting NSA business,’ according to a published account. Three years later, after NSA initially funded Trailblazer, Black went back to the agency to manage the program; within a year, SAIC won the master contract for the program.”

Hardly surprising, given the fact that the so-called revolving door ushering former top intelligence officials into corporate board rooms is a tale oft-told, as the curriculum vitae of former NSA- and Director of National Intelligence, John Michael “Mike” McConnell, readily attests. After his two-year stint as President Bush’s DNI (2007-2009), McConnell returned to his perch at the ultra-spooky Booz Allen Hamilton security firm as Senior Vice President where he currently manages that firm’s cybersecurity portfolio.

Peddling his expertise as an intelligence insider, McConnell is one of the chief tricksters hawking the so-called “cyber threat,” the latest front to have emerged from the highly-profitable “War on Terror.”

Last year, in a widely-cited Washington Post op-ed, McConnell claimed that the United States needs “to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment–who did it, from where, why and what was the result–more manageable.”

What should interest readers here, is the fact that while the Obama administration wages war on whistleblowers like Thomas Drake, Bradley Manning and others, who expose waste, fraud, abuse and war crimes, the architects and perpetrators of those offenses, high-level corporate and government officials, escape justice and continue to operate with impunity.

In the Drake case, Secrecy News analyst Steven Aftergood writes, “The NSA Act … has never been used to exclude information in a criminal case.”

That the administration has chosen to do so with Drake serves as an unmistakable warning that the federal government will crush anyone who challenges crimes perpetrated by the secret state.

Aftergood told NPR last week that the Obama regime’s surge of whistleblower prosecutions is “a worrisome development.”

“Leaks serve a very valuable function as a kind of safety valve,” he said. “They help us to get out the information that otherwise would be stuck.”

And with Congress, spearheaded by right-wing Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, seeking to go even further to persecute whistleblowers, the government is poised to choke-off what little remains of democratic oversight, thus ensuring that information remains “stuck.”

As FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds points out, “every time when I think things couldn’t possibly get any worse, I’m proven wrong and they actually do get worse.”

“Our so called representatives,” Edmonds writes, “are planning to increase the federal government’s unchecked powers by giving them the right to strip national security whistleblowers of their pensions.”

According to the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC), under Section 403 of the Intelligence Authorization Act, “the head of an employee’s agency can simply accuse a whistleblower of leaking classified information and that whistleblower can automatically be stripped of their federal pension, even after they retire.”

So draconian is this proposal that once stripped of their pensions, whistleblowers would be barred from accessing the federal courts to challenge their administrative punishment.

“Instead,” NWC avers, “they will be forced to use the DNI’s administrative procedures to try to defend themselves. In other words, the DNI will be the prosecutor, the judge and the jury to strip pensions from public servants.”

Shielding Telecoms … from their Customers

Meanwhile across the Potomac, the ACLU reported last week that in response to their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the repulsive FISA Amendments Act and their Freedom of Information Act request “to learn more about the government’s interpretation and implementation” of FAA, “the government released a few hundred pages of heavily redacted documents.”

As readers recall, the FAA was a piece of legislative detritus passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in 2008 that authorized the secret state’s driftnet surveillance of American’s communications while providing retroactive immunity to NSA’s private partners in the telecommunications’ industry.

Just so we understand what it is Congress shielded, AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein described how the firm and the NSA physically split and then copied global communications traffic flowing into their offices and then passed it along to the Agency. In his self-published book, Klein wrote:

What screams out at you when examining this physical arrangement is that the NSA was vacuuming up everything flowing in the Internet stream: e-mail, web browsing, Voice-Over-Internet phone calls, pictures, streaming video, you name it. The splitter has no intelligence at all, it just makes a blind copy. There could not possibly be a legal warrant for this, since according to the 4th Amendment warrants have to be specific, “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” …

This was a massive blind copying of the communications of millions of people, foreign and domestic, randomly mixed together. From a legal standpoint, it does not matter what they claim to throw away later in the their secret rooms, the violation has already occurred at the splitter. (Mark Klein, Wiring Up the Big Brother Machine… And Fighting It, Charleston, South Carolina: BookSurge, 2009, pp. 38-39.)

“Two weeks ago,” ACLU National Security Project staffer Alexander Abdo wrote, “as part of our FOIA lawsuit over those documents, the government gave us several declarations attempting to justify the redaction of the documents.”

In the course of examining the documents, ACLU researchers “came across this unexpectedly honest explanation from the FBI of why the government doesn’t want us to know which ‘electronic communication service providers’ participate in its dragnet surveillance program.” On page 32 we are enlightened by the following nugget:

In this case, the FBI withheld the identities of the electronic communication service providers that have provided information, or are listed as potentially required to provide information, to the FBI as part of its national security and criminal investigations under authority granted by Section 702 of the FAA. Exemption (b)(4)-1, cited in conjunction with (b)(7)(D)-1, has been asserted because disclosure of the identities of electronic communication service providers would cause substantial harm to their competitive position. Specifically, these businesses would be substantially harmed if their customers knew that they were furnishing information to the FBI. The stigma of working with the FBI would cause customers to cancel the companies’ services and file civil actions to prevent further disclosure of subscriber information. Therefore, the FBI has properly withheld this information pursuant to Exemption (b)(4), in conjunction with (b)(7)(D)-1. (Declaration of David M. Hardy, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et al, Civil Action No. 10-CV-4419 (RJS), April 25, 2011)

Got that?

While the federal government illegally spies on us, those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect our rights are engaged in a massive swindle designed by Congress to shield private lawbreakers whose “competitive position” might be compromised should their filthy corporate practices be exposed.

Public harm, private profit; it doesn’t get any clearer than this!

Related Posts:

• Jane Mayer on the Obama war on whistle-blowers
• Japanese Burning Radioactive Materials Causing ‘Rainouts’ Around Japan and Elsewhere in Northern Hemisphere
• WAR DRUMS: Israel Warns US Jews: Iran Could Strike Here
• U.S. Intelligence Agencies Pushing Iran’s U.S. Terrorist Attack Plot Propaganda, Again.
• Veteran Health – Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Can Cause Disease Many Years Later

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has adopted new procedures for using the Defense Department’s vast array of cyberwarfare capabilities in case of an attack on vital computer networks inside the United States, delicately navigating historic rules that restrict military action on American soil.

The system would mirror that used when the military is called on in natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires. A presidential order dispatches the military forces, working under the control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Related Posts:

• Bold Alligator: Massive 11-Nation Military Drill Aimed At Fending Off Iran In The Straits of Hormuz
• Marines ‘assault’ US beaches in amphibious drill
• Common Food Items Could Contain 180 Times More Fluoride Than Tap Water
• New York City Surveillance Center Staffed with Employees from Large Wall Street Firms
• The DHS Defends Globalism, Not America

A court has confirmed what was suspected all along. Keep in mind, the Obama Adminstration’s policy on these illegal wiretaps is the same as the Bush Adminstration’s was. David Kravets writes on WIRED’s Threat Level:

A federal judge on Wednesday said the George W. Bush administration illegally eavesdropped on the telephone conversations of two American lawyers who represented a now-defunct Saudi charity.

The lawyers alleged some of their 2004 telephone conversations to Saudi Arabia were siphoned to the National Security Agency without warrants. The allegations were initially based on a classified document the government accidentally mailed to the former Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation lawyers. The document was later declared a state secret and removed from the long-running lawsuit weighing whether a sitting U.S. president may create a spying program to eavesdrop on Americans’ electronic communications without warrants

“Plaintiffs must, and have, put forward enough evidence to establish a prima facie case that they were subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance,” U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled, in a landmark decision. Even without the classified document, the judge said he believed the lawyers “were subjected to unlawful electronic surveillance” (pdf) in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants in terror investigations.

It’s the first ruling addressing how Bush’s once-secret spy program was carried out against American citizens. Other cases considered the program’s overall constitutionality, absent any evidence of specific eavesdropping.

Read More on WIRED’s Threat Level

Related Posts:

• Illegal Warrantless Eavesdropping Still Unaddressed by Courts and Congress
• Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen
• 1997 DoD Briefing: ‘Others’ can set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely using electromagnetic waves
• Obama Dares Judge to Order Release Of NSA Spy Document
• Appoint a Special Prosecutor: The Crimes of Bush, Cheney, and Other Top Officials Must Be Prosecuted

A new product, the RosettaStone (www.personalrosettastone.com), guarantees that RFID will follow you straight to your grave.

The Reader also communicates directly with other Samsung e-readers, via something the company calls, EmoLink.

