We are on the verge of having the worst of all worlds: we’ll have no security and no privacy.
And he’s not the only president to slam the NSA.
Jimmy Carter said that NSA spying on Americans meant that “America has no functioning democracy”.
Clinton’s VP – Al Gore – says it constitutes “crimes against the Constitution of the United States”. And even Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein is opposed to spying on allies.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation held an
American citizen for four months, harshly interrogated him, and
finally released him without charges. That’s the claim of Amir
Meshal who, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, is
suing the U.S. government and specific individuals involved in his
alleged mistreatment. For its part, the Department of Justice
doesn’t bother denying the charges—it just says that national
security concerns preclude the case from even being considered.
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union will appear in
court on Wednesday on behalf of a U.S. citizen who was illegally
detained and mistreated by American officials in three east African
countries in 2007. After fleeing unrest in Somalia, New Jersey
resident Amir Meshal was arrested, secretly imprisoned in inhumane
conditions, and harshly interrogated by FBI agents over 30 times
before ultimately being released without charge four months later.
…
In December 2006, Meshal was studying in Mogadishu when civil
unrest broke out. He fled to neighboring Kenya, where he wandered
in the forest for three weeks seeking shelter and assistance before
being arrested. He was then repeatedly interrogated by FBI agents,
who accused him of receiving training from al Qaeda, which Meshal
denied. The American interrogators threatened him with torture and
kept him from contacting a lawyer or his family.
Meshal was subsequently rendered to Somalia and then Ethiopia,
where he was secretly imprisoned in filthy conditions with
inadequate access to food, water, and toilets for more than three
months, and again harshly interrogated by U.S. officials, who bore
responsibility for his rendition and continued detention.
Counts I – III [Fifth Amendment claims] fail as a matter of law
because special factors counsel hesitation and preclude the Court
from creating the implied constitutional tort damages remedy sought
in the new and sensitive context presented by this Complaint –
extraterritorial national security operations… even if the Court
recognizes a damages remedy without any statutory foundation, all
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts I – III ,
and Higginbotham and Hersem (the only defendants named) are
entitled to qualified immunity for Count IV [alleging violation of
the Torture Victim Protection Act].
Got that? Never mind what happened, because national security.
And besides, the defendants are immune even to concerns about
torture.
Whatever Amir Meshal’s actual role, whatever the facts of his
treatment by U.S. government officials, that’s a chilling
argument—unless you’re the sort of creature who believes individual
rights are a function of geography, rather than humanity.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/10/the-fbi-respects-your-rightsuntil-you-st
via IFTTT
The Federal Bureau of Investigation held an
American citizen for four months, harshly interrogated him, and
finally released him without charges. That’s the claim of Amir
Meshal who, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, is
suing the U.S. government and specific individuals involved in his
alleged mistreatment. For its part, the Department of Justice
doesn’t bother denying the charges—it just says that national
security concerns preclude the case from even being considered.
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union will appear in
court on Wednesday on behalf of a U.S. citizen who was illegally
detained and mistreated by American officials in three east African
countries in 2007. After fleeing unrest in Somalia, New Jersey
resident Amir Meshal was arrested, secretly imprisoned in inhumane
conditions, and harshly interrogated by FBI agents over 30 times
before ultimately being released without charge four months later.
…
In December 2006, Meshal was studying in Mogadishu when civil
unrest broke out. He fled to neighboring Kenya, where he wandered
in the forest for three weeks seeking shelter and assistance before
being arrested. He was then repeatedly interrogated by FBI agents,
who accused him of receiving training from al Qaeda, which Meshal
denied. The American interrogators threatened him with torture and
kept him from contacting a lawyer or his family.
Meshal was subsequently rendered to Somalia and then Ethiopia,
where he was secretly imprisoned in filthy conditions with
inadequate access to food, water, and toilets for more than three
months, and again harshly interrogated by U.S. officials, who bore
responsibility for his rendition and continued detention.
Counts I – III [Fifth Amendment claims] fail as a matter of law
because special factors counsel hesitation and preclude the Court
from creating the implied constitutional tort damages remedy sought
in the new and sensitive context presented by this Complaint –
extraterritorial national security operations… even if the Court
recognizes a damages remedy without any statutory foundation, all
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts I – III ,
and Higginbotham and Hersem (the only defendants named) are
entitled to qualified immunity for Count IV [alleging violation of
the Torture Victim Protection Act].
Got that? Never mind what happened, because national security.
And besides, the defendants are immune even to concerns about
torture.
Whatever Amir Meshal’s actual role, whatever the facts of his
treatment by U.S. government officials, that’s a chilling
argument—unless you’re the sort of creature who believes individual
rights are a function of geography, rather than humanity.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/10/the-fbi-respects-your-rightsuntil-you-st
via IFTTT
It’s always astonishing how funerals and memorial services can do two things to people. They make platform for public show and then they provide the opportunity for public speaking that knows no bounds in the hope that they will be remembered for eternity. Something that state funerals and public mourning have more than that is that the leaders, past and present, tend to flock to the ceremony in order to be viewed and counted amongst the solemn mourners and catch just a bit of the limelight.
Nelson Mandela died on December 5th and as the memorial service unravels today with leaders from around the world arriving in great exalted ceremony befitting in their belief to the high-status and rank, on the taxpayers’ money certain questions are raised as to the antagonistic difference between one man that fought for freedom and the others that have colluded to take the world’s freedom away.
Obama got a public tribune at the memorial service today in Johannesburg, South Africa. He didn’t just make a speech. He was on an international electoral roll and that in itself is unjustified and unbefitting in the situation. It ended up costing the taxpayer $5 million and seemed more like a personal tribute than a national one from the USA; a personal tribute to himself rather than to the great Mandela.
The flight came to a total cost of $180,000 per hour; fuel was included however. President Obama was accompanied by the First Lady. The Attorney General Eric Holder also went along and so did Susan Rice, the national security adviser. The speech given by Obama lasted 19 minutes.
Time and again Obama spoke of action and ideas. He talked of how actions are shaped by our ideas:
“Mandela taught us the power of action, but he also taught us the power of ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those who you agree with, but also those who you don’t agree with. He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet.”
It is most fitting that Obama has spoken of studying not only those that we agree with but also those who we don’t agree with. Perhaps that’s why the President took along with Susan Rice. Studying is a euphemism for surveillance and so now we understand why the President has been watching us all and condoning the NSA’s actions.
It seems so strange that the President of the USA should speak of the need to put things down into law: “Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough. No matter how right, they must be chiseled into law and institutions.”
We have seen the same things with the self-righteous laws of the USA on the state surveillance of the NSA, Mr. Obama allowing anything to become possible. But, please do not compare yourself to the great man and the great actions that tried to free a nation from Apartheid.
It was no time to talk of yourself Mr. Obama. No time at all: “But I believe it should also prompt in each of us a time for self-reflection. With honesty, regardless of our station or our circumstance, we must ask: How well have I applied his lessons in my own life? It’s a question I ask myself, as a man and as a President.” Although, yes the question begs an answer.
Perhaps you must stop asking yourself the questions and start listening to the answers: “The questions we face today — how to promote equality and justice; how to uphold freedom and human rights; how to end conflict and sectarian war — these things do not have easy answers.” The answers may not be easy, but they are there already, Mr. Obama.
President Obama ended his speech today on this one idea: that Mandela “makes me want to be a better man”. You have the inkling in an answer there already.
Mandela fought effortlessly for recognition. He painstakingly refused to accept the situation of the South Africans that were considered to be second-class citizens because of the color of their skin. The freedom, the human rights he lived for, that he was imprisoned for, that he became President for are all a million miles away from those that the USA has taken away from the rest of the world in the name of their personal fight for security. It’s time that that stopped, but it’s also time for the self-praise in unfitting moments to come to an end.
Ukraine is a strategically important country of 45 million people. A trade pact with the EU was close. However, it appears that a rival bid (or other means of influence) arose during two closed door meetings with Vladimir Putin. The press often reports that President Yanukovich’s corrupt government has shown an instinct for self-preservation often at the expense of the expense of the nation.
The Ukraine economy is in recession. The country has only $20 billion of foreign reserves which is 2 ½ months of imports (worse than Egypt). The IMF’s red flag level is 3 months. Ukraine has $10bln of external debt maturing in 2014. Its CDS rose over 100 bps this week to near 1100. Debt-to-GDP is only 43%, but Argentina defaulted with its debt-to-GDP at 50%. Its currency (Hryvnia), which was devalued in 2008, is pegged to the dollar. The current account deficit is 7% and herein lies the biggest problem.
The IMF is unlikely to help until after the 2015 election. The EU is unlikely to provide any aid. Russia may be enticed to help via loans. The President is on his way to China – who may help – but he may return no longer in power.
And Goldman notes the situation is fluid but highly likely that anti-regime protests will persist with several possible scenarios developing:
1) President Yanukovich declares a state of emergency and/or uses force to prevent protests from developing further;
2) President Yanukovich agrees to talks with the opposition and to a roadmap for signing the EU association agreement at some point in 2014 (our understanding had been that this would not be possible on the EU side, but EU leaders have recently suggested otherwise);
3) President Yanukovich does nothing and protests persist.
From the macroeconomic standpoint, these protests come at a time when the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) has had to defend the currency peg through sizeable interventions, which have depleted the reserve cover to 2.5 months of imports, and when the government is arguably unable to roll its debt in the market. Goldman fears the further risk is that, due to the heightened political uncertainty, capital outflows could intensify, putting further pressure on the peg.
While there had been some press reports suggesting sizeable Russian financial help in exchange for the country not signing the EU association agreement, the recent developments, in our view, call this further into question. We think that Russia is unlikely to extend substantial help without guarantees. Given that it appears that President Yanukovich’s chances of holding on to power beyond the 2015 spring election have decreased following the protests and schisms in his administration might even weaken his powers earlier (splits in the Region’s Party, for instance, might deprive him of a majority in parliament) he might very well not be in a position any more to give those guarantees.
As indicated by polling and by the participation in street protests, the decision to suspend preparations for signing the EU association agreement was an unpop
ular one, at least with a significant part of the population. Goldman believes that President Yanukovich may have underestimated the political ramifications of doing so.
At this stage, it is difficult to forecast how the situation will evolve. Apart from the size of the protests it also matters to what extent the president can hold on to his own power bases in the Regions Party and the eastern part of the country. Given that the economy is in recession and the heavy industries in the east in particular are suffering, his support there might very well be more brittle than in the past.
But perhaps there is a silver lining – in an odd twisted way – the concerns about Ukrainian banks and the currency peg have seen deposit outflows increasing the risk to the country’s financial system and creating a particularly acute headache for Russian banks. The silver lining, of course, is that Russia may be forced to provide more assistance in a Cyprus-style save for its own banks (lenders) and depositors…
While other foreign lenders have cut their Ukraine exposure in the five years since – to 20 percent of Ukraine banking sector assets in 2012 from 40 percent in 2008, according to a Raiffeisen Research survey – Russian banks have maintained a strong market presence, still accounting for 12 percent.
Among foreign banks, the Russians have easily the biggest exposure, more than twice that of Austrian lenders, the next biggest.
…
“[Moodys] estimate that these banks’ exposure to Ukrainian risk is $20-$30 billion, a sizeable amount indeed, considering that their combined Tier 1 capital was $105 billion in June,” Moody’s said.
…
Moody’s, which estimated that 35 percent of all bank loans in Ukraine were problem loans, said the country’s severe economic problems would keep local borrowers under pressure and could result in higher loan losses for the Russian lenders.
In the absence of the association agreement with the European Union, Russian-Ukrainian trade is likely to rise, and the four big Russian banks may well increase their exposure to Ukraine, it added.
…
Dimitry Sologoub, head of research at Raiffeisen in Kiev, said the banks had learned lessons from the 2008 crisis, so were much less exposed to credit risk, liquidity risk and forex risk, and the central bank was calming matters by providing liquidity and foreign exchange.
“The question is how long it will go? The reserve cushion of the national bank is not so big.”
In the meantime, Ukraine might secure short-term benefits from its closer ties with Russia, enough perhaps to stave off the kind of currency crisis that nearby Belarus suffered in 2011, said Charles Robertson, chief global economist at Renaissance Capital in London.
“In the long run, it will probably keep Ukraine poor. This is bad for Ukrainians and bad for Russia,” he added.
“Instead of being a strong, successful economy on Russia’s borders, able to buy plenty of Russian exports, Ukraine risks becoming another Belarus.”
Which – after all – could be just what Putin wants…
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ldPL7V3nmcU/story01.htm Tyler Durden
In October, California
outlawed “revenge porn,” the act of posting what had once been
private naked pictures of former partners online for the purpose of
humiliating him or her (generally “her”).
Today California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced the
arrest of a revenge porn site operator, though the charges are
actually separate and more extensive than the state’s new law. From
Harris’
own site:
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced the arrest of
the alleged owner and operator of a revenge porn website who
facilitated the posting of more than 10,000 sexually explicit
photos and extorted victims for as much as $350 each to remove the
illicit content.
“This website published intimate photos of unsuspecting victims
and turned their public humiliation and betrayal into a commodity
with the potential to devastate lives,” Attorney General Harris
said. “Online predators that profit from the extortion of private
photos will be investigated and prosecuted for this reprehensible
and illegal internet activity.”
Kevin Christopher Bollaert, 27, of San Diego, was arrested today
in San Diego by California Department of Justice agents and is
being held in San Diego County jail on $50,000 bail. According to
documents filed in San Diego County Superior Court, Bollaert has
been charged with 31 felony counts of conspiracy, identity theft
and extortion and is facing possible jail time and fines.
What made Bollaert’s site different from some others is that it
“required that the poster include the subject’s full name,
location, age and Facebook profile link.” He is then accused of
setting up a second separate site to charge hundreds of dollars
from victims of the first site in order to get their pictures taken
down.
In October, after the California law had been passed, Jerry
Brito
examined the problems of privacy rights colliding with free
speech rights in efforts to block revenge porn.
Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get thewidgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/10/calif-ag-announces-arrest-of-revenge-por
via IFTTT
Moments ago, news hit that democrat negotiators Patty Murray, and republican Paul Ryan reached a bipartisan deal to ease the automatic budget cuts by $60b. The deal calls for auctioning of govt airwaves, increased premiums for pensions backed by PBGC, a congressional aide told Bloomberg’s Heidi Przybyla. A press conference will be held at 6pm to unveil the bipartisan budget agreement, according to e-mailed statement. As a result, a January 15 government shutdown will be avoided.
Negotiations on Capitol Hill have yielded a modest budget agreement to ease automatic spending cuts and replace some of them with savings from future-year cuts.
Details on the pact by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray were to be announced by the duo Tuesday evening.
The agreement would ease the harshest spending cuts set to strike the Pentagon and domestic agencies for a second year.
It would require federal workers to contribute more to their pensions, increase premiums on companies whose pension plans are insured by the federal government and increase security fees paid by airline travelers.
The pact by Ryan and Murray comes after several failed attempts at broader budget pacts
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/kM8pJDbcc4E/story01.htm Tyler Durden
Despite rumors of a 'deal', "The major issues that we think are necessary to jump-start the American economy continue to languish," reflects one lobbyist on what Bloomberg reports will be Congress's least productive year ever, with just 56 pieces of legislation signed into law so far. The former record low, reached in 1995, was 88 new laws. 2013 was supposed to be the year lawmakers, free of immediate election pressures, would revamp U.S. immigration policy, pass a debt-lowering budget and expedite a pair of trade deals. Instead, partisan rancor grew deeper; and to make matters worse, the politicians took plenty of time off – the House has been out 191 days, and the Senate 199 days.
Business Roundtable lobbyists wanted 2013 to be the year lawmakers, free of immediate election pressures, would revamp U.S. immigration policy, pass a debt-lowering budget and expedite a pair of trade deals.
Instead, Congress is on pace to have its least productive year ever, with just 56 pieces of legislation signed into law so far. The former record low, reached in 1995, was 88 new laws.
…
The reasons are many. Partisan rancor grew deeper as a result of the government shutdown. Elected officials in both parties fretted about primaries for party loyalists who would accuse them of abandoning party principles.
…
“There was a time not long ago that gridlock was seen as a positive for the economy and for industry,” Yardeni said. “Gridlock was a sign of success in our political system, because it showed the system was in balance. But now the factions are so far apart and their differences so irreconcilable that it’s creating problems for the economy.”
After three years of standoffs over the budget and the U.S. deficit, negotiators are now eying only a limited plan to ease some of the automatic cuts next year. That deal wouldn’t end uncertainty for holders of U.S. debt and for businesses, Yardeni said.
…
2013 is shaping up to be a year that will be remembered for roadblocks and delays in Congress, punctuated by occasional half-steps.
Scores of measures were put off, including a reauthorization of the Amtrak passenger rail system, and not a single annual appropriations bill was completed. If the annual defense authorization bill isn’t acted on this year, it will be the first time ever.
…
While Obama’s approval ratings are near record lows, the public’s view of Congress is at rock bottom.
A November 7-10 Gallup Poll found that Americans’ approval of the way Congress is handling its job dropped to 9 percent, the lowest in the polling firm’s 39-year history of asking the question. The poll of 1,039 U.S. adults had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/jZ6–grAjiI/story01.htm Tyler Durden
The Chicago Sun-Timesreports
that “a surprise outpouring of opposition” has blocked passage of a
bill supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel that would have treated
electronic cigarettes like tobacco products. Among other things,
that would have meant a ban on vaping in bars, restaurants, and
other “public places”—a measure New York City also is
considering. Opponents of the Chicago ordinance noted the
dearth of evidence that e-cigarettes pose a threat to bystanders
(or to vapers themselves) and argued that it was unfair to pressure
smokers into quitting (through a new tax hike, among other
policies) and then attack a product that could help them do so.
“We’re punishing a group of people for trying not to smoke,”
Alderwoman Leslie Hairston said at meeting of the Chicago City
Council’s health committee yesterday. “You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t on one day say, ‘We’re going to tax the heck out of
cigarettes,’ then the next day [say], ‘For those of you who can’t
afford it and decide you want to smoke vapor, we’re going to decide
you can’t do that, either.'” Another member of the city council,
Brendan Reilly, took a puff on an e-cigarette during the meeting,
saying he is in midst of switching from smoking to
vaping.
[Thanks to David Wegener for the tip.]
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/10/chicago-e-cigarette-ban-blocked-by-surpr
via IFTTT
The Chicago Sun-Timesreports
that “a surprise outpouring of opposition” has blocked passage of a
bill supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel that would have treated
electronic cigarettes like tobacco products. Among other things,
that would have meant a ban on vaping in bars, restaurants, and
other “public places”—a measure New York City also is
considering. Opponents of the Chicago ordinance noted the
dearth of evidence that e-cigarettes pose a threat to bystanders
(or to vapers themselves) and argued that it was unfair to pressure
smokers into quitting (through a new tax hike, among other
policies) and then attack a product that could help them do so.
“We’re punishing a group of people for trying not to smoke,”
Alderwoman Leslie Hairston said at meeting of the Chicago City
Council’s health committee yesterday. “You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t on one day say, ‘We’re going to tax the heck out of
cigarettes,’ then the next day [say], ‘For those of you who can’t
afford it and decide you want to smoke vapor, we’re going to decide
you can’t do that, either.'” Another member of the city council,
Brendan Reilly, took a puff on an e-cigarette during the meeting,
saying he is in midst of switching from smoking to
vaping.
[Thanks to David Wegener for the tip.]
from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/10/chicago-e-cigarette-ban-blocked-by-surpr
via IFTTT
The Federal Bureau of Investigation held an
The Chicago Sun-Times