Saturday, 26 June 2010

Robert Hefner checks in with a reminder:

If you will recall, I sent the AP article, in reference, in an earlier e-mail (6/19) and made the following comment in response to a reply from a fellow patriot in Tucson on 6/20….

This is the perfect venue for acquiring governmental control of internet communications as it is being done on a “non-profiling”, politically correct basis.  As Homeland Security will be the monitoring agency, there will be no Constitutional controls… i.e. search warrants.
The article’s opening line:Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation’s homeland security chief said Friday.” should be enough to scare the daylights out of any freedom-loving American.

“Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither” — Benjamin Franklin

And, above all, recall that Ms. Napolitano and her Homeland Security were the first to label Tea Party participants as “homegrown terrorists”.  Our freedom depends on what the definition of terrorist is.

Now, read Elliot Cohen’s response to the same article:

Are Napolitano’s Mass Spying Powers a Greater Threat to Civil Liberties Than Under Bush?

By elliot cohen (about the author)     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

According to a June 18 AP article, Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano has defended monitoring Internet communications as a “civil liberties trade-off the US must make to beef up national security.” In addition, she said “it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.” Unfortunately, it is incomprehensible how “beefing up” national security can be both a civil liberties trade-off and not a sacrifice of liberty. This contradiction betrays the sad reality that the Obama administration has followed the lead of the Bush administration in escalating the abridgment of civil liberties in the US to protect “national security.”

According to Napolitano, there have been an increasing number of homegrown terrorists who have used the Internet to “reached out” to Islamic extremists for training and inspiration; and the AP article points to the recent Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and accused Fort Hood Texas shooter Major Nadal Hasan as possible examples.

It is not clear, however, how a relatively few instances of homegrown terrorists who may have been influenced by their online activities to become radicalized can warrant government abridgment of the privacy of millions of Americans. However, it is not hard to see how easily such a principle could be expanded to include any private activities that may possibly be linked to radicalization. Thus, the communications that may occur inside a mosque may be deemed grist for the mill of government monitoring. And the same logic could well be applied to private communications in the homes of Americans because there may possibly be plans afoot by a few homegrown, would-be terrorists.

It should be emphasized that the Internet monitoring that Napolitano is defending is mass warrantless surveillance of millions of Americans. This is significantly different from the FBI’s obtaining a warrant to spy on the conversations of specific individuals where probable cause exists to suggest that they are planning a terrorist attack.

During the Bush administration, the justification for such mass warrantless surveillance had been to gather foreign intelligence. This meant that the government would not intentionally attempt to spy on American citizens. In fact, so-called minimization standards of the FISA Act, including the amendments to it passed in 2008 require the government to make all reasonable accommodations so as not to target American citizens. What Napolitano is saying is therefore illegal because it directly advocates mass surveillance sweeps for the specific purpose of targeting American citizens who may be involved or contemplating involvement in terrorist activities.

This is a chilling expansion of the Bush warrantless surveillance program that was exposed in 2005. It suggests that the Obama administration, far from being more interested than the Bush administration in preserving the civil liberties of Americans, is actually more vigilant in undermining these rights.

Napolitano has now boldly announced that the Obama administration will be engaging in mass warrantless spying targeting Americans, not just Al Qaeda or other organized groups of terrorists. Will it also soon announce that Americans may be labeled “unlawful enemy combatants” (the Obama administration now uses the label “unprivileged enemy belligerents”)? Will such individuals be whisked off to an undisclosed location and be denied their constitutional rights to a fair trial?

The Obama administration has lost the faith of many of its liberals, democratic constituents and according to the AP article, Napolitano’s comments were intended to reach out to this group to try to assuage their fears that the administration’s concern for stopping terrorist attacks would erode civil liberties. Her remarks however should only increase these concerns. In fact, they should underscore the grave danger the Obama administration poses to the survival of Americans’ civil liberties.

Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D. is a political analyst and media critic. His most recent book is The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government are turning America into a Dictatorship. He is the first prize winner of the 2007 Project (more…)

Robert Hefner
Unlawful Enemy Combatant

Click on Robert Hefner' illustration to enlarge


“Napolitano has now boldly announced that the Obama administration will be engaging in mass warrantless spying targeting Americans, not just Al Qaeda or other organized groups of terrorists. Will it also soon announce that Americans may be labeled “unlawful enemy combatants” (the Obama administration now uses the label “unprivileged enemy belligerents”)? Will such individuals be whisked off to an undisclosed location and be denied their constitutional rights to a fair trial?”


To arrest TREASON read this…then write this!


Copyright 2002 – 2010 ©™ by The JAG HUNTER

4 Responses to “TREASON is…”

  1. A pen Says:

    The way the WH is preoccupied with Beck, Hannity and others you can bet your sweet nothing the internet spying will be directed mainly at patriots. Why would they need to spy on Islamists, they are already inside the WH?

  2. Fred Herndon Says:

    Two federal agencies joined “boycott Arizona”. Treason Treason Treason. All in their Oath of Office. Our Constitution; “in Order to form a more perfect Union, … provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare..” The Feds are not defending Arizona and stopping terrorist from Mexico. The Feds are destroying the general Welfare of Arizona, and sure do not bless Arizona. Congress violates the regulation of commerce by not calling the President to task about boycott discussions and posturing like a peacock. Just where is the Rule of naturalization? Armed insurgents crossing our borders truly represent offences against the Law of Nations! Congress is not suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions of Arizona. And just where are all of the laws that are to be on the books to protect Arizona (of course Obama and Holder, and Napalitono cannot read law – they’ve told us publiclly on vidio). Congress is on the very edge of putting the entire entire body at risk by adhering to the ex post facto law that is being espoused by Obama which is aimed at prohibiting Arizona from protecting it’s borders. In Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution, Arizona has the right to go to war with Mexico because of the ineptness of the President and Congress — “No state shall …engage in War, unless actually invaded, or is in imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Arizona is being invaded by armed insurgents, drug dealers, and overall evil people. Since the Feds will not get off your dead anatomy and do something right for once, Arizona can declare ware legally. The US Congress and President are out of the picture by their own actions. Governor Brewer should require written explanation before ever meeting with the Feds and letting them come to Arizona! She should require Obama to show his Birth Certificate before crossing the Arizona Border, he is an illegal alien.

  3. A pen Says:

    Waiting for Brewer to ask the public for help….volunteer style.

  4. tina Says:

    this gov can go to hell~

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s