--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
TO CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPS AND TELL THEM HOW TO VOTE FOR YOU:
http://congress.org/stickers/?dir=congressorg&officials=officials&lvl=C
AND/OR CALL THEM PERSONALLY VIA YOUR PHONE BOOK AND TELL YOUR
EMPLOYEE WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO
===============================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40364-2002Nov11.html
State Coalition Approves Internet Sales Tax Plan
Prospects in Legislatures, GOP Congress Uncertain
By Brian Krebs
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
November 12, 2002
Revenue-hungry states today took the first step toward building a
national framework for taxing items sold over the Internet.
In a meeting in Chicago, lawmakers and tax officials from 30
states -- including Virginia and the District of Columbia -
endorsed
a proposal to simplify their tax laws and enter into a voluntary
pact to collect online sales taxes. Maryland officials present at
the
meeting abstained from today's vote.
"This is a 21st century system that will dramatically improve the
morass that currently exists," said Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (R), a
key leader in the states' effort. "I'm confident that this
agreement....will mark the beginning of a new phase of this
process."
The voluntary program would take effect when at least 10 states
representing 20 percent of the U.S. population have amended
their laws to implement the program. Participating states would
then be free to ask Congress to approve a mandatory,
nationwide online sales tax regime. It's unclear, however, if
Congress would go along with any online sales tax proposal.
"We think that once these states have simplified their systems it
will be appropriate for the federal government to reward that
effort," said R. Bruce Johnson, commissioner of the Utah state
tax commission and co-chair of the implementing states group.
"We're doing everything we can to make it clear that the states
can work together."
Currently, 45 states and the District of Columbia levy sales
taxes, with rates varying from state to state -- and often from
town
to town.
Under the Streamlined Sales Tax Project proposal, states would be
required to establish uniform definitions for taxable goods
and services, and maintain a single statewide tax rate for each
type of product. The project also seeks to simplify tax reporting
requirements for online sellers. Currently, there are more than
7,000 different state and local tax jurisdictions nationwide.
Today's vote is a welcome development for the nation's largest
main street retailers, who have argued for years that the current
system gives online vendors an edge over so-called
"bricks-and-mortar" stores.
"Our ultimate goal is that everybody will have to play by the
same rules," said Maureen Riehl, state and industry relations
counsel for the National Retail Federation, a trade group that
represents nearly 1.4 million stores.
And for states facing rising budget deficits, the stakes are
huge. The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated states
lose
nearly $13 billion each year on untaxed Internet transactions.
That figure will more than triple to $45 billion by 2006,
according
to a 2001 University of Tennessee study conducted for the
Institute of State Studies.
More Paperwork for Businesses
Several unanswered questions loom large for the Internet sales
tax effort, including how to win support for the proposed system
from online retailers.
Most states have "use tax" laws that require people to file a
special form for reporting the sales taxes they owe on items
bought
online, but such laws are notoriously difficult to enforce, and
few people actually comply with them.
Rather than going after use taxes, all of the participating
states plan to entice online merchants to collect sales taxes
voluntarily by
sharing with them a portion of the tax revenues that they remit.
Currently, one-third of all states share sales tax revenues with
online retailers, with reimbursement rates ranging from a half
percent to 1.75 percent of the total taxes collected.
Revenue sharing aside, small and large Internet businesses that
maintain a physical presence in just a handful of states while
selling to customers nationwide are likely to balk at the costs
of collecting sales taxes, said Richard Prem, director of global
indirect taxation for Amazon.com.
A unified revenue-sharing model envisioned in the states' plan
fails to "come anywhere close to scratching the surface of the
cost" of complying with the system, he said.
Internet vendors would likely bear substantial costs just in
terms of the tax preparation needed to file as many as 45
separate tax
returns each year, experts contacted for this story said.
Under the states' plan, online sellers would be required to
purchase approved software to compute the appropriate state and
local taxes or to certify with the state any in-house calculation
systems already in place. E-tailers could choose to outsource tax
collection to a certified third-party under the states' plan.
So far, participating states have conducted only one tax software
pilot, involving four states, three technology vendors, and one
online seller.
Of the technology vendors participating in the pilot, just one --
Salem, Mass.-based Taxware, working in conjunction with
Hewlett-Packard -- managed to get a system up and running.
The online store in that pilot was O.C. Tanner Co., the Salt Lake
City-based company that forged the medals for the 2002
Winter Olympic Games.
O.C. Tanner tax manager Jake Garn said Taxware's software worked
well, but wondered whether the system would function
as smoothly when subjected to a much larger volume of queries
from all 45 participating states.
"[T]his was very small transaction volume compared to the level
of traffic our main business generates," Garn said.
Neither supporters nor opponents of the plan have a clear idea
how much the whole collection and remittance package would
cost the average Internet merchant, though the participating
states plan to conduct a comprehensive study in the coming
months.
They also are planning to run another tax technology pilot.
Aside from the cost considerations, though, opponents of the plan
say it would be tough to enforce and could infringe on
consumer privacy.
Whether I'm buying prescription drugs or sex toys online, someone
is going to have to keep track of what I bought so they can
figure out how to tax it," said Grover Norquist, president of
Americans for Tax Reform. "How do you do this without massive
violations of privacy?"
