Crisis Needed to Pass New Cyber Law

Not so fast, Admiral!  Leave the Internet alone!

Click here for related story [Reuters]

Currently, the US Intelligence Community [IC] is authorized to operate outside the US, targeting "potential adversaries".  Admiral McConnell has been seeking to expand the IC's authority to operate within US borders, targeting "potential adversaries" -- of the government [read: Administration].

In order for this Administration to legislate these expanded capabilities, to include restricting the freedom of speech on the Internet, Admiral McConnell advises a crisis will be necessary to get Congress on board. 


So, look for a national crisis created by our government in the name of the terrorist organization du jour; more than likely, one we've never heard of previously -- but created just for this requirement.

"US intelligence agencies have unique capabilities that can help protect American companies from cyber espionage and attack, but it will take a crisis to change laws to allow that type of cooperation."

I'll decide who uses the Internet, and who we target.

Admiral McConnell  started off with the Naval Investigative Service [now the popularized NCIS] -- noted for its investigation of gay sailors in the 1980s; was later a technical intelligence officer groomed by the Clinton Era IC and senior military staff.

He served as Director of the National Security Agency [NSA], retired, worked for Booz Allen [an Intelligence/Defense contractor], was then appointed Director of National Intelligence [DNI], and is now back at Booz Allen as senior Vice Chairman -- specializing in -- what else? -- cyber security.

"Do we have the ability to attack, degrade or destroy?  Sure.  If you do that, what are the consequences?  That is the question."
[Especially if you want to control the Internet!]

Surprisingly, Booz is expected to win billion dollar contracts from the IC to "protect our cyber security." 

[No restrictions on that revolving door.]

While DNI, he started off by proposing legitimate goals of modernizing the IC and sharing information. 
All good stuff.

But then, he decided that US Intelligence needed fewer Constitutional restrictions in order to "protect national security."   In reality, much of the argument for loosening restrictions was based on failures due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and SNAFUs within NSA and the IC, and not because of Constitutional restrictions.

McConnell proposed that NSA be unfettered in its surveillance activities [see Enemy of the State]:


1) End the requirement for court orders to collect intelligence on "foreign agents" located overseas - or in the US. 


2) Immunity for Telecoms sued for violating the nation's wiretapping laws - regardless of the veracity of the charges.

His lobbying of Congress over the "terrorist threat" resulted in the Protect America Act, which removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of "foreign" intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the US.  Although that legislation was repealed the following year, the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 retained that provision.

Bush added to the problem by supporting illegal actions.
(c) NYT

In January 2009, a US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled in favor of warrantless wiretapping; the opinion was heavily redacted.  Essentially, the ruling allowed US intelligence agencies to bypass the FISA provisions for warrants by declaring to themselves that their targets were "foreign".  No need to justify or report the decision or action.  Thus, the IC would police itself.


This advisory by Admiral McConnell is yet another means of achieving Government control of the Internet, and will likely be readily endorsed by Congress with the next Big Crisis.  

Sadly, there are all too few politicians on Capitol Hill today who understand how the IC works, and
just how much the Internet and its attendant freedoms are now at risk.

Attorney General Holder Threatens Congressman Issa

I am the Attorney General.  I'll decide which laws
to enforce, and who is guilty.   I am above the law! 
(c) MediaMatters

Click here for related story  [PJ Tattler]

We'll watch this battle between Congress and the Attorney General very closely.

In the past, Congressional inquiries have forced Attornies General of both Parties to provide subpoenaed documents to determine if the Administration had violated laws and the Constitution.

To date, all previous Administrations, Republican and Democrat, have complied.

That's known as the Separation of Power in our Government.  The Legislature makes the laws, the Executive Branch "enforces" the Law, and the Judicial Branch interprets the law, as well as guilt or innocence.

Although the results have not always been to the satisfaction of all parties, the process prevents one element from gaining and wielding too much power, or abusing the power and authority with which it is invested. And, the American Public is relieved that the Balance of Power continues to work.


