RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Dianne Feinstein's Bill Is a Big Step Backwards for Privacy Print
Friday, 08 November 2013 15:05

Richardson writes: "The legislation would make clear in no uncertain terms that communication records like phone, email, and internet data can be collected without even an ounce of suspicion."

Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein. (photo: J Scott Applewhite/AP)
Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein. (photo: J Scott Applewhite/AP)


Dianne Feinstein's Bill Is a Big Step Backwards for Privacy

By Michelle Richardson, Guardian UK

08 November 13

 

Senator Feinstein's bill is a big step backwards for privacy. In contrast, the USA Freedom Act would stop intelligence abuses

embers of Congress have introduced almost 30 separate bills to rein in NSA spying, increase transparency, or rework the secret court process that has sanctioned these programs. Two pieces of legislation, however, have momentum, and they couldn't be more different.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – the body charged with oversight of these very programs – advanced legislation introduced by its chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat from California), last week that would entrench the current spying programs and give them explicit Congressional authorization to continue.

The legislation would make clear in no uncertain terms that communication records like phone, email, and internet data can be collected without even an ounce of suspicion, pursuant to the so-called privacy rules already in place. Being silent on other types of data like location information or financial records, it passively condones their collection too, but without even the benefit of the paltry protections in place now. For the first time in history, Congress would explicitly and intentionally authorize dragnet domestic spying programs targeting every day Americans.

The Feinstein bill also makes the current situation even worse. It gives the government a 72-hour grace period to warrantlessly spy on foreigners who enter the US, without even the attorney general approval that is currently required in emergency situations. It explicitly states that none of its provisions should be read to prevent law enforcement from digging through massive NSA databases for evidence of criminal activity. By doing so, it authorizes that specific practice in a roundabout way. Finally, it sets up the prospect of all members of Congress accessing important court orders and other information, but then undercuts this requirement by endorsing current rules and practices that have been used to prevent members of the House from reading foundational documents that could inform the votes they must make on whether to continue these programs.

The counterproposal is called the USA Freedom Act. Introduced by Rep James Sensenbrenner (a Wisconsin Republican) and Senator Patrick Leahy (a Vermont Democrat) of the powerful House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the bill has already picked up over 100 bipartisan members of Congress as cosponsors. Unlike Sen. Feinstein's bill, the USA Freedom Act would start to rein in the NSA's dragnet surveillance programs by banning the suspicionless collection of Americans' phone calls. It would also amend the Patriot Act so that it could not be used for bulk collection of other forms of communications data under other abused authorities, like national security letters and pen registers.

The USA Freedom Act would also narrow collection of data under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and require court approval before the government could search the rich data troves collected under that law for US persons. It would direct the administration to find a way to release the secret court opinions underpinning these programs, as well as provide for a privacy advocate who could advise the surveillance court.

The bill fixes the draconian and unconstitutional gag orders that come with surveillance court orders, so the companies that receive them can provide basic information to their customers and the public. In total, the bill starts to chip away at the indiscriminate surveillance state and redirect the government towards surveillance focused on suspected terrorists – and not the rest of us.

No matter how you cut it, the Feinstein bill is a big step backwards for privacy, and the USA Freedom Act is an incredibly important step forward. To be clear, Congress will not be choosing between two reform proposals that differ only in degree. It will be choosing, instead, between one bill that allows the government to engage in indiscriminate surveillance of its citizens and another that subjects government surveillance to the common-sense limits that are required by the Constitution and fundamental in any democratic society. If you think the government's actions are beyond the pale now, wait until you see what it does with something like the Feinstein bill and a congressional stamp of approval for its past overreach.

Americans have the right to be left alone unless suspected of wrongdoing. Rep Sensenbrenner and Senator Leahy understand this simple and revered American ideal; Senator Feinstein does not. There's only one way forward that will protect privacy: the USA Freedom Act, and Congress needs to act on it immediately.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I Won't Just Be Your Senator Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7122"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 08 November 2013 09:03

Warren writes: "To everyone who shared your hopes and dreams with me during the campaign and put your faith in my ability to fight for you, know this: it's been a year, but I'm still ready to fight."