Under the states' plan, certified software vendors and service
providers would calculate and report taxes without retaining the
consumer's personally identifiable information. According to the
proposal, that information would be kept only for items that are
deemed exempt from taxation, a qualification that varies from
state to state.
The sales tax effort may also pit small Internet sellers against
larger operations. Larger Internet retailers that maintain
offices or
sales forces in the majority of the states stand the most to gain
from the states' plan, the NRF's Riehl conceded. Larger retailers
also are more likely to already have built in-house tax
collection and remittance systems.
"The (sales tax) simplifications alone are going to amount to a
net cost savings for our members," she said. "We see the
reimbursements as a long overdue acknowledgement that there's a
substantial cost to doing this."
Questionable Fate in GOP Congress
Streamlined Sales Tax Project supporters said they expect states
representing a fifth of the U.S. population to pass
implementing legislation by June 2003, the end of the fiscal year
for most states.
"I think by the middle of next year at least 10 states will have
passed the necessary legislation, particularly when they start
noticing the millions of dollars it will take to settle their
deficit situations," said Neil Osten, communications director for
the
National Conference of State Legislatures, which fully supports
the simplification effort.
It remains unclear, however, whether or when the
Republican-controlled Congress would recognize the compact.
The current legal block to online sales taxes dates back to 1992,
when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that merchants cannot be
required to collect sales tax unless they have a physical
location in the state where the customer is located. The court
said it
would be unfair to require out-of-state sellers to comply with
thousands of state and local tax jurisdictions across the nation.
But
the high court also ruled the Congress has the authority to allow
states to require remote sellers to collect taxes.
In 1998 and again last year, Congress debated tying legislation
to reward the states' efforts -- should enough of them simplify
their tax systems -- to a bid to extend a ban on
Internet-specific taxes, such as taxes on Internet access fees.
In each case,
Congress voted to extend the ban without including the
simplification incentives.
A least one influential opponent of the effort is already
planning legislation that would keep the Internet access tax ban
from
being "taken hostage" as a vehicle for considering the states'
proposal.
Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) said the first piece of legislation he
will introduce next year would be a standalone bill to
permanently
extend the ban on new Internet-specific taxes.
"If the states want to come up with their own simplification
schemes, that's fine. But that still doesn't make it right to
require
someone who has no representation in your state to pay taxes
there," said Allen, who heads the Senate Republican High-Tech
Task Force.
Leavitt and other supporters of the proposal disputed arguments
such as Allen's.
"It ignores the fact that sales and use taxes aren't imposed on
people who collect them, they are paid by the people doing the
buying," Leavitt said.
In the meantime, online retailers would be wise to seize the
revenue-sharing incentives included in the states' plan before
it's too late, O.C. Tanner's Garn said.
"If the states are right, and enough business shifts online that
it creates a much larger cost disadvantage, the states may then
have
the political muscle they need to get Congress to back this
without any" revenue sharing for retailers, he said. "Maybe it's
a good
thing to try to see the future and work for a mutual solution."
=============================================================
Homeland Security Bill Includes Some New Internet Police Powers
Associated Press
11/19/02
Ted Bridis
Original Link: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAZWZJOP8D.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - Internet providers such as America Online could
give the government more information about subscribers and police
would gain new Internet wiretap powers under legislation creating
the new Department of Homeland Security.
Amid the debate in Washington last week, provisions of the bill
tucked into a section about "cyber-security enhancements"
received scant attention. The Senate prepared to vote on the
entire legislation Tuesday.
Most of the provisions passed the House as part of separate
legislation in an overwhelming 385-3 vote during the summer, but
they were never considered in the Senate. Many are similar to
changes made last year under the USA Patriot Act, which included
new laws affecting Internet wiretaps and hacker investigations.
One new provision raises possible criminal penalties to life in
prison for hackers caught during electronic attacks that cause or
attempt to cause deaths. An attack aimed at causing "serious
bodily injury" could result in 20 years behind bars.
The debate over appropriate penalties for serious hacker attacks
has intensified since the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Experts have
increasingly focused on Internet threats to important computer
systems that control power grids, pipelines, water systems and
chemical refineries.
"We must not ignore the growing threat of cyber attacks," said
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who first introduced the proposals as
the Cyber Security Enhancement Act.
Just a few years ago, hackers vandalized popular commercial and
government Web sites, including those for the Pentagon, White
House and Senate. But compared with the threat of electronic
shutdowns of critical services, those sorts of attacks look more
like simple nuisances.
Supporters of the sentencing changes for hackers say they
eliminate differences with possible penalties for other crimes
that might also result in deaths. Critics noted that some
prosecutors have been accused in past years of exaggerating the
scope and financial damages from hacker attacks.
The bill also provides greater legal protections for Internet
providers, such as AOL or Microsoft Network, to turn over
information about their subscribers to government officials
during computer emergencies. If companies believe "in good faith"
that there is risk of death or injury to any person, they can
turn over details about customers - even their e-mails - without
a warrant.
Civil liberties groups, such as the Washington-based Electronic
Privacy Information Center, have complained the bill's language
allows Internet providers to turn over subscriber information to
any government officials, not just investigators. U.S. companies
have traditionally refused to act as agents for prosecutors
without court-approved warrants, said Chris Hoofnagle, EPIC's
legislative counsel.
The legislation requires any government officials who obtain such
information to report details to Attorney General John Ashcroft
within 90 days. It also requires Ashcroft to report results to
Congress after one year.
Another part of the Homeland Security bill gives U.S. authorities
new power to trace e-mails and other Internet traffic during
cyber-attacks without first obtaining even perfunctory court
approval. That could only happen during "an immediate threat to
national security," or during an attack against a "protected
computer." Prosecutors would need to obtain a judge's approval
within 48 hours.
Experts have noted that U.S. law considers as "protected" nearly
any computer logged onto the Internet. And civil liberties groups
have frequently complained that obtaining permission from a judge
is too easy for this type of e-mail tracing; if an investigator
merely attests that the information is relevant to an ongoing
investigation, a judge can't deny the request.
ARCHIVED AT:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_111902_homeland.html
LINKED AT:
http://infowars.com
REPORTED VIA INTERNATIONAL RADIO BROADCAST:
http://gcnlive.com
======================================================
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-965750.html
Congressional bill considers jailing hackers for life
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 13, 2002, 5:57 PM PT
WASHINGTON--A last-minute addition to a proposal for a Department
of Homeland Security would punish malicious
computer hackers with life in prison.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday evening voted 299
to 121 to approve the bill, which would reshape large
portions of the federal bureaucracy into a new department
combining parts of 22 existing federal agencies, including the
Secret
Service, the Coast Guard, and the FBI's National Infrastructure
Protection Center.
During closed-door negotiations before the debate began, the
House Republican leadership inserted the 16-page Cyber
Security Enhancement Act (CSEA) into the Homeland Security bill.
CSEA expands the ability of police to conduct Internet or
telephone eavesdropping without first obtaining a court order,
and offers Internet providers more latitude to disclose
information
to police.
In July, the full House approved CSEA by a 385-to-3 vote, but it
died in the Senate. By inserting CSEA into the Homeland
Security bill, the measure's backers are hoping for a second
chance before Congress adjourns for the holidays.
"Defending against terrorists who can strike any time with any
method requires a change in our approach to the problem,"
CSEA sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith said in a statement. "We need a new
government structure with a clear focus and clear
mission to protect Americans and increase public safety. The new
Department of Homeland Security will fulfill that vital role."
Earlier this year, Smith said: "Until we secure our
cyberinfrastructure, a few keystrokes and an Internet connection
is all one
needs to disable the economy and endanger lives. A mouse can be
just as dangerous as a bullet or a bomb." Smith heads a
subcommittee on crime, which held hearings that drew endorsements
of CSEA from a top Justice Department official and
executives from Microsoft and WorldCom.
Citing privacy concerns, civil liberties groups have objected to
portions of CSEA.
"There are a lot of different things to be concerned about, but
preserving Fourth Amendment and wiretap standards continues to
be a critical test of Congress' commitment of civil liberties,"
Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, said Wednesday.
Rotenberg said that CSEA makes "ISPs more closely aligned with
law enforcement interests than customer confidentiality
interests. It may not be surprising, but it's not good news."
Democratic members of Congress said during Wednesday evening's
floor debate that the Department of Homeland Security bill
had been rushed to the floor without everyone having a chance to
read it. They did not complain specifically about CSEA,
which has already been approved near-unanimously by the House.
"We were given a massive new bill this morning that is being
rushed through the House with no opportunity for debate," said
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. "I doubt more than 10 people in
Congress know (what's) in the bill."
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, replied by saying:
"There seems to be a concern that the bill is being rushed to
the floor...This was not rushed to the floor. We worked hard on
it. We worked together on it."
What CSEA does
If approved by the Senate and signed by the president, who has
called for a Department of Homeland Security, the law would:
� Promise up to life terms for computer intrusions that
"recklessly" put others' lives at risk. A committee report
accompanying
the legislation predicts: "A terrorist or criminal cyberattack
could further harm our economy and critical infrastructure. It is
imperative that the penalties and law enforcement capabilities
are adequate to prevent and deter such attacks."
� Permit limited surveillance without a court order when there is
an "ongoing attack" on an Internet-connected computer or "an
immediate threat to a national security interest." That kind of
surveillance would, however, be limited to obtaining a suspect's
telephone number, IP address, URLs or e-mail header
information--not the contents of online communications or
telephone
calls. Under federal law, such taps can take place when there's a
threat of "serious bodily injury to any person" or activity
involving organized crime.
� Change current law, which says it's illegal for an Internet
provider to "knowingly divulge" what users do except in some
specific circumstances, such as when it's troubleshooting
glitches, receiving a court order or tipping off police that a
crime is in
progress. CSEA expands that list to include when "an emergency
involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any
person requires disclosure of the information without delay."
� Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any
device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic
surveillance
applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a
"newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
======================================================
http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-158343120020730-060721.html
Man Surfing Bomb Web Sites Arrested In Florida
Police Find Suspicous Liquids In Man's Backpack
July 30, 2002
PUNTA GORDA, Fla. -- Police evacuated a public library and
arrested a British man using a computer to look at bomb-making
web sites after officials said they found suspicious liquids in
his backpack.
Nigel B. Gates, 45, of London, was charged Monday with
obstructing justice.
He was being held Tuesday at Charlotte County Jail on immigration
violations, as ordered by the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement.
Gates' visa expired 11 years ago and he gave a false name during
questioning, according to jail records.
Gates told police the liquids were paint thinner and jewelry
cleaner that he used to clean cars, said Punta Gorda police
spokesman Lt. Jason Ciaschini.
Authorities said the chemicals did not appear to be hazardous,
but they are still being identified.
Investigators seized the hard drive Gates had worked used as
evidence, Ciaschini said.
Ciaschini said it is not a crime to look at bomb-making web sites
and it is unlikely
Ciaschini will face any other charges.
"Looking up stuff on the Internet, everybody has freedom to do
that,'' he said.
=======================================================
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAB15VWH8D.html
Congressional bill Would Limit Damages for People Injured by
Smallpox Vaccine
Associated Press
Nov 13, 2002
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress is set to give special legal
protection for health care workers who will be delivering
smallpox
vaccines.
Under a new provision in the homeland security bill, poised for
approval this week, people or facilities that deliver the
dangerous
but highly effective inoculations would not face personal
liability from lawsuits by people injured or killed by the
vaccine.
Instead, the federal government would defend any suit and pay any
damages. Some victims might get compensated for their injuries,
but not receive punitive damages.
The development comes as President Bush considers who should get
the smallpox vaccine and how quickly to force innoculations under
martial law.
"Because of the risks associated with the smallpox vaccine, many
health professionals may be unwilling to give the vaccine
without some measure of liability protection," said Sen. Bill
Frist, R-Tenn., a leader on bioterrorism issues who has been
pushing
this issue for months. "The threat of lawsuits mustn't be a
barrier to protecting the American people."
Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980, and all stocks of the
virus were supposed to be destroyed, except for samples in
governement labs in Atlanta and Moscow.
But the vaccine is not without risks. It is made with a live
virus called vaccinia that can cause serious damage both to
people
vaccinated and to those with whom they come into close contact.
Experts estimate that up to 75,000 people will die from the
vaccination.
The most common serious reaction comes when vaccinia escapes from
the inoculation spot, often because people touch the
spot and then touch their eyes or mouth, or someone else. For
instance, the virus transferred to the eye can cause blindness.
Other fatal side effects include encephalitis, which can cause
paralysis or permanent neurologic damage, and progressive
vaccinia, where the virus spreads, eating away at flesh, bone and
gut.
People would be told the risks before they are vaccinated. Still,
lawsuits could be filed if someone is killed or injured.
Under the provision now part of the homeland security bill, the
Federal Tort Claims Act would be extended to any person or
facility that provides the vaccine under a plan issued by the
federal government. Under this act, cases would be tried in
federal
court using the appropriate state law.
The homeland security bill is expected to pass the House and
Senate before lawmakers adjourn their lame-duck session this
week.
Related news:
http://americanreddoublecross.com
http://thepowerhour.com
http://gulfwarvets.com
======================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/opinion/19TUE2.html
A Green Light to Spy
Anyone who worries that the war on terrorism will inspire an era
of unprecedented government spying on Americans has new cause for
concern today. The top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court of Review handed the government broad new authority
yesterday to wiretap phone calls, intercept mail and spy on
Internet use of ordinary Americans. The Supreme Court and
Congress should reverse this misguided ruling.
In May the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, a lower
tribunal established in 1978 to oversee domestic spying by the
government, issued a stern rebuke to the Justice Department for
its practices. The court held, 7 to 0, that in ordinary criminal
prosecutions the government had improperly used the more lenient
standard the law allows for collecting information on foreign
spies and terrorists. The court identified 75 instances in which
the F.B.I. had abused its authority, in some cases by making
false statements in eavesdropping applications.
The appellate court, in its ruling yesterday, reversed that
decision. The appellate ruling is procedurally troubling. The
court's sessions are held in secret, and the government is the
only party allowed to appear before it. The members of the court
are hand-picked by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Ignoring the
diversity of views on the federal bench, he selected three judges
appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The combination of
one-sided arguments and one-sided judges hardly instills
confidence in the court's decisions.
More disturbing, though, is the court's substantive decision and
the way the Justice Department is interpreting it. The decision
gives the government a green light to remove the separation that
has long existed between officials conducting surveillance on
suspected foreign agents and criminal prosecutors investigating
crimes. Attorney General John Ashcroft has announced that he
intends to use it to sharply increase the number of domestic
wiretaps, and that he will add lawyers at the F.B.I. and at
federal prosecutors' offices around the country to hurry the
process along.
The Supreme Court should step in to restore the lower court's
ruling, and Congress should redraft its statutes to clear up any
confusion about what the law requires. One of the biggest
challenges the nation faces is fighting foreign enemies without
sacrificing civil liberties at home. Yesterday's ruling failed to
rise to that challenge.
FEDERAL COURT APPROVES DOMESTIC SPYING IN USA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/national/19CTEX.html?ex=1038373200&en=a40b860a3c574624&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
=======================================================
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/nation/4548477.htm
Secret Court OKs Broad Wiretap Powers
BY DEBORAH CHARLES
Reuters
Nov. 18, 2002
WASHINGTON - In a victory for the Bush administration, a
secretive appeals court Monday ruled the U.S. government has the
right to use expanded powers to wiretap terrorism suspects under
a law adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The ruling was a blow to civil libertarians who say the expanded
powers, which allow greater leeway in conducting electronic
surveillance and in using information obtained from the wiretaps
and searches, jeopardize constitutional rights.
In a 56-page ruling overturning a May opinion by the secret
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge appeals
court panel said the Patriot Act gave the government the right to
expanded powers.
Sweeping anti-terror legislation, called the USA Patriot Act and
signed into law in October last year after the hijacked plane
attacks, makes it easier for investigators and prosecutors to
share information obtained by surveillance and searches.
In the May ruling, the seven judges that comprise the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court unanimously told the government
it had gone too far in interpreting the law to allow broad
information sharing.
The Justice Department appealed, saying the order limited the
kind of coordination needed to protect national security.
Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed Monday's ruling and said he
was immediately implementing new regulations and working to
expedite the surveillance process.
"The court of review's action revolutionizes our ability to
investigate terrorists and prosecute terrorist acts," he said.
"This decision does allow law enforcement officials to learn from
intelligence officials and vice versa."
FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUES
Civil liberties groups, which had urged the appeals court --
comprised of three appeals court judges named by Supreme Court
Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- to uphold the court's order,
slammed the ruling.
"We are deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests
that this special court exists only to rubber-stamp government
applications for intrusive surveillance warrants," said Ann
Beeson of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The groups had argued that broader government surveillance powers
would violate the Fourth Amendment which protects against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
But the appeals court said the procedures as required under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were reasonable.
"We think the procedures and government showings required under
FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant
standards, certainly come close," the judges wrote in their
ruling, which was partially declassified and published.
"We, therefore, believe firmly ... that FISA as amended is
constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are
reasonable."
Ashcroft said the government would uphold the Constitution. "We
have no desire whatever to, in any way, erode or undermine the
constitutional liberties here," he said.
The appeal is the first since the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court and appeals court were created in 1978 to
authorize wiretap requests in foreign intelligence
investigations. Under the procedures, all hearings and decisions
of the courts are conducted in secret.
The appeal hearing was not public, and only the Justice
Department's top appellate lawyer, Theodore Olson, presented
arguments.
Although the court allowed "friend of the court" briefs to be
filed by civil liberties groups and the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, since the Justice Department was the
only party the ruling can likely not be appealed.
"This is a major Constitutional decision that will affect every
American's privacy rights, yet there is no way anyone but the
government can automatically appeal this ruling to the Supreme
Court," Beeson said.
====================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/national/19CTEX.html?ex=1038373200&en=a40b860a3c574624&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Excerpts From Court's Ruling on Justice Dept.'s Broad Powers
Following are excerpts from ruling yesterday by a special federal
appeals court that the Justice Department has broad new powers
under the antiterrorism bill enacted last year to use wiretaps
obtained for intelligence operations to prosecute domestic
"terrorists."
THE COURT: "This case raises important questions of statutory
interpretation, and constitutionality. After a careful review of
the briefs filed by the government and amici, we conclude that
FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], as amended by
the Patriot Act, supports the government's position, and that the
restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA
or the Constitution."
===================================================
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1108.html
CounterPunch
November 8, 2002
Snoops at the Library
by KURT NIMMO
Attention, Mr. FBI Snoop. Here's a short list of the authors I
have checked out of the public library recently: Howard Zinn,
Michael Parenti, William Blum, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn,
and John Pilger. Now you don't have to go and bother
my librarian. She has better things to do than answer your
intrusive questions.
This evening I read an article by Bill Olds of the Hartford
Courant. "I have uncovered information that persuades me that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation has bugged the computers at the
Hartford Public Library," writes Olds. "And it's probable that
other libraries around the state have also been bugged. It's an
effort by the FBI to obtain leads that it believes may lead them
to
terrorists."
No doubt the FBI has the capacity to bug the computers at the
Hartford Public Library. On the other hand, I don't believe FBI
seriously thinks it will apprehend terrorists at the library --
that is unless they consider average citizens who happen to read
what
the government may consider "subversive" literature as
terrorists. How many al-Qaeda terrorists do you think are using
the
computers at the Hartford Public Library? How many of them are
checking out books? Are there dirty bomb how-to books are
available at the library? Or cookbooks on how best to mix up a
batch of anthrax at home in the kitchen sink?
It's just not books. It's email, too. A lot of people use the
public library to cruise the internet. You never know... the guy
on the
computer next to you at the library may be an al-Qaeda operative
communicating with somebody in Pakistan. He may be
planning the death and destruction of infidels in an AOL
chatroom. Osama bin Laden might be on the other end of the wire.
Back in October of last year the FBI checked computer terminals
in Fort Lauderdale and Coral Springs, Florida. According to
the government, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were in
Florida at one time or another. Since snooping at public
libraries
is secret under the Patriot Act, we will probably never know if
they found anything. Even so, I bet the FBI knows they're not
likely to catch terrorists at the public library -- or will they
scrape up enough evidence to thwart an attack. It's not al-Qaeda
specifically the FBI is interested in snooping on.
The FBI wants to keep tabs on Americans who may read the wrong
books and harbor the wrong ideas about their government.
Snooping is all about domestic politics.
Do you think I'm paranoid? Read on.
Back in the 1970s -- before Democrats went completely spineless
-- there were committees convened to investigate numerous
abuses committed not only by the FBI, but also the CIA and the
NSA. "On the theory that the executive's responsibility in the
area of 'national security' and 'foreign intelligence' justified
[the use of informants, infiltration, wire taps, warrantless
surreptitious
entries, mail opening programs, even blackmail and violence]
without the need of judicial supervision, the intelligence
community
believed it was free to direct these techniques against
individuals and organizations whom it believed threatened the
country's
security," concluded the Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the
United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976 --
otherwise known as the Church Committee.
The Church Committee discovered much of the information was
"collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely
political interests of an intelligence agency or the
administration, and to influence social policy and political
action." In other
words, they FBI served as a secret police -- not unlike the Stasi
or KGB -- and went after political opponents. "White House
officials have requested and obtained politically useful
information from the FBI, including information on the activities
of political
opponents or critics... the FBI engaged in activities which
necessarily affected the processes by which American citizens
make
decisions. In doing so, it distorted and exaggerated facts, made
use of the mass media, and attacked the leadership of groups
which it considered threats to the social order."
"Regardless of the unattractiveness or noisy militancy of some
private citizens or organizations," wrote Congressman Don
Edwards in 1975,
the Constitution does not permit federal interference with their
activities except through the criminal justice system, armed with
its ancient safeguards. There are no exceptions. No federal
agency, the CIA, the IRS, or the FBI, can be at the same time
policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury. That is what
constitutionally guaranteed due process is all about. It may
sometimes be
disorderly and unsatisfactory to some, but it is the essence of
freedom ... I suggest that the philosophy supporting
COINTELPRO is the subversive notion that any public official, the
President or a policeman, possesses a kind of inherent
power to set aside the Constitution whenever he thinks the public
interest, or "national security" warrants it. That notion is
postulate of tyranny.
That was then, this is now.
Consider the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which James X. Dempsey and
David Cole (authors of "Terrorism & the Constitution:
Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security")
trace back to the "intolerant approaches of the 1950s," when
association with Communist or anarchist groups was grounds for
exclusion and deportation. It was this intolerance and distrust
of political opposition that led to the sort of criminal behavior
the FBI and other police and intelligence agencies wantonly
engaged in -- COINTELPRO, Operation Chaos, the Huston Plan, state
police Red Squads.
The Church Committee, however, was nothing more than a glitch. It
only slowed down the government's desire to snoop on and
disrupt the legal political activities of American citizens for a
short period of time. Soon, the "postulate of tyranny" was back
with
a vengence.
Both the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations proposed
draconian provisions that would eventually end up in the Patriot
Act. Congress rejected the Reagan and Bush proposals -- including
guilt by association, association as grounds for exclusion or
deportation, a ban on supporting lawful activities of groups
labeled terrorist, the use of secret evidence, and the
empowerment
of the Secretary of State to designate groups as terrorist
organizations, without judicial or congressional review.
According to
Dempsey and Cole, "several members of the House Judiciary
Committee, both Democrat and Republican, questioned the need
for the legislation... The legislation languished and seemed
headed for defeat."
The courts were not going along with the idea of a police state,
either. In 1980, the 4th Circuit court stated in the landmark
case
of US v. Truong Dinh Hung that "the executive should be excused
from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is
conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." The
rules on this sort of snooping were established under the 1978
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law designed to
allow intelligence agencies to gather information on foreign
powers without the restrictions imposed on them by the
Constitution. Under FISA, when agents wanted to obtain authority
to
conduct electronic surveillance or secret physical searches, a
designated official of the executive office had to certify that
"the
purpose" for the surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence
information. In other words, the FBI, the CIA, and other
intelligence agencies were allowed to surveil "targets" without
probable cause -- that is so long as the surveillance had
something
to do with a foreign intelligence investigation.
And then came the double whammy shocks of Oklahoma City and
September 11. Lawmakers wasted no time passing the
Patriot Act -- a virtual wish list of repressive police state and
unconstitutional goodies -- and minus significant debate.
Lawmakers didn't even bother to read the legislation before
inking the act into law at the behest of an imperious and
swaggering
unelected president. All of a sudden COINTELPRO is back in
fashion and ready for business. Reagan, Bush, and the ghost of
J. Edgar Hoover prevailed. No Church Committee will be allowed to
take the wind out of the sails of snoops this time around.
All of which brings me around to the library again. Under Section
215 of the USA Patriot Act FBI agents are visiting libraries
across the nation as I write this and possibly taking a look-see
at your reading habits. Even bookstore records can be scoured.
They don't even have to tell you about it -- and the librarian or
bookseller can face prosecution if they say anything.
As Montag knew -- in Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 -- books
can be dangerous. The Nazis understood the power of
books when they burned 20,000 of them in 1933. So did the Serbs
when they torched over a million books and 100,000
manuscripts -- the largest book burning in history -- at the
Sarajevo National Library in 1992.
Between 1973 and the late 1980s, the FBI operated another secret
counterintelligence operation called the Library Awareness
Program. Back in those days the feds were checking out what books
Soviet bloc citizens were reading in American science
libraries. "Agents would approach clerical staff at public and
university libraries, flash a badge and appeal to their
patriotism in
preventing the spread of 'sensitive but unclassified'
information," former librarian Herbert Foerstel told Laura
Flanders of The
Nation last summer.