Related Posts:

• The CIA and NSA Want You to Be Their Friend on Facebook
• Why is the FBI Still Hiding Information about the Assassination of Martin Luther King?
• Highest Treason By Obama In Afghanistan
• Media crackdown, militias returning, it’s Iraq
• 9/11 Text Messages Released: Wikileaks Publishes Intercepted Government Pager Texts As They Were Sent

February 28th, 2010

Via: AP:

President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation’s main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama’s signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government’s ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

-Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

-Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

-Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama’s signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government’s authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

Related Posts:

• Senators Vote to Renew Patriot Act Spy Powers
• Under the radar, Obama pushes for Patriot Act renewal
• Myths and Realities About the Patriot Act
• Authority to Spy on Americans Unclear as Patriot Act Expires
• George W. Obama Supports Extending PATRIOT Act Provisions

The president would have the power to safeguard essential federal and private Web resources under draft Senate cybersecurity legislation.

According to an aide familiar with the proposal, the bill includes a mandate for federal agencies to prepare emergency response plans in the event of a massive, nationwide cyberattack.

The president would then have the ability to initiate those network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a cyberattack of unprecedented scope, the aide said.

Ultimately, the legislation is chiefly the brainchild of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively. Both lawmakers have long clamored for a federal cybersecurity bill, charging that current measures — including the legislation passed by the House last year — are too piecemeal to protect the country’s Web infrastructure.

Their renewed focus arrives on the heels of two, high-profile cyberattacks last month: A strike on Google, believed to have originated in China, and a separate, more disjointed attack that affected thousands of businesses worldwide.

Rockefeller and Snowe’s forthcoming bill would establish a host of heretofore absent cybersecurity prevention and response measures, an aide close to the process said. The bill will “significantly [raise] the profile of cybersecurity within the federal government,” while incentivizing private companies to do the same, according to the aide.

Additionally, it will “promote public awareness” of Internet security issues, while outlining key protections of Americans’ civil liberties on the Web, the aide continued.

Privacy groups are nonetheless likely to take some umbrage at Rockefeller and Snowe’s latest effort, an early draft of which leaked late last year.

When early reports predicted the cybersecurity measure would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” online privacy groups said they felt that would endow the White House with overly ambiguous and far-reaching powers to regulate the Internet.

The bill will still contain most of those powers, and a “vast majority” of its other components “remain unchanged,” an aide with knowledge of the legislation told The Hill. But both the aide and a handful of tech insiders who support the bill have nonetheless tried to dampen skeptics’ concerns, reminding them the president already has vast — albeit lesser-known — powers to regulate the Internet during emergencies.

It is unclear when Rockefeller and Snowe will finish their legislation. And the ongoing debate over healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, jobs bills and education fixes could postpone action on the floor for many months.

Both lawmakers heavily emphasized the need for such a bill during a Senate Commerce Committee cybersecurity hearing on Wednesday.

“Too much is at stake for us to pretend that today’s outdated cybersecurity policies are up to the task of protecting our nation and economic infrastructure,” Rockefeller said. “We have to do better and that means it will take a level of coordination and sophistication to outmatch our adversaries and minimize this enormous threat.”

Read Full Article Here…

Related Posts:

• The Internet is slowly being censored, filtered, and throttled: Why are our corporate governments trying to control information?
• U.S. Economy in Free Fall, Why is the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in this picture?
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• DOD Ends Sale of Expended Military Brass to Remanufacturers
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders

Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the “Scarecrow Bandits” that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department’s request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans’ privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

“This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century,” says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. “If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment.”

Related Posts:

• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits
• FBI Informant Hal Turner Exposed
• Spying on Americans: A Multibillion Bonanza for the Telecoms

The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users’ “origin and destination information,” a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday.

As far back as a 2006 speech, Mueller had called for data retention on the part of Internet providers, and emphasized the point two years later when explicitly asking Congress to enact a law making it mandatory. But it had not been clear before that the FBI was asking companies to begin to keep logs of what Web sites are visited, which few if any currently do.

The FBI is not alone in renewing its push for data retention. As CNET reported earlier this week, a survey of state computer crime investigators found them to be nearly unanimous in supporting the idea. Matt Dunn, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in the Department of Homeland Security, also expressed support for the idea during the task force meeting.

Greg Motta, the chief of the FBI’s digital evidence section, said that the bureau was trying to preserve its existing ability to conduct criminal investigations. Federal regulations in place since at least 1986 require phone companies that offer toll service to “retain for a period of 18 months” records including “the name, address, and telephone number of the caller, telephone number called, date, time and length of the call.”