Senator Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Getty Images)
Senator Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Getty Images)


I Won't Just Be Your Senator

By Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News

08 November 13

 

year ago last night, I made a promise to you. I stood on the stage at our election night party and I said:

"I won't just be your Senator, I will also be your champion."

Every day that I'm in the United States Senate, I think about those words from my election night speech.

Yesterday, I gave a speech on the floor of the Senate about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - legislation that would finally protect LGBT Americans from discrimination in the workplace.

Equal marriage is now the law in 14 states. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have put in place laws to protect against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the Supreme Court has rejected the Defense of Marriage Act.

For many years, Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman Barney Frank led the fight in Congress to pass ENDA. I thought of them, and thought about how many of my friends and neighbors, how many people across this country, had worked so hard for this moment.

I felt a deep joy to be on the floor of the Senate today to hear the roll call and the bill finally pass. I thought to myself: We're one step closer to a country where equal means equal.

Now we turn to the House Republicans. They seem ready to stop the bill in its tracks - to continue their fight against the promises of equality that define our country, to resist the will of the American people. If they resist, I'm ready to fight. We are not going back.

When I said I wanted to be your champion a year ago, I meant a champion for ALL of us. Students trying to get an education without going broke. Seniors trying to live with dignity on their Social Security benefits. Parents trying to make ends meet on a level playing field. And every American trying to work without fear of losing their job over who they are and who they love.

To everyone who shared your hopes and dreams with me during the campaign and put your faith in my ability to fight for you, know this: it's been a year, but I'm still ready to fight.

Whether that means standing up to extreme Republicans in the House or demanding accountability for big banks that break the rules, I'm still ready to fight.

I'm still ready to fight because I believe as strongly as ever that when we fight, we can win.

Thank you for continuing to be a part of this. You have always had my back, and I will always have yours.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Kerry's Saudi-Israeli Appeasement Tour Print
Thursday, 07 November 2013 14:48

Parry writes: "Secretary of State Kerry is scurrying from capital to capital across the Mideast in what looks like an apology tour."

Secretary of State John Kerry. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
Secretary of State John Kerry. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)


Kerry's Saudi-Israeli Appeasement Tour

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

07 November 13

 

audi Arabia faults President Barack Obama for demonstrating a lack of leadership in confronting Middle East crises, by which the kingdom means he should have intervened militarily in the Syrian civil war and fully backed the Egyptian coup d'etat. But Obama's real lack of spine was on display when he sent Secretary of State John Kerry on a groveling tour seeking to placate Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Kerry seemingly must have worn out his knee pads in one "allied" capital after another, offering reassurances that the Obama administration won't go too easy on the Iranians in nuclear talks, won't cede much ground to Syria in peace negotiations, won't be too tough on Egypt's military dictators, and won't protest Israel's latest land grab.

When in Israel, Kerry faced the embarrassment of new Israeli housing being approved for East Jerusalem and the West Bank. When in Egypt, while praising the Egyptian military for pursuing the right course on democracy, the dictatorship was putting the elected president Mohamed Morsi and his allies on trial for murder.

However, perhaps most humiliating was Kerry's flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he reassured King Abdullah that the United States shared the Saudi goals on Syria, Iran and Egypt and that the only disagreements were on tactics.

The oh-so-polite Kerry even avoiding confronting the Saudi royals over their abominable treatment of women. He laughed off a question about whether Saudi women should be allowed to drive, saying that the debate over women's rights was "best left to Saudi Arabia."

The Saudis took Kerry's measure and soon were briefing American reporters on Obama's weak-kneed foreign policy.

According to a New York Times article, "At the root of much of the Saudis' criticism was the perception that President Obama was uncomfortable with exercising power on the world stage, a gnawing worry for Saudi officials who have become increasingly concerned about the role of their nemesis Iran in Syria and elsewhere in the region."

Yet, if President Obama wished to show off some real muscle, he might have had Secretary Kerry scold the Saudis about their abuse of women and confront the Saudis about their bloody support of radical jihadists who have been deployed across the region wreaking havoc and engaging in terrorism.

Not only did Saudi nationals make up most of the roster of the 9/11 hijackers, inspired by another Saudi, Osama bin Laden, but al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists have long enjoyed the largesse of elements of the Saudi royal family and served essentially as the kingdom's global paramilitary force, whether fighting Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s or destabilizing the Syrian government today.

Deniability on Terror

Though the Saudi government practices deniability in its relationship with these violent extremists, Saudi leaders sense that their immense clout over oil and financial markets – and thus their ability to disrupt Western economies – makes them essentially untouchable.

So, they often demonstrate highhandedness even when dealing with U.S. presidents, such as when Prince Bandar bin Sultan – as Saudi ambassador to the United States during the 9/11 attacks – got President George W. Bush to let members of the bin Laden family leave U.S. cities on the first flights allowed back into the air, post-9/11, and after only cursory interviews with the FBI.

Now as head of Saudi intelligence, Bandar has been throwing his weight around by expressing his displeasure with Russia and the United States for not joining Saudi Arabia in overthrowing the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Bandar's arrogance included what sounded like thinly veiled threats about possible terrorism against the Winter Olympics in Russia if President Vladimir Putin didn't bend to Saudi desires on Syria.

According to a diplomatic account of a Bandar-Putin meeting on July 31 in Moscow, Bandar made clear that Saudi Arabia has been pulling the strings on the Chechen militants who have carried out numerous terrorist attacks inside Russia and who could be reined in during the Olympics in Sochi next year if there was a Saudi-Russian agreement on Syria.

A source familiar with the meeting told me that Putin viewed the reference to Sochi as something akin to a Mafia don shaking down a shopkeeper for protection money by saying, "nice little business you got here, I'd hate to see anything happen to it." I'm also told that Putin responded with his own blunt warning to Bandar about holding Saudi Arabia accountable if any Islamic terrorist group does attack the Olympics.

The Obama administration could have shown similar toughness in spurning Saudi Arabia's demands that the United States essentially intervene on its side in the Sunni-Shiite sectarian strife that is playing out across the region. The Saudis are leading the Sunni contingent of Middle East nations, with Iran anchoring the so-called Shiite crescent which extends through Iraq and Syria to the Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon.

President Obama could have bluntly explained that the United States won't take sides in a sectarian conflict that dates back nearly 1,400 years to the succession struggle after the Prophet Mohammad died in 632. At the Battle of Karbala, the slaughter of Hussein ibn Ali and his household divided the Islamic community into Shiite and Sunni sects.

Those ancient hostilities continue to divide the Islamic world in modern times, flaring up after the Iranian revolution in 1979 – when a revolutionary Shiite regime took power and unnerved the more conservative Sunni power structure based in Saudi Arabia. Saudi fears about possible Iranian encroachment in the Persian Gulf drove the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War in which Iraq's Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein served as the bulwark against Shiite influence from Tehran.

A Misguided War

The delicate sectarian balance was disrupted again in 2003 when President George W. Bush invaded Iraq to overthrow Hussein, a victory that gave Iraq's Shiite majority the opportunity to seize control and build a working relationship with Shiite-ruled Iran. With Syria controlled by the Assad dynasty, based in the Alawite sect which is an offshoot of Shiite Islam, a Shiite crescent suddenly extended from Tehran to Beirut.

This expanding Shiite influence upset the Saudis who began supporting the Sunni rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and thus shatter the Shiite crescent. Though the Saudis claim they are backing the moderate Syrian opposition, their support also has been crucial in drawing jihadists from around the Muslim world into Syria.

Many of those jihadists are flocking to Syria from Saudi Arabia, including some of the most extreme elements with ties to al-Qaeda. Not only have these foreign jihadists engaged in acts of terrorism in Syria, they have used staged photos of dead militants – posed with macabre smiles on their faces – to recruit other extremists.

An article in Tuesday's Washington Post cited a Saudi fighter as the lead example: "In his death portrait, the young rebel's bearded face is fixed with a broad, unearthly grin. The Saudi man had been killed in fighting, and his corpse, with its beatific smile, was photographed and displayed in a Twitter posting inviting others to celebrate his martyrdom….

"Since the arrival of the first foreign jihadists in Syria more than two years ago, rebel volunteers have used Facebook and Twitter accounts to keep their friends and relatives updated about their experiences… When fighters are killed, the same Web sites offer a way to spread the news to family and friends and pay tribute to the fallen, researchers say. …

"Many of the postings include images and allusions intended to resonate with the Muslim faithful. In some photos, bodies with grievous wounds are posed so that they appear to be smiling or, in some cases, pointing to heaven. …

"A common belief among jihadists is that martyrdom brings special rewards in paradise, including the affections of 72 ‘houris' – black-eyed virgins promised to men in the afterlife – as well as an ability to win entry to heaven for the martyrs' relatives." [Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2013.]

If Kerry wanted to demonstrate the Obama administration's real comfort in exercising power on the world stage, he might have bluntly told Saudi intelligence to stop funding, arming and deploying these fanatics in Syria or anywhere else. Instead, Kerry behaved as a supplicant arriving in the kingdom to appease the petulant king and his court.

Bending in Egypt and Israel

Kerry made similar on-bended-knee appearances in Cairo and Jerusalem. In Egypt, Kerry praised the military regime that overthrew the elected president in July and brutally suppressed his Muslim Brotherhood followers, killing more than a thousand. As the New York Times reported,

"In substance as well as tone, Mr. Kerry's visit to Egypt reflected the Obama administration's determination to work with a military leadership that ruthlessly put down protesters from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement that put forth the successful candidacy of President Mohamed Morsi, who was ousted on July 3. A military government, now firmly entrenched here, has promised to establish a civilian-led government."

Kerry hailed the military regime's "road map" for moving toward the restoration of civilian rule, possibly with elections next spring. However, Kerry's trip coincided with the regime's decision to put Morsi and his political allies on trial for murder. The regime's timing and Kerry's praise represented another diplomatic embarrassment for the Obama administration.

In Israel, Kerry's appeal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to press ahead with peace talks with the Palestinians on a two-state solution was met with the Israeli government's approval of further expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Then, the Washington Post reported that key elements of Netanyahu's coalition were effectively forsaking the idea of a Palestinian state altogether in favor of annexing East Jerusalem and the West Bank as part of a Greater Israel. The plan called for making it hard, if not next to impossible, for many Palestinians to become Israeli citizens, thus guaranteeing continued Jewish domination. The Gaza Strip and its 1.6 million inhabitants would be abandoned to their own desperate fate.

"As Secretary of State John F. Kerry resumes talks [in Jerusalem] Wednesday in the quest to create ‘two states for two people,' a vocal faction in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is, more openly than ever, opposing the very idea of a Palestinian state - and putting forward its own plans to take, rather than give away, territory," the Post wrote.

The Netanyahu government appears emboldened by its new behind-the-scenes alliance with Saudi Arabia, as the two countries combine their geopolitical assets to advance common interests, including supporting the Syrian rebels, challenging Iran over its nuclear program, and aiding the military regime in Egypt.

In these joint endeavors, Israel brings to bear its extraordinary talents at propaganda and lobbying, while Saudi Arabia supplies the money and exploits its influence over oil and financial markets. One source familiar with the Israeli-Saudi tandem said Israel is using this relationship to both advance its regional interests and receive desperately needed cash from the Saudis, who are obsessed with prevailing over their Shiite rivals in Iran.

In the past several months, President Obama has gone against Saudi-Israeli demands that he intervene militarily in Syria to degrade Assad's military strength - and Obama has further alienated the two "allies" by showing a willingness to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program rather than join Israel in airstrikes against Iranian targets.

But Secretary Kerry's visits from capital to capital on what has the look of an apology tour – desperate to soothe the hurt feelings of Israel and Saudi Arabia – may only encourage Saudi and Israeli leaders to keep the geopolitical pressure on President Obama.



Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, "Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush," was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, "Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq" and "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'" are also available there.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Has It Become Too Easy to Kill? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=28222"><span class="small">Rep. Alan Grayson, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 07 November 2013 14:42

Grayson writes: "Last week, we made history, a very sad sort of history. I hosted the first Congressional briefing that featured the testimony of drone warfare victims."

Pakistani villagers offer funeral prayers for people who were reportedly killed by a U.S. drone attack, 06/16/11. (photo: AP)
Pakistani villagers offer funeral prayers for people who were reportedly killed by a U.S. drone attack, 06/16/11. (photo: AP)


Has It Become Too Easy to Kill?