The American Library Association publicly opposed the Library
Awareness Program and it was eventually dropped. But now,
with Bush and Ashcroft at the wheel of state -- and with the twin
cacodemons of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein wagged in our
faces at every turn -- the patron record confidentiality laws
passed over a decade ago by many states are so much water under
the proverbial bridge. Privacy is simply no longer patriotic. In
fact, it may mean you have something to hide.
Although a bipartisan committee sent a twelve-page letter to John
Ashcroft on June 13 demanding details on the implementation
of the USA Patriot Act, the government has stonewalled all
inquiries. No doubt, now that the Republicans control all three
branches of government, Ashcroft's intransigence will only
worsen.
Meanwhile, crouched behind the stacks at your public library, FBI
agents may be snooping on the titles you check out. Or
bugging the computer terminals. They may be visiting the
neighborhood bookstore to find out what books you bought. Books
are dangerous. Books are seditious. Free and inquisitive minds
are unpatriotic. Questioning the government -- as all of the
authors mentioned in the first paragraph of this article do --
may verge on subversive criminality. "To those who scare
peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty," Ashcroft told
a Senate committee a few months ago, "my message is this:
Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national
unity and diminish our resolve."
Remember: Less than fifty years ago people went to prison for
studying the works of Marx and Lenin -- and the Supreme Court
upheld the convictions. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson's
Espionage and Sedition Act allowed the government to censor
the foreign language press and bar it from publishing antiwar
sentiments. In 1918, Eugene Debs, a socialist, received a 10-year
prison sentence for his public opposition to the war.
Think about this the next time you go to the library.
Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las
Cruces, New Mexico. He can be reached at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===================================================
http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,5437553%255E8362,00.html
Ellison to pull plug on protest websites
Sean Parnell and Matthew Fynes-Clinton
07nov02
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - THE Federal Government plans to stop
Australians gaining access to websites used to organise protests.
The move is part of a major crackdown on Internet-assisted crime.
Justice Minister Chris Ellison, acting on a request from NSW
Police Minister Michael Costa, will look at upgrading federal
powers to block certain websites.
A police ministers meeting in Darwin this week agreed it was
"unacceptable websites advocating or facilitating violent protest
action be accessible from Australia".
Internet regulator, the Australian Broadcasting Authority, only
last week decided not to block access to websites organising
protests for the World Trade Organisation meeting in Sydney.
But police ministers are so concerned by cyber crime and
Internet-assisted crime they have made it one of their
priorities, agreeing to examine new laws and establishing a
Hi-Tech Crime Centre.
Senator Ellison, who was unable to comment yesterday, has
directed a review of telecommunications offences and vowed to use
Commonwealth powers "to the maximum" to block websites.
Mr Costa said the World Trade Organisation protest websites
advocated violence against police and similar websites were used
last year to rally protesters for the Commonwealth Heads Of
Government Meeting held in Queensland.
The Hi-Tech Crime Centre would be run by the federal police, and
follows Senator Ellison's decision to give the new Australian
Crime Commission the power to investigate cyber crime.
Queensland Police Minister Tony McGrady, advocating new laws to
fight Internet-assisted crime, told the Darwin meeting of a
recent Internet defamation case where police were powerless to
act.
Former Aspley State High principal Ian Isaacs and deputy
principal Mary McMahon were defamed in an e-mail directing people
to a bogus website.
Mr Isaacs and Mrs McMahon were falsely accused on the Internet of
gross acts involving four pupils.
The information was tracked to an address in Victoria but police
could not search the premises because the relevant Queensland
offence was only a summary one. No arrests were made.
Mr Isaacs, who remains on stress leave, said yesterday he would
welcome new Commonwealth defamation laws if they enabled
offenders to be dealt with swiftly.
"It's an excellent idea," he said. "It would break through the
difficulties of operating across (state) boundaries and protocols
which slow the system down.
"Defamation should definitely be a criminal offence in Queensland
and there should be jail penalties. It can destroy someone's
life."
An e-mail notifying hundreds of students, teachers and parents of
the website later spread through the Aspley High community.
Mr McGrady said the Aspley case had been referred to the E-Crime
Law Reform Working Party.
While that would not enable charges to be laid, it could prevent
similar cases.
State Opposition Justice spokesman Lawrence Springborg said that
despite the federal proposals, he would introduce a Private
Member's Bill on defamation in Parliament today. It would call
for defamation to be an indictable offence with up to five years'
jail on conviction.
===================================================
http://upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20020801-070608-5099r
SHANGHAIED!
Commie China tightens rules on US Internet content
By Christian M. Wade
UPI Correspondent
>From the Science & Technology Desk
8/1/2002
SHANGHAI, China, Aug. 1 (UPI) -- Strict new rules on Internet
publishing in China went into effect Thursday
as authorities in Beijing moved to silence online dissent and
political criticism ahead of this year's 16th Communist
Party Congress, when an entire generation of leaders will step
down.
The new regulations, a copy of which was obtained by United Press
International, ban material that "threatens
national unity, divulges state secrets or fuels ethnic hatred or
discrimination."
