[Peace-discuss] "Support"

[E.Wayne Johnson]

"We're not here to have you teach us the Constitution.  We are here to kick 
your ass."

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
Cc: "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net>; "Peace-discuss List" 
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Support"


> Yeah, thank goodness the Republicans weren't elected.  No telling what 
> would
> have happened. Why, the president would probably be killing kids around 
> the
> world and trashing the Constitution.  (And can't they see the sign that 
> says,
> "No Low-Class Girls Allowed"?)
>
> White House proposal would ease FBI access
> to records of Internet activity
> By Ellen Nakashima
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Thursday, July 29, 2010; A01
>
> The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI
> to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's
> Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the
> information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
>
> The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic
> communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that
> the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval.
> Government lawyers say this category of information includes the
> addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and
> dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser
> history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the
> "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.
>
> But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed
> to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy
> advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields
> through so-called national security letters. These missives, which
> can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require
> the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the
> request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to
> obtain the electronic records.
>
> Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland
> Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the
> bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data,"
> said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law.
> "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more
> information to the FBI in response to an NSL."
>
> Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's
> demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance
> law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say.
> One senior administration government official, who would discuss
> the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that
> "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.
>
> To critics, the move is another example of an administration
> retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in
> relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold,
> given the amount of electronic data the government is already
> getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union
> legislative counsel.
>
> The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount
> and type of personal data the government can obtain without a
> court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records
> reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world,
> Web browsing history and potentially location information --
> outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice
> Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents
> Internet and other firms.
> Privacy concerns
>
> The use of the national security letters to obtain personal data
> on Americans has prompted concern. The Justice Department issued
> 192,500 national security letters from 2003 to 2006, according to
> a 2008 inspector general report, which did not indicate how many
> were demands for Internet records. A 2007 IG report found numerous
> possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of
> NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the
> request. In two cases, the report found, agents used NSLs to
> request content information "not permitted by the [surveillance]
> statute."
>
> One issue with both the proposal and the current law is that the
> phrase "electronic communication transactional records" is not
> defined anywhere in statute. "Our biggest concern is that an
> expanded NSL power might be used to obtain Internet search queries
> and Web histories detailing every Web site visited and every file
> downloaded," said Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the
> Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued AT&T for assisting
> the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program.
>
> He said he does not object to the government obtaining access to
> electronic records, provided it has a judge's approval.
>
> Senior administration officials said the proposal was prompted by
> a desire to overcome concerns and resistance from Internet and
> other companies that the existing statute did not allow them to
> provide such data without a court-approved order. "The statute as
> written causes confusion and the potential for unnecessary
> litigation," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "This
> clarification will not allow the government to obtain or collect
> new categories of information, but it seeks to clarify what
> Congress intended when the statute was amended in 1993."
>
> The administration has asked Congress to amend the statute, the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, in the fiscal year that
> begins in October.
>
> Administration officials noted that the act specifies in one
> clause that Internet and other companies have a duty to provide
> electronic communication transactional records to the FBI in
> response to a national security letter.
>
> But the next clause specifies only four categories of basic
> subscriber data that the FBI may seek: name, address, length of
> service and toll billing records. There is no reference to
> electronic communication transactional records.
> Same as phone records?
>
> The officials said the transactional information at issue, which
> does not include Internet search queries, is the functional
> equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can
> obtain without court authorization. Learning the e-mail addresses
> to which an Internet user sends messages, they said, is no
> different than obtaining a list of numbers called by a telephone user.
>
> Obtaining such records with an NSL, as opposed to a court order,
> "allows us to intercede in plots earlier than we would if our
> hands were tied and we were unable to get this data in a way that
> was quick and efficient," the senior administration official said.
>
> But the value of such data is the reason a court should approve
> its disclosure, said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for
> Democracy and Technology. "It's much more sensitive than the other
> information, like name, address and telephone number, that the FBI
> gets with national security letters," he said. "It shows
> associational information protected by the First Amendment and is
> much less public than things like where you live."
>
> A Nov. 5, 2008, opinion from the Justice Department's Office of
> Legal Counsel, whose opinions are binding on the executive branch,
> made clear that the four categories of basic subscriber
> information the FBI may obtain with an NSL were "exhaustive."
>
> This opinion, said Sussmann, the former Clinton administration
> lawyer, caused many companies to reevaluate the scope of what
> could be provided in response to an NSL. "The OLC opinion removed
> the ambiguity," he said. "Providers now are limited to the four
> corners of what the opinion says they can give out. Those who give
> more do so at their own risk."
>
> Marc Zwillinger, an attorney for Internet companies, said some
> providers are not giving the FBI more than the four categories
> specified. He added that with the rise of social networking, the
> government's move could open a significant amount of Internet
> activity to government surveillance without judicial
> authorization. "A Facebook friend request -- is that like a phone
> call or an e-mail? Is that something they would sweep in under an
> NSL? They certainly aren't getting that now."
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html
>
>
> On 7/29/10 5:57 AM, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> That's a reasonable explanation. McCain was awful and still is awful.
>>
>> I think Joan Rivers put it pretty well in the the case of Clinton vs 
>> Dole --
>>  "Which one of the Menendez brothers do you like the best?"
>>
>> I like Cynthia McKinney too, but voted for Chuck Baldwin but not just
>> because he goes to church and is against abortion. Nader was a likewise
>> reasonable pick. I dont care much for Bob Barr, but would have considered
>> Mary Ruwart if she had gotten the Libertarian Party nomination. It came 
>> down
>> to several close votes in the LP and she came in close. Actually Barr 
>> seems a
>> unlikely libertarian to me as does W.A. "WAR" Root.
>>
>> The taxi cab drivers in Beijing (pundits they are) tell me that Obama is
>> just the same as Bush when it comes to war. Taxi cab drivers in Beijing 
>> are
>> pretty much anti-war and they listen to the radio a lot.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brussel Morton K."
>> <mkbrussel at comcast.net> To: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag> Cc:
>> "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Sent: Thursday, 
>> July
>> 29, 2010 12:53 PM Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Support"
>>
>>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> Libertarians of the world unite…
>>
>> What does "Even I…" mean? Who else was in your camp at the AWARE meetings
>> where these things were argued?
>>
>> What does "support" mean to you? Support because of agreement, or support 
>> in
>> the sense of the better of two appalling choices?
>>
>> My position on Obama was simply that he was a better bet than a rogue
>> McCain, that there was always some hope in uncertainty as to how Obama 
>> would
>> act if elected. In uncertainty hope has a chance. I expressly said, more 
>> than
>> once, that Obama was likely to be, and was looking dreadful—a weasel like
>> Bill Clinton—, given his positions on Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the
>> Wright affair, and those whom he chose as advisors. My position was 
>> almost
>> identical to that of Paul Street, whom you can consult; certainly no
>> "supporter" of Obama. To have been more fearful of a McCain presidency 
>> did
>> not in any sense imply that Obama was a candidate in which one could have
>> confidence; he simply seemed the preferable of two egregious choices at a
>> crucial time, hardly a choice at all.
>>
>> Which is why I voted for Mckinney, someone with whom I could agree.
>>
>> Carl's guru Chomsky said essentially the same thing.
>>
>> That Obama has turned out to have been a better bet than McCain is 
>> probably
>> still a reasonable, if execrable, bet; both looked like would-be hawks 
>> and
>> defenders of the imperium. One however, especially looked better to me on
>> domestic issues (and didn't choose as a vice presidential comrade a Sarah
>> Palin).
>