By Rep. Alan Grayson, Reader Supported News

07 November 13

 

n September, on national TV, I said that "I am very disturbed by this idea that whenever we see something bad in the world, we should bomb it." Last week I felt even more disturbed, when I met some of the victims of that brutal idea.

Last week, we made history, a very sad sort of history. I hosted the first Congressional briefing that featured the testimony of drone warfare victims.

A year ago, a grandmother in her sixties was picking okra from her garden in a small village in South Waziristan. Her nine-year-old granddaughter was with her. Neither one was an enemy of the United States. Neither one was a threat to any American. Neither one was any kind of militant. In fact, neither really had ever given much thought to the United States.

A U.S. military drone flew overhead. It bombed them. The grandmother screamed and died. Her body was so butchered that the villagers would not allow her own children to see it. Her granddaughter was permanently injured.

The grandmother joined the 1,000 innocent victims of American drone warfare in Pakistan. A list that includes almost 200 children. By most accounts, between 10 percent and 30 percent of drone victims are guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Last week, I hosted the first Congressional briefing with Pakistani drone victims. One broken family got to tell its sad story to Congress, to the world, and now to you.

The son of the victim, Rafiq ur Rehman, spoke first. He and his mother lived in a village with no public services, far from any road. He is a teacher. His mother was the village storyteller. In the eyes of the villagers, he said in elegy and in eulogy, she was the string that held the pearls on a necklace. And now she is gone.

His two children also testified. His daughter, who was with her grandmother that fateful day, spoke about her injuries. One of the children said that they used to pray for blue skies, because they were so beautiful. Now they pray for gray skies, because the drones are absent -- temporarily.

They wanted to know why the United States had killed Grandma. I didn't have an answer. But at least I could listen, and learn.

You can, too. Here is a link to our briefing.

Here is where we are at: A person sits in front of a computer screen somewhere in the United States. He has never been to the target area, has never seen it from the ground, doesn't know anyone there, doesn't speak their language, isn't even familiar with the clothes that they wear. Based on what he sees on that computer screen, and whatever else he's got, he launches bombs from a drone aircraft flying in the sky 8,000 miles away. The bombs then kill people.

Does that seem like an effective means to prevent attacks on the United States? Seriously? Is it any wonder that so many innocent people die? And should it even be so easy to kill?

The CIA doesn't even admit that it is running a drone warfare program, much less accept responsibility for its innocent victims. The State Department refused to issue a visa to the lawyer for this family of victims coming to the United States, even though he had visited the United States many times before without incident. The engineers of this machinery of death report from time to time that they claim to have killed the #3 in this sinister organization, or the #7 in that other sinister organization. But they never report on the death of a grandmother in her sixties. Nor do they consider the fundamental truth that such an execution leads to more terrorism, not less.

Momina Bibi is dead. She will not be telling any more grand, poetic and lyrical stories to her fellow villagers. There is no way to bring her back to life, or even to reassemble what's left of the parts of her body. But we can stop it from happening again.

And that's what we're trying to do.

So if you have the time, please watch.

Peace,

Alan Grayson

"Blessed be the peacemakers,
For they shall be called the children of God." - Matthew 5:9

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Scott Walker Effect: Helping Democrats Win and Republicans Lose Print
Thursday, 07 November 2013 14:40

Nichols writes: "Ken Cuccinelli counted on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to provide the conservative candidate with some of the 'star power' he needed to get him elected November 5. It didn't work."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, 04/13/12. (photo: AP)
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, 04/13/12. (photo: AP)


The Scott Walker Effect: Helping Democrats Win and Republicans Lose

By John Nichols, The Nation

07 November 13

 

irginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli counted on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to provide the conservative candidate with some of the "star power" he needed to get him elected November 5.

It didn't work.

The Cuccinelli campaign scheduled a high-profile rally in Spotsylvania on the Saturday before the election-hoping for a rip-roaring event that would put a picture of the candidate, his surrogate and a huge crowd on the front pages of Virginia's Sunday morning papers.

Continue Reading: The Scott Walker Effect: Helping Democrats Win and Republicans Lose

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 Next > End >>

Page 3020 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN