The NYTimes has a spot-on editorial on current FISA legislation.

Here is a thought provoking analysis of the recent controversy surrounding Bush’s signing statements.

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) posted a press release Friday. It seems Russell Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst has been subpoenaed to testify in front of a federal grand jury. Here is short excerpt from the complete press release.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- July 28, 2006
NSA WHISTLEBLOWER TO TESTIFY BEFORE FEDERAL GRAND JURY

Government Begins its Witch Hunt Targeting Whistleblowers

On Wednesday, July 26, Russell Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and a member of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), was approached outside his home by two FBI agents who served him with a subpoena to testify in front of a federal grand jury. NSWBC has obtained a copy of the subpoena issued for Mr. Tice’s testimony and is releasing it to the public for the first time. The subpoena directs Mr. Tice to appear before the jury on August 2, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Tice “will be asked to testify and answer questions concerning possible violations of federal criminal law.� [To view the subpoena click here].

In response to the subpoena, Mr. Tice issued the following statement: “This latest action by the government is designed only for one purpose: to ensure that people who witness criminal action being committed by the government are intimidated into remaining silent.� He continued: “To this date I have pursued all the appropriate channels to report unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted [by the government] while I served as an intelligence officer with the NSA and DIA. It was with my oath as a US intelligence officer to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution weighing heavy on my mind that I reported acts that I know to be unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.�

On December 22, 2005, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition made public a request by Tice to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts by the government while he was an intelligence officer with NSA and DIA. In a press release, NSWBC urged the congress to hold hearings and let Mr. Tice testify. Mr. Tice, a responsible veteran intelligence officer, tried to use the so-called appropriate channels, including the United States Congress, to responsibly and lawfully disclose government wrongdoing. [To read the release click here].

Contact: Sibel Edmonds, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, sedmonds@nswbc.org

The Northwest Florida Daily News is reporting that fans can no longer be "patted down" before being allowed to enter the Bucs Stadium in Tampa.

U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore issued an order siding with season-ticket holder Gordon Johnson and the ACLU of Florida who had sued to stop the fan searches that began last season.

Johnson and the ACLU sued the Tampa Sports Authority, which operates the stadium, to stop officials from conducting the "suspicionless" searches.

Whittemore said the Tampa Sports Authority failed to establish that the risks outweigh the need to protect the public from unreasonable searches.

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said Whittemore’s decision could turn out to be significant.

"It’s obviously not going to govern what’s happening around the country, but it’s certainly going to be an influential precedent," Simon said. "Other courts may look at it."

Simon said he thinks the decision shows that courts are "pushing back" at governmental attempts to violate citizens’ civil rights on the basis of a perceived threat of terrorism or crime.

I’m not sure how this one got by me. CNet is reporting that 3 days ago the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated “… That border police may conduct random searches of laptops without search warrants or probable cause. These searches can include seizing the laptop and subjecting it to extensive forensic analysis.â€? (Link to PDF of the decision.)

The case involves “imagesâ€? (read: child pornography) which were in the defendant’s browser cache but the idea that your laptop could be subjected to “extensive forensic analysisâ€? any (or every) time you cross the US border is a little disturbing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a proponent of the abuse of children, photographed or not, but I am a firm believer in the right to privacy and this is one more stone in the wall of the coming US Police State.

In a New York Times editorial today Ohio secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell is called out for implementing regulations that could hit voter registration workers with criminal penalties for perfectly legitimate registration practices.

From the article:

Mr. Blackwell, who also happens to be the Republican candidate for governor this year, has a history of this sort of behavior. In 2004, he instructed county boards of elections to reject any registrations on paper of less than 80-pound stock — about the thickness of a postcard. His order was almost certainly illegal, and he retracted it after he came under intense criticism. It was, however, in place long enough to get some registrations tossed out.

This year, Mr. Blackwell’s office has issued rules and materials that appear to require that paid registration workers, and perhaps even volunteers, personally take the forms they collect to an election office. Organizations that run registration drives generally have the people who register voters bring the forms back to supervisors, who can then review them for errors. Under Mr. Blackwell’s edict, everyone involved could be committing a crime. Mr. Blackwell’s rules also appear to prohibit people who register voters from sending the forms in by mail. That rule itself may violate federal elections law.

To be sure, both parties have shown a willingness to try to use election law to get results they want at the polls but Mr. Blackwell’s rules are just plain absurd.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is calling for the impeachment of Greorge W. Bush and it’s no wonder.

With the mass media buzzing for months now with news of Bush’s “Signing Statements” where he quietly states that the laws of the United States of America do not apply to the Office of the President, I for one am amazed that Constitutional watchdog groups such as the CCR have not raised more of a stink already.

Of course simply stating that the laws of the US don’t apply to him doesn’t mean that he’s actually VIOLATING the laws, right?

It seems that with the revelation of the NSA tracking domestic calling records without court orders or judicial oversight that that Mr. Bush may be practicing what he preaches.

But we may never know.

In Saturday’s Wall Street Journal there is a Associated Press article stating that the Bush administration has submitted court documents claiming “State Secrets” privilege and asking for the lawsuits of the CCR and ACLU to be thrown out.

Quoting Shayana Kadidal, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, calling the administration’s motion “undemocratic.”

“The Bush administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument.” “Can the president tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the president accountable for breaking the law.”

And from an April 30th article by Charlie Savage in the Boston Globe –

”There can’t be judicial review if nobody knows about it,“ said Neil Kinkopf, a Georgia State law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. ”And if they avoid judicial review, they avoid having their constitutional theories rebuked.”

Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush’s fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.

”The president is daring Congress to act against his positions, and they’re not taking action because they don’t want to appear to be too critical of the president, given that their own fortunes are tied to his because they are all Republicans,“ said Jack Beermann, a Boston University law professor. ”Oversight gets much reduced in a situation where the president and Congress are controlled by the same party.”

Said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues: ”Bush has essentially said that ‘We’re the executive branch and we’re going to carry this law out as we please, and if Congress wants to impeach us, go ahead and try it.’ “

On March 1st, on Salon,com, Garrison Keillor wrapped up his take on part of the whole affair.

”The U.S. Constitution provides a simple ultimate way to hold him to account for the crimes and the failure to attend to the country’s defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence.“

I think that sums it up.

Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, had a great op-ed piece in the LA Times yesterday.

In “The Lie Behind The Secrets� Blanton questions the U.S. Governments accelerating use of the “National Security� excuse from judicial inquiry.

From the Article:

President Reagan’s executive secretary at the National Security Council, career Navy officer Rodney McDaniel, told a blue-ribbon commission looking at classification in 1997 that only 10% of the secrecy stamps were for “legitimate protection of secrets.â€?

Read the article and let me know what you think.

Tags: Blanton, LA Times, McDaniel, National Security, Reagan, secrecy

The Fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States of America consists of one sentence and yet grants each citizen of the US with a great deal of freedom.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.�

I am appalled that President Bush would blatantly violate the trust of Americans by authorizing the NSA to monitor the personal habits of US citizens.

The fact that americans aren’t screaming for impeachment is downright disheartening. It’s as if people don’t care that our personal freedoms are slowly (or not so slowly) being eroded. For now the NSA is only monitoring “call patternsâ€?. How long until that includes “call contentâ€? or worse?

More importantly why isn’t the Department of Justice able to get security clearance to review this “call pattern monitoringâ€? program? Putting the NSA, or any part of government, above accountability in this manner defeats the “Check and Balanceâ€? concept that is at the very heart of our constitution and smacks of authoritarianism.

President Bush’s actions have spoken much louder than his words. He has shown time and time again his willingness to unilaterally re-interpret the laws of this country in order to further his personal agenda and without regard to the constitution or any other branch of government.