During Congressional Oversight hearings into the "Fast & Furious" operations by ATF/DOJ, Congressman Darrell Issa demanded to know why Attorney General Holder had refused to honor the subpoena and was withholding 30,000 documents, to include explanations of illegal wiretaps conducted by the DOJ -- which had been leaked to Issa's committed by DOJ whistle blowers.

Holder's response:

          "To the extent that those wiretap applications have been shared... If I find, if I find that
            someone in the US DOJ has shared the contents of wiretap applications, that is something
            that will be looked at ... Anyone who read or submits that information for people to look
            at does so at their peril."


Issa responded that Members of Congress are not subject to the court order which sealed the applications in question; he also noted that whistle blowers are protected in these situations.

Holder's response/threat:

You act at your peril if you think that's the truth."

Sorry Mr Holder; that's not only the Truth; it's the LAW!

Mr. Holder, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Law!
(c) undergroundprogressive.com

Congress is poised to hold the Attorney General in Contempt of Congress.

His -- and the Administration's abuse of power, if not checked by Congress, will lead this country further down the path to a Police State.

Holder's recent assaults on the free flow of information on the Internet, warrantless searches and seizures, and restrictions on Freedom of Speech are eroding the Constitution, and leading us to a repeat of the Weimar Republic's shift to a Nazism.

We wish Congressman Issa well in his hearings, and trust that Mr. Holder will be removed from his position in which he has brought disgrace to the Department of Justice.

We also have to wonder where the MSM is in covering this process.  Or does the Law apply solely to GOP appointees?

GOP Self-Destruct Continues

Final Four GOP Candidates (c) Wikinut

Click here for related story [Washington Times]

Unhappy Voter

The results are in, and they reflect a voting pattern that doesn't tally with the outcomes in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.  Ron Paul and Rick Santorum seem to have much greater support than previously thought -- or counted.

New Hampshire and South Carolina were a complete waste of time and money since busloads of union activists were brought in to cast ballots under both states failure to require an identification check -- and Democrats could vote as well.

As we asked before, why are Democrats allowed to vote in a GOP caucus to select the Presidential candidate?

There was something clearly amiss in Iowa as so many districts were not delivering the vote count on time -- and some districts even "lost" the ballot boxes.  Several weeks after Romney had been declared the winner, we learned that in fact, Santorum had won.  And now, we learn theat Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Shawn has resigned in disgrace.  Could Iowa's voting process be following Chicago's?

So, although it looked as if Romney was the clear choice for the Oval Office by Conservative voters, the actual voting results give us a different picture; i.e., both Santorum and Paul are much more popular than the vote count would reflect.   In Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado, Santorum was a strong winner, leaving Romney in the dust.

	State	Gingrich	Paul	Romney	Santorum			reporting
02/07	CO	12.8%	11.8%	34.9%	40.2%			100%
02/07	MO	-	12.2%	25.3%	55.2%			100%
02/07	MN	10.7%	27.2%	16.9%	44.8%			95%
02/04	NV	21.1%	18.8%	50.1%	10.0%			100%
01/31	FL	31.9%	7.0%	46.4%	13.3%			100%
01/21	SC	40.4%	13.0%	27.8%	17.0%			100%
01/10	NH	9.4%	22.9%	39.3%	9.4%			100%
01/03	IA	13.3%	21.4%	24.5%	24.6%			>99%

                                                                           [Source:  AP]


Now, we'red not sure if the voters simply like Santorum better than Romney or Gingrich, or, perhaps they've been turned off by the PAC blood-letting in which the two leading candidates are ripping each other apart.  We're reminded of the WWII Partisan battles which raged until both sides were so debilitated that the Nazi's had merely to walk in and claim the victory for themselves.

This mutual savaging by Romney and Gingrich plays into the hands of the Democrats since both candidates now look like immature schoolboys, incapable of civil discourse, much less assuming the mantle of Presidential leadership.

Given the dismal economic situation in the US, this election should be a slam dunk in which Obama is run out of town on a rail in disgrace.

Instead, this primary process may strengthen Obama in the eyes of the voters who may simply figure that, even though Obama is incompetent and doing a lousy job, the GOP isn't demonstrating the capacity for leadership -- but rather more chaos.