At Thursday’s meeting (PDF) of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group, which was created by Congress and organized by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Motta stressed that the bureau was not asking that content data, such as the text of e-mail messages, be retained.

“The question at least for the bureau has been about non-content transactional data to be preserved: transmission records, non-content records…addressing, routing, signaling of the communication,” Motta said. Director Mueller recognizes, he added “there’s going to be a balance of what industry can bear…He recommends origin and destination information for non-content data.”

Motta pointed to a 2006 resolution from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which called for the “retention of customer subscriber information, and source and destination information for a minimum specified reasonable period of time so that it will be available to the law enforcement community.”

Recording what Web sites are visited, though, is likely to draw both practical and privacy objections.

“We’re not set up to keep URL information anywhere in the network,” said Drew Arena, Verizon’s vice president and associate general counsel for law enforcement compliance.

And, Arena added, “if you were do to deep packet inspection to see all the URLs, you would arguably violate the Wiretap Act.”

Another industry representative with knowledge of how Internet service providers work was unaware of any company keeping logs of what Web sites its customers visit.

If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant.

What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing. The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as http://reviews.cnet.com/Music/2001-6450_7-0.html.

While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it. That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States.

The technical challenges also may be formidable. John Seiver, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine who represents cable providers, said one of his clients had experience with a law enforcement request that required the logging of outbound URLs.

“Eighteen million hits an hour would have to have been logged,” a staggering amount of data to sort through, Seiver said. The purpose of the FBI’s request was to identify visitors to two URLs, “to try to find out…who’s going to them.”

A Justice Department representative said the department does not have an official position on data retention.

Related Posts:

• Police want backdoor to Web users’ private data
• Yahoo, Verizon: Our Spy Capabilities Would ‘Shock’, ‘Confuse’ Consumers
• Top anti-drug official was ’secret ally of drug lords’
• The Rule of Law Has Been Lost
• RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”

Anyone with an e-mail account likely knows that police can peek inside it if they have a paper search warrant.

But cybercrime investigators are frustrated by the speed of traditional methods of faxing, mailing, or e-mailing companies these documents. They’re pushing for the creation of a national Web interface linking police computers with those of Internet and e-mail providers so requests can be sent and received electronically.

CNET has reviewed a survey scheduled to be released at a federal task force meeting on Thursday, which says that law enforcement agencies are virtually unanimous in calling for such an interface to be created. Eighty-nine percent of police surveyed, it says, want to be able to “exchange legal process requests and responses to legal process” through an encrypted, police-only “nationwide computer network.” (See one excerpt and another.)

The survey, according to two people with knowledge of the situation, is part of a broader push from law enforcement agencies to alter the ground rules of online investigations. Other components include renewed calls for laws requiring Internet companies to store data about their users for up to five years and increased pressure on companies to respond to police inquiries in hours instead of days.

But the most controversial element is probably the private Web interface, which raises novel security and privacy concerns, especially in the wake of a recent inspector general’s report (PDF) from the Justice Department. The 289-page report detailed how the FBI obtained Americans’ telephone records by citing nonexistent emergencies and simply asking for the data or writing phone numbers on a sticky note rather than following procedures required by law.

Some companies already have police-only Web interfaces. Sprint Nextel operates what it calls the L-Site, also known as the “legal compliance secure Web portal.” The company even has offered a course that “will teach you how to create and track legal demands through L-site. Learn to navigate and securely download requested records.” Cox Communications makes its price list for complying with police requests public; a 30-day wiretap is $3,500.

The police survey is not exactly unbiased: its author is Frank Kardasz, who is scheduled to present it at a meeting (PDF) of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group, organized by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Kardasz, a sergeant in the Phoenix police department and a project director of Arizona’s Internet Crimes Against Children task force, said in an e-mail exchange on Tuesday that he is still revising the document and was unable to discuss it.

In an incendiary October 2009 essay, however, Kardasz wrote that Internet service providers that do not keep records long enough “are the unwitting facilitators of Internet crimes against children” and called for new laws to “mandate data preservation and reporting.” He predicts that those companies will begin to face civil lawsuits because of their “lethargic investigative process.”

“It sounds very dangerous,” says Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, referring to the police-only Web interface. “Let’s assume you set this sort of thing up. What does that mean in terms of what the law enforcement officer be able to do? Would they be able to fish through transactional information for anyone? I don’t understand how you create a system like this without it.”

What police see in ISPs
Kardasz’s survey, based on questionnaires completed by 100 police investigators, says that 61 percent of them had their investigations harmed “because data was not retained” and only 40 percent were satisfied with the timeliness of responses from Internet providers.

It also says: “89 percent of investigators agreed that a nationwide computer network should be established for the purpose of linking ISPs with law enforcement agencies so that they may exchange legal process requests and responses to legal process. Authorized users would communicate through encrypted virtual private networks in order to maintain the security of the data.”

Some of the responses to other questions: “AT&T is very prompt.” “Cox Communications seems to be the worst.” “Places like Yahoo can take a month for basic subscriber info which is also a problem.” “AT&T Mobility does not keep a log at all.” “MySpace give (sic) me the quickest response and they have been very pro-police.”

Hemanshu (Hemu) Nigam, MySpace’s chief security officer, said in an interview with CNET on Tuesday that: “You can be very supportive of law enforcement investigations and at the same time be very cognizant and supportive of the privacy rights of our users. Every time a legal process comes in, whether it’s a subpoena or a search order, we do a legal review to make sure it’s appropriate.”

Nigam said that MySpace accepts law enforcement requests through e-mail, fax, and postal mail, and that it has a 24-hour operations center that tries to respond to requests soon after they’ve been reviewed to make sure state and federal laws are being followed. MySpace does not have a police-only Web interface, he said.

Creating a national police-only network would be problematic, Nigam said. “I wish I knew the number of local police agencies in the country, or even police officers in the country,” he said. “Right there that would tell you how difficult it would be to implement, even though ideally it would be a good thing.”

Another obstacle to creating a nation-wide Web interface for cops–one wag has dubbed it “DragNet,” and another “Porknet”–is that some of its thousands of users could be infected by viruses and other malware. Once an infected computer is hooked up to the national network, it could leak confidential information about ongoing investigations.

Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute, says that he welcomes the idea of a police-only Web interface as long as it’s designed carefully. “A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversight,” he says. “I think that’s a good thing to have.”

Related Posts:

• Arizona is Right
• FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
• READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States
• The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
• FEMA Concentration Camps: Locations and Executive Orders

by Tom Burghardt

Antifascist Calling… – 2010-01-31
Court Tosses NSA Spy Suits, Sides with White House Over Illegal Surveillance

In late January, the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General released a report that provided startling new details on illegal operations by the FBI’s Communications Analysis Unit (CAU) and America’s grifting telecoms.

For years, AT&T, Verizon, MCI and others fed the Bureau phone records of journalists and citizens under the guise of America’s endless, and highly profitable, “War on Terror.”

Between 2002 and 2007, the FBI illegally collected more than 4,000 U.S. telephone records, citing bogus terrorism threats or simply by persuading telephone companies to hand over the records. Why? Because the FBI could and the telecoms were more than willing to help out a “friend”–and reap profits accrued by shredding the Constitution in the process.

So egregious had these practices become that “based on nothing more than e-mail messages or scribbled requests on Post-it notes, the phone employees turned over customer calling records” to the FBI, The New York Times reported.

And when questions about these dodgy practices were raised internally, top FBI managers “up to the assistant director level” approved CAU’s blatantly illegal methodology and responded by “crafting a ‘blanket’ national security letter to authorize all past searches that had not been covered by open cases,” The Washington Post disclosed.

“On some occasions” according to the Times, “the phone employees allowed the F.B.I. to upload call records to government databases. On others, they allowed agents to view records on their computer screens, a practice that became known as ‘sneak peeks’.”

“But in a surprise buried at the end of the 289-page report” Wired disclosed, “the inspector general also reveals that the Obama administration issued a secret rule almost two weeks ago saying it was legal for the FBI to have skirted federal privacy protections.”

Investigative journalist Ryan Singel revealed that the “Obama administration retroactively legalized the entire fiasco through a secret ruling from the Office of Legal Counsel nearly two weeks ago.”

“That’s the same office” Singel writes, “from which John Yoo blessed President George W. Bush’s torture techniques and warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ communications that crossed the border.”

While corporate media frame these stories as if they were practices of the far-distant Bushist past, former telephone technician and AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein, who leaked documents on the existence of secret NSA-controlled spy rooms embedded in AT&T switching offices across the country, believes otherwise.

Klein told Wired journalist David Kravets January 29, that the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP) and internal AT&T documents suggest that the program “was just the tip of an eavesdropping iceberg.”

According to Klein, these programs are not “targeted” against suspected terrorists but rather “show an untargeted, massive vacuum cleaner sweeping up millions of peoples’ communications every second automatically.”

Yet despite overwhelming evidence of lawbreaking by the secret state and their corporate partners, on January 21 U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker tossed out the EFF’s lawsuit, Jewell v. NSA, filed on behalf of AT&T customers fighting the National Security Agency’s illegal operations that target millions of citizens’ phone calls, emails and web searches.

In a cowardly ruling that skirts the issue of Americans’ privacy rights, Walker reaffirmed the unlimited power of the so-called “Unitary Executive,” Bushist double-speak for a presidential dictatorship; a position embraced by current Oval Office resident, the discredited “change” President, Barack Obama.

In a further sign that the Executive Branch and secret state agencies are above the law, Walker ruled that harm done to U.S. citizens and legal residents under the PSP, was not a “particularized injury” but instead was a “generalized grievance” because almost everyone in the United States has a phone and Internet service.

Chillingly, Walker asserted that “a citizen may not gain standing by claiming a right to have the government follow the law.” This pitiful summary judgement merely affirms the obvious: America is a lawless state where neither citizens nor “co-equal” branches of government, Congress and the Courts, can challenge the quintessentially political decisions made in secret by the Executive Branch.

Despite the fact that an audit by the Justice Department’s own Office of the Inspector General found that the FBI and telecom grifters colluded together to violate federal wiretapping laws, to wit, the Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA) and continue to do so today, Walker’s ruling means that Americans are left without an legal mechanism to redress the systematic destruction of their rights.

According to enforcement provisions of ECPA: “A court issuing an order under this section against a telecommunications carrier, a manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or switching equipment, or a provider of telecommunications support services may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each day in violation after the issuance of the order or after such future date as the court may specify.”

It is all-too-clear that were these lawsuits to go forward and the telecoms lose, the giant phone companies and internet service providers, which the Justice Department was forced to admit in court papers are an “arm of the government … when it comes to secret spying,” as Wired reported in October, would potentially face astronomical fines.

Strip away Walker’s mendacious reasoning and what we’re left with is another in an endless series of moves by the capitalist state to defend the interests of their political masters: the corporate oligarchy and financial swindlers who resort to police state methods of rule to shore-up a crumbling empire.

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston denounced the ruling and said, “The alarming upshot of the court’s decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional.”

Last June, Walker dismissed EFF’s Hepting v. AT&T lawsuit that targeted illegal collaboration between AT&T and the NSA. In that case, the court ruled that the telecoms enjoyed retroactive immunity from liability when the Democratic-controlled Congress, and then-Senator and corporatist presidential candidate Barack Obama, voted in favor of the despicable FISA Amendments Act (FAA).

Antifascist Calling reported that the Obama administration argued that Jewell too, must be dismissed on similar grounds. Taking a page from the Bush/Cheney playbook, the government claimed that should Jewell go forward, it would require disclosure of “privileged state secrets.”

As I wrote at the time, the claim of “sovereign immunity” and a “state secrets” privilege means that the government can never be held accountable for blatant illegalities under any federal statute. In other words, under such conditions the “rule of law” is a fraudulent exercise and gross criminality, when sanctioned at the highest levels of the state, becomes the norm as formerly democratic and republican forms of self-governance slip ineluctably towards the abyss of presidential dictatorship.

Following in the footsteps of his White House predecessor, the cynical nature of Obama’s rhetoric is all the more remarkable, considering that the president announced last September amid great fanfare that his administration will “impose new limits on the government assertion of the state secrets privilege used to block lawsuits for national security reasons,” according to The New York Times.

Despite administration posturing that it would be the most “open” in history, “more than 300 individuals and groups have sued the government to get records” in the year since Obama assumed office, The Washington Post reported January 27.

“In case after case” the Post disclosed, “plaintiffs say little has changed since the Bush administration years, when most began their quests for records. Agencies still often fight requests for disclosure, contending that national security and internal decision-making need to be protected.”

Nowhere is this penchant for secrecy more pronounced then by the Obama administration’s steadfast refusal to turn over the names of telecom lobbyists who bought-off their congressional allies in the run-up to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been litigating a Freedom of Information Act request against the government, demanding that the administration turn over the names of corporate lobbyists who had contacted Congress, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on behalf of their telecom clients bid for retroactive immunity under the FAA.

According to EFF, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon lobbyists forked over bundles of cash, as the watchdog group MAPLight revealed in 2008, when they published a list of campaign contributions to congressional Democrats who changed their votes on FAA once the wheels had been sufficiently greased.

Despite claims of “openness” and “transparency,” the administration is still fighting hard to conceal the names of these lobbyists from the American people. In December, EFFreported that the Justice Department “argued to the appeals court that ‘there is no public interest in the compelled disclosure of the representatives’ identities’.”

Having pledged to the American people that his would be an administration based on the rule of law and public accountability, the Obama presidency has proven itself to be just as secretive and mendacious as the Bush/Cheney cabal that ruled the roost for eight long and bloody years.

Our “forward looking” president, and the ruling class elites who have presided over the destruction of our democracy demonstrate on a daily basis the accountability-averse culture that has been a staple of American political life for decades.

While the federal courts toss out suits by citizens demanding that their right to privacy not be sacrificed to corporate looters and their police state accomplices, the architects of torture and driftnet surveillance get a free pass.

Newsweek reported January 29, that a long-awaited report from the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) “clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the ‘torture’ memos of professional-misconduct allegations.”

Leaving aside Newsweek’s placement of quotation marks around the word “torture,” a practice fully in keeping with the corporate media’s consensus that such heinous practices have “kept us safe,” Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman write that while the probe “is sharply critical” of the “legal reasoning” used to justify CIA and Pentagon crimes however, “a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding.”

That earlier version had concluded that two of the key authors of Bushist torture and surveillance policies, Federal Appeals Court Judge Jay Bybee and University of California law professor John Yoo, “violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics.”

“But the reviewer” Newsweek notes, “career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed ‘poor judgment’.”

By downgrading OPR’s original finding, the Justice Department is no longer obligated to send a referral to state bar associations “for potential disciplinary action–which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.”

Despite the tortured reasoning of blind Obama loyalists, Dick Cheney’s “Unitary Executive” is alive and well.

After all, Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!

Related Posts:

• Flight 253 Cover-Up: “No Smoking Gun” Claims Undercut by New Disclosures
• Spying on Americans: Obama Endorses Bush Era Warrantless Wiretapping
• The Kingdom of Lies
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• FBI Spied On Tea Party Protesters Nationwide

Getty

The NYPD is instructing cops to log serial numbers from suspects’ phones.

The NYPD is amassing a database of cell phone users, instructing cops to log serial numbers from suspects’ phones in hopes of connecting them to past or future crimes.

In the era of disposable, anonymous cell phones, the file could be a treasure-trove for detectives investigating drug rings and other criminal enterprises, police sources say.

“It’s used to help build cases,” one source said of the new initiative.

“It doesn’t replace the human element, like debriefing prisoners, but it’s another tool to use that we didn’t have in the past.”

A recent internal memo says that when cops make an arrest, they should remove the suspect’s cell phone battery to avoid leakage – then jot down the International Mobile Equipment Identity number.

The IMEI number is registered with the service provider whenever a call is made.

And that data could allow a detective to match, for example, a cell phone used by one suspect to a phone used by another.

There are limits to the data’s usefulness – all Chinese-made cells sold in India have the same number and some overseas cells are embedded with fake numbers.

Still, civil libertarians are alarmed by the new policy since normally a warrant is needed to obtain information such as calls made or numbers in an address book.

New York Civil Liberties Union associate legal director Christopher Dunn said it appears the NYPD is “taking phones apart to get information” without warrants.

“It’s hard to believe they feel there’s a real need to take out the battery to prevent leakage,” he said. “Instead, it looks like they’re doing this to circumvent the warrant process.”

The cell phone information joins another database of more than 20 million 911 callers that the NYPD has been building. It has paid off.

In one case involving a 911 call, detectives solved a burglary pattern after the suspect left a slip of paper with his cell number on it at a crime scene, Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said.

The phone was disposable so no owner information was available, but police were able to track it to the suspect because he had used it to make a 911 call after he was assaulted.

The NYPD started collecting 911 data for incidents involving a police response in 2003. Four years ago, it began putting the information into its new computer nerve center, the Real Time Crime Center.

rparascandola@nydailynews.com

Related Posts:

• Cops love iPhone data trail
• Secret Army Spy Plane May Have Snooped on Times Square Bomber
• Harvard-Educated Neurobiologist, Co-Inventor of Revolutionary Medical Research Device, Involved with Mass Shooting?
• NSA Supercenters to Store Americans’ Private Data Permanently
• Police stop more than 1 million people on street

• By David Kravets
• May 15, 2009  |

SAN FRANCISCO — Setting the stage for a constitutional showdown, the Obama administration dared a federal judge here late Friday to do what no judge has yet done: disclose classified data the government has declared a national security state secret.

