Abuse Of Power And Police/Security Agencies: There They Go Again

Here's one more example of what can, will and do happens when we turn a blind eye to granting indiscriminate powers to police and security agencies:

Read More +/-

Phoenix police raid a blogger

In what should send a frightening chill down the spine of every blogger, writer, journalist and First Amendment advocate in the United States, Phoenix police raided the home of a blogger who has been highly critical of the department.

Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging.

The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment - which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation.

I've told you so, didn't I?

Any questions?

Then try this one for size:

No more freedom of the Internet.

That's right - and it is coming sooner than later indeed:

Cybersecurity Act would give president power to 'shut down' Internet

A recently proposed but little-noticed Senate bill would allow the federal government to shut down the Internet in times of declared emergency, and enables unprecedented federal oversight of private network administration.

The bill's draft states that "the president may order a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic" and would give the government ongoing access to "all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access."

Authored by Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 seeks to create a Cybersecurity Czar to centralize power now held by the Pentagon, National Security Agency, Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security.

While the White House has not officially endorsed the draft, it did have a hand in its language, according to The Washington Post.

Paging China, paging China ...

Ah, the things people are willing to do/accept in the name of Holy Security.

Q.E.D. - once again.

And so it goes ...

(Addendum: although China pledged to improve human rights, allow me to remain skeptical - just as I have become quite skeptical of anything President Obama says concerning civil rights. As but one example among many, take the time to contrast this (or this) with that (or that) - you'll then better understand my point.)

Thus I repeat: any questions?

Dear President Obama ...

... for someone who is supposed to know law and who has repeatedly pledged to respect not only the rule of law of your country but also international laws and treaties, you and your administration are definitely acting like two-faced, mendacious, incompetents.

Read More +/-

Indeed (emphasis added):

Obama Justice Dep. defends Rumsfeld in torture case

In a brief filed Thursday evening, Obama Justice Department lawyers extended many of the same arguments made by Bush attorneys – that top government officials have qualified immunity from prosecution and that Guantanamo detainees do not have constitutional rights to due process.

The Department of Justice has asserted that a Supreme Court ruling reaffirming the rights of Guantanamo detainees to habeus corpus does not apply to plaintiffs in a case against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld because the plaintiffs were released from prison four years prior to the SCOTUS decision.

“It is fair to say that the current brief that is filed by the new administration supports a lot of the arguments that were made by the previous administration,” said Kate Toomey, an attorney with Baach Robinson & Lewis who is representing the former detainees in an interview with RAW STORY. “They continue to assert that torture was in the scope of employment and could be reasonably expected. They continue to assert that these [top officials] be entitled to immunity. They also continue to argue that detainees at Guantanamo don’t have constitutional rights.”

Let me remind you of what I previously conveyed to your CIA director, Mr. Leon Panetta:

(...) the Convention Against Torture, which was signed by President Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994, explicitly states the following among others (emphasis added):

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
   1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
   2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
   3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Incidentally, I ended this previous reminder of the laws of the land of your country, Mr. President, with the following probing question (addressed then to Mr. Panetta):

Are you then saying that you, and therefore the Obama administration, repudiate such laws?

It would seem that I now have an unequivocal answer to this question.

Hence, Mr. President, you and your administration stand in utter contempt of the laws of your own country, as well as of your own constitution and all international laws and treaties signed by your country to this effect.

Just be reminded of your very own words (emphasis added):

"But what we cannot do is have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world."

Therefore you, sir, are a blatant, shameless, hypocritical, and untrustworthy, liar.

Allow me to paraphrase what I conveyed already to your CIA director:

It should be obvious to you now, sir, that your demonstrated legal strategies so far not only constitute implied condoning of torture, but furthermore constitute a disavowal of the law of your country regarding torture - and consequently A) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of any and all acts of torture performed under the Bush administration; and B) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration.

All of which, under the same laws outlined above, render you and your administration equally guilty of criminal offences as outlined by said laws against torture.

Ergo: you and your administration are no better than your (criminal) predecessor and his administration.

Here is but yet another case in point: your pledge of government transparency versus your mendacious actions in this respect.

Mr. President Obama - you are a sham and an incompetent - and a criminal one at that.

Just. Like. Your. Predecessor.

You, sir, are no change at all.

You are merely an extension - and continuation - of the crimes against Humanity, human rights and civil rights, that have been committed over the last eight years, and which are now still being committed under you and your equally criminal administration.

Consequently, you may consider yourself put on notice regarding such criminality.

After all - ignorance of the law is not an excuse to justify breaking the law ... as you should well know.

May you go down as much in infamy as your predecessor has.

That, at the very least, would constitute small comfort to those of us who genuinely and sincerely uphold human rights, human decency and civil rights - you know - the truly civilized ones.

An ideal that you, sir, and your damned administration, cannot claim to be anymore.

(Cross-posted from APOV)

Dear CIA Director Leon Panetta ...

I would simply like to bring to your utmost attention that your internal e-mail boldly declaring that "agency employees who took part in harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects are not in danger of being punished" is in direct contravention of the law of your country.

Read More +/-

Indeed, the Convention Against Torture, which was signed by President Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994, explicitly states the following among others (emphasis added):

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
   1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
   2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
   3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Therefore, it should be obvious to you now, sir, that your aforementioned e-mail declaration not only constitutes implied condoning of torture, but furthermore constitutes a disavowal of the law of your country regarding torture - and consequently A) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of any and all acts of torture performed by CIA agents since 2001 (i.e. under the Bush administration); B) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration; and C) by extension due to the context of your nomination as CIA director by President Obama, this makes the Obama administration directly complicit after the fact (through your own implied condoning) of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration.

All of which, under the same laws, render you and the Obama administration equally guilty of criminal offence as outlined by said laws against torture.

Are you then saying that you, and therefore the Obama administration, repudiate such laws?

If that is not the case, then I strongly suggest to you, sir, that you seriously reconsider your position ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)