Electronic versions of published books, newspapers, periodicals,
and audio and video products, as well as
original literature, art, and material related to science and
technology, social sciences and engineering, are listed in
the government circular as subject to close scrutiny by
authorities.
Internet publishers caught disobeying the guidelines will have to
pay hefty fines or be shut down.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Information Technology in
Shanghai, who only gave his surname Chen, said the
new rules were created because Internet portals were caught
disobeying previous laws on content. The
government wants people to use the Internet "in a civilized
manner," he said.
"Some Internet service providers have been hosting Web sites that
carry content which is contrary to the
government's regulations," Chen said. "We plan to get tough with
violators this time around."
The move comes amid a major crackdown on Internet cafes and a
voluntary pledge signed by at least 130
Internet companies in March to cooperate with authorities in
censoring online content. Beijing intensified its
crackdown on Web cafes after a deadly fire killed 25 people in
the capital last month. Critics claim the
government is using the incident to limit online access.
Authorities also have ordered Internet cafes to install software
that can block 500,000 blacklisted,
overseas-based Web sites and track the movements of surfers who
attempt to access them. The Internet has
become an increasingly powerful medium for political dissent and
discourse in China, the world's second-largest
online community with nearly 50 million Web users.
Chinese-language Web sites ranging from the serious to the
sublime have emerged over the past few years and efforts to
control the content of what is published have met
with limited success.
Officials from the Public Security Bureau in Shanghai have been
carrying out inspections of local Internet service
providers, as well as foreign companies and news organizations.
For example, officials paid a visit to the Shanghai
bureau of United Press International on Wednesday, wanting to
know if the news agency, headquartered in
Washington, D.C., was using local servers to publish news on
China.
Industry sources said the nationwide crackdown is meant to curb
discussion of sensitive political issues while
Beijing works out the final details of leadership changes for the
upcoming congress.
"The Communist Party views the Internet as a threat to its hold
on power," said Peter Cheung, an Internet
consultant in Hong Kong. "The new rules indicate they're very
concerned about it."
Copyright � 2002 United Press International
===================================================
http://www.sfbg.com/36/
Secret Agents In The Newsroom?
By A.C. Thompson
San Francisco Bay Guardian
8-17-2
Vice President-alleged corporate crook Dick Cheney used his brief
time behind enemy lines - i.e., in San Francisco - to talk about
taking down Saddam Hussein. "We're looking at all our options,"
Cheney said as protesters made noise outside
the Commonwealth Club of California.
The Times reported the battle plans were originally leaked to the
paper by a disgruntled Pentagon bigwig who thinks the invasion
scheme sucks. That could be the whole story leaks, of course, are
a cherished Washington institution.
But there could be something else going on. Perhaps the Pentagon
is
surreptitiously publicizing boilerplate invasion scenarios it
doesn't actually intend to use as a way to gauge public support
for a new war on Iraq. Intelligence experts I spoke to say that
scenario is entirely possible. "I think that's a very sound
hypothesis," says David MacMichaels, a former analyst for the
Central Intelligence Agency. "Leaks always attempt to influence
policy and some of them do."
Or maybe this is a concerted disinformation campaign, with the
defense establishment intentionally duping the country's top
journalists in an effort to mislead Hussein.
"If, in reality, Ike is going to Normandy, then you say MacArthur
is going to Calais," says John Pike, director of
GlobalSecurity.org, a Beltway think tank
focused on intelligence and military tactics. "A year from now,
when they're writing the history of this, I wouldn't be surprised
to learn the leaks were part of a
strategic deception plan."
The Times isn't the only publication with high-level sources in
D.C. Loose-lipped military insiders are feeding confidential
information much of it contradictory to the Washington Post, the
Los Angeles Times, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Both the New
York Times and L.A. Times claim we should expect a rapid attack
with a
force of less than 250,000 troops possibly as low as 70,000. But
according to a July 26 Inquirer story, "a force of 250,000 to
300,000 U.S. troops would invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein,
backed by massive air strikes."
Still, it wouldn't be the first time military operatives
manipulated the fourth estate.
In the mid 1980s Ronald Reagan used a squad of six U.S. Army
soldiers trained in psychological warfare techniques to shape
media coverage of the civil wars in Central America. According to
muckraker Robert Parry the former Associated Press reporter who
broke the Iran-Contra story this secret operation was dubbed
"Project Truth."
Hmm ... Is Bush borrowing a trick from the Gipper?
E-mail A.C. Thompson at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
reposted on:
http://rense.com/general28/gane.htm
===================================================
Anonymize: Ditch your ISP and sign up with a service that lets
you surf by proxy, keeping your IP address concealed.
Our ISP Service, Infowars.net is Your Privacy and Freedom
Oriented ISP-- and Allows You to Do Just That.
Also, Our Users' Email Addresses Reflect Their Patriotism
([EMAIL PROTECTED])- - as Opposed to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.infowars.net
===================================================
THIS INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING NEWSLETTER POSTED BY:
IDIOTBOX WARS CATV NEWS
http://idiotboxwars.org
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
begin: vcard
fn: John Lee
n: Lee;John
org: IDIOT BOX WARS CATV
email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
title: Executive Producer
note: reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]@netzero.net
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--- End Message ---