The administration urged (.pdf) U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to order such a disclosure in a 3-year-old lawsuit weighing whether a sitting U.S. president may bypass Congress and adopt a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Such an order, the administration said, could halt three years of convoluted litigation and force the appellate courts to weigh in on the hotly contested issue.

The classified data in question shows that telephone calls by two American lawyers for a now-defunct Saudi charity were intercepted by the government without warrants in 2004. Without the classified documents admitted as evidence in the case, the aggrieved lawyers for the al-Haramain charity, which the Bush administration designated as a terror group, cannot establish a legal basis to earn them a day in court.

The eavesdropping evidence in the Islamic charity’s case came to light after the Treasury Department accidentally disclosed a classified document to the plaintiffs five years ago.

The evidence, which the Bush and Obama administrations have declared a state secret, has never been made public. Counsel for the charity lawyers returned the document to the government, but have continued fighting to use the document to challenge Bush’s spy program, which was adopted in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks. Bush acknowledged the program in 2005, and Congress legalized it in July.

Judge Walker has ordered the government twice to work with the plaintiff’s lawyers to craft a so-called “protective order” by which only the plaintiffs lawyers would have access to the document to enable the case to be litigated. There would be no public disclosure of the evidence.

Walker, in January and again in April, demanded the Justice Department, in conjunction with plaintiff’s lawyers, to craft the protective order like those used to prosecute Guantanamo Bay detainees.

But Walker has never pulled the trigger and actually ordered the disclosure of the documents to the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case.

So in a court filing late Friday, the Obama administration again refused to cooperate in creating a protective order. Instead, the administration challenged Walker to go beyond a protective order and actually demand disclosure of the records.

That would commence the first constitutional showdown surrounding the disclosure of state secrets in a bid to get the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review Walker’s decision.

Walker’s earlier orders in the case have not been ripe enough for the San Francisco appellate court to review.

“Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that, before the court grants plaintiffs’ counsel access to state secrets, the court enter an order directing disclosure or otherwise provide adequate notice of any disclosure to enable the government to seek a stay and take an appeal,” Anthony Coppolino, the Justice Department’s special litigation counsel, wrote Judge Walker.

The state secrets defense was first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit in 1953, and has been increasingly and successfully invoked by federal lawyers seeking to shield the government from court scrutiny. Lawsuits in which national-security information may be divulged are always tossed by judges at the request of the government –- often by judges who never reviewed any classified data.

In this case, Walker reviewed the classified material and said the evidence pointed toward illegal spying.

A George H. W. Bush appointee, Walker has defied the government on state secrets before, but has never ordered the disclosure of evidence the government has declared classified.

He rejected the Bush administration’s state secrets claim in lawsuits challenging the nation’s telecommunication companies’ complicity with Bush’s once-secret electronic eavesdropping program. But Congress stepped in and immunized the telcos from the lawsuits.

With then-Sen. Barack Obama’s vote in July, Congress also sanctioned Bush’s spy program that authorized warrantless wiretapping on Americans if they are communicating overseas with suspected terrorists.

Walker is also weighing a challenge to that immunity legislation.

Jon Eisenberg, an attorney for the al-Haramain lawyers – Wendell Belew and Asim Gafoor — is urging Walker to disclose the information without the government’s consent.

“For this case to resume forward progress, the court can simply adopt a protective order under which the court will afford plaintiffs access to the classified filings,” Eisenberg wrote Walker late Friday.

But if Walker obliges Eisenberg, another constitutional crisis may surface. The Justice Department, in an earlier filing, suggested it may “withdraw” the documents at issue regardless of Walker’s orders.

That’s because the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation material likely remains locked under the control of the Obama administration’s Litigation Security Section of the Justice Department, according to the record in the case.

Last month, the government acknowledged that, in 2005, it purposely destroyed 92 videotapes to cover up evidence of mistreatment of U.S. terror suspects — evidence the American Civil Liberties Union was trying to bring to light in a New York federal court lawsuit against the Defense Department.

Related Posts:

• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation
• MSM: Revealed – The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich …in the EU
• White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’
• A Nation Transformed by Fear!