Tim Cash

For the record I am conservative in my thinking but try hard to keep an open mind and give all an opportunity to voice their opinions. Many of my friends have differing views than mine when it comes to politics, but very few who disagree that much of what our Country was founded on is disintegrating before our very eyes. In the end, whether of liberal beliefs or conservative – we are ALL AMERICANS.

This did not just start yesterday, there has been an eroding of America for many years now. Those of you who are 30 or older need only look back to your years as a child, when we all said the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. Many of our children have never pledged allegiance to our Flag:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Many of our children are not learning values in the classroom or at home – the days of going to the principle’s office for a smack on the rear are gone and ‘just wait till your father gets home’ means nothing. For me, either of those options merely needed to be mentioned to keep me on the straight and narrow growing up. There is almost a twisted sense that each person is owed something from those who have been successful in life instead of getting up off the couch and finding a job. What’s that you say? There are no jobs out there? Unemployment is at 9 percent? HOGWASH!

The problem with Americans is that we feel that the jobs that are available are beneath us. We are quick to complain about the immigrants who are moving into our country – guess what folks – they are here because there is WORK. Work, that is right, I said it! They are doing the manual labor or menial jobs that many of us would not even consider as a viable option. They are here because of the promise for a better life! One free from persecution where the sky is the limit. I hate to say it, but these same immigrants place more value of being in America than many of those who were born in America.

Whoa is me! Whoa is me! Folks we have not seen bad. Bad is the Great Depression. Bad is persecution of women and children living under Taliban law years ago in Afghanistan. Bad is being of Jewish decent in Germany during Hilter’s brutal reign. Bad is being one of the victims of 9/11. Bad is the Widow and Children of one of our Fallen Heroes. Need I say more?

We have many issues in our Country in this day and age. No one person can be blamed for the financial crisis that hit us. We probably will never know how many or even who was to blame as the powerful in our country seem to protect their own – from corporate America to our elected leaders. You only need to look at the billions of YOUR tax dollars that have been given to numerous corporations that were deemed ‘Too Big To Fail’ to realize this. There have not been, nor will there be any accountability – let alone any repayment (well, unless you consider repayment by you, me and our children as repayment).

Only today I received an email from a lady who wanted to let me know that I should refrain from supporting a group of mothers who cared about their children in the Armed Forces. She was polite in her dissent, but wanted to state her dissatisfaction with me publicly supporting them as this was viewed as a group that was partisan. Partisan? REALLY? Mothers fearing for their children’s safe return is now partisan? COME ON!

This last week saw closed door meetings with political leaders and the attack on a news organization by our very own administration. All the while, our Generals charged with carrying out combat operations in Afghanistan are desperately awaiting a decision from our government. I got it that there are those of you who disagree with our presence in Afghanistan but this is a battle we must fight there and that we must win. If we do not, we will only see more tragedy on our own soil.

If you really want to participate in the direction of this great country, I strongly suggest you do so by exercising the rights that our founding fathers gave us (and no I am not talking about the right to bear arms):

• The right of free speech
• The right to vote

These two PEACEFUL means granted to all Americans by our Founding Fathers are so very powerful. They have been there since day one but sadly many choose not to exercise either right. Rather, the remain silent in terms of speech and vote. Only after the fact to they choose to cry foul – knowing all along that they were simply too busy or afraid to speak out or stand in line at the polls to cast their ballot. Those who fill the halls of our local, state and federal capital buildings are there because those who believed they could make a difference went to the polling stations and voted them in.

It is time for everyday Americans to wake up, to give notice of their displeasure or support of the direction that our elected leaders are taking this Great Country. Being an elected leader means that you are prone to having people who both support you and oppose you – it comes with the job! At no time should they be calling for the banishment of free speech or free press.

I will leave you with the words of The Star Spangled Banner which was composed by Francis Scott Key in 1814:

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro’ the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watch’d, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro’ the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Not so, it seems. With McCain himself now saying he’ll kick Obama’s “you-know-what” in the upcoming debate (of course, it’s been the opposite at all of the debates so far), Palin has gotten the blessing to keep on blathering about things she clearly does not understand.

ABC News says that Palin “tones it down a notch,” but a “notch” down from the fever pitch of accusing the Democratic nominee of “pallin’ around with terrorists” and insinuating that he’s a terrorist himself, is, well, not much of a notch at all.

The ABC article reflects much of what’s been reported in the Associated Press, so the quotes that follow are pretty universal. With each passing statement, she proves just how out-of-touch with reality she really is. Take, for example, her asinine interpretation of just what all the “anger” their campaign has seen is all about:

While Palin cited the anger felt by many of her supporters — as expressed verbally at two separate town meetings earlier in the week — Palin attempted to turn it into a positive message on Republican nominee John McCain reforming Washington.  She did not turn it into anger at the Democratic nominee, who is leading the race in most national and battleground state polls.

“All across America, I know that there’s a lot of anger right now,” Palin said. “There’s anger about the insider dealing of lobbyists and anger at the greed of Wall Street, and anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite. And with serious reforms to change Washington, John McCain is going to turn your anger into action.”

Okay, Governor, let me see if I can explain it in small words so that you can understand. The anger you’ve seen isn’t about “insider dealing” or “lobbyists.” It’s all because you and your running mate (that’s the old guy who calls Obama “that one”) have whipped your base into a frenzy of vile hate. You’ve accused your opponents of “pallin’ around with terrorists,” and have created a state of fear across the country.

You, like many Americans, don’t even know the difference between a lobbyist and a lobby, which is made evident by all of these preachers who violated their 501(c)3 code last month with their “freedom Sunday” garbage. They clearly don’t understand the difference between an educational organization (which is what they’re supposed to be) and a lobbying group, which is a 501(c)4 organization.

Apparently, a “Christian-based” group of attorneys, the Alliance Defense Fund, encouraged pastors all across the country to do exactly what the 501(c)3 charter says they can’t do: attempt to influence an election from official positions within their organizations. Those many thousands of pastors violated the agreement they signed, and should be given the appropriate fines. Their goal, apparently, is to file a suit to have the tax laws rewritten or struck down by the Supreme Court.

Good luck with that.

So, Governor, since you have no clue what lobbying is for, and you have even less of a clue as to why there’s so much anger in your rallies, maybe you need to seriously consider the possibility that you just need you shut your mouth and learn something about how your government really works.

Clearly, this is a person who doesn’t need to be anywhere near the White House, let alone a heartbeat away from occupying it.

The ABC article further discusses her usage of the phrase “bad guys.” Apparently, she’s replaced “terrorist” with “bad guys” in order to continue to rile that low-level base of supporters for whom “terrorist” is probably too big of a word. No, wait. Maybe it’s too big of a word for Governor Palin. After all, she’s “one of us,” right? As Newsweek’s cover said recently, maybe that’s the problem:

While Palin made no mention of William Ayers, who just days ago she charged was “a terrorist” with closer ties to Obama than he will acknowledge, she did speak about “terrorists” in general as the “bad guys,” and then went on to describe the “bad guys” in the current economic crisis. It was unclear if Palin was attempting to allude to Ayers when speaking about “terrorists.”

“Help me Ohio to help put John McCain in the White House,” Palin said. “He understands… For one thing, we know who the bad guys are, OK? We know, we know that in the war, it’s terrorists, terrorists who hate America and her allies and would seek to destroy us, and the bad guys are those who would support and sympathize with the terrorists. They do not like America because of what we stand for: liberty, freedom, equal rights. Those who sympathize and support those terrorists who would seek to destroy all that it is that we value, those are the bad guys, ok?”

Really, Governor? Those are the bad guys? You mean that those who have completely shredded our constitution, diluted the right to free speech and the right to assemble peacefully, supported rampant wire taps, and have even put gay rights groups on list of “domestic terrorist” groups in recent years aren’t the bad guys?

There’s one phrase we need to look out for: “destroy all that it is that we value.” You see, dear friends and neighbors, her “values” have been clearly demonstrated in this past week as she continues to spread the lies and insinuations that Senator Obama is “pallin’ around with terrorists who would strike at their own country” and that she has abused her power in the firing of her ex brother-in-law.

Her “values” even questioned the local librarian as to whether or not certain books would be removed from the shelves of the Wasila public library if the then-mayor asked them to be. The librarian said no. She was later fired. More here and here.

Her “values” have said that she believes that homosexuality can be “prayed away” despite the fact that every single major medical, psychiatric, and professional group that works within the gay and lesbian community says otherwise.

Do us all a favor, Governor. You’ve said that you can see Russia from the front door of your home. Great. Go home. Better yet, we’ll help send you back there on November 4th.

I amuse easily. Which is why I tried hard to hold back a smile, a chuckle (at the irony), when I read of GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s hacked e-mail.

The intrusiveness of that act, the back-door sneak attack on personal privacy is exactly what this Republican administration is doing to the American people every day: screening e-mails for “trigger”words, tracking travel of ordinary citizens, tapping phone lines,  seeking access to library records … the list of civil liberties and privacy issues invaded and run through the shredder by our government (which is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people) is endless. “Government hacking” is the crude term for citizen surveillance in the guise of homeland security.

Because we are “just ordinary people” that’s supposed to make it okay? I don’t think so. As we learned this week, when it comes to internet and computer hacking, rank doesn’t have its privileges, nor does legislative rank and file offer immunity from such attacks.

Perhaps if Palin or John McCain get back a bit of what their party and their President has been dishing out, they may think twice (I doubt it, but there’s always hope) about the ramifications of the laws and the bill of rights that the government and their President are systematically shredding, the undermining of civil liberties and free speech they increasingly enable, propose, and support. That persistent undermining of our basic rights erodes our faith in government, and most certainly in their party in power.

The hacker in question rooting through Palin’s e-mail is not of the government, he’s just a guy. With a business. With a certain set of skills, which he puts to questionable use.  And he hacked Sarah’s e-mail (and face it, hacking isn’t nice, it’s downright nasty), an account that she promptly closed. She’s ticked. Justifiably so. But I do wonder what he found (I haven’t looked), given that she has refused, among other things, to respond to a subpeona for records related to her political/ethical problems in Alaska. Given that she has put herself in the public eye, available for ethical, political and moral dissection under the public microscope, she has opened herself up to scrutiny.

Now granted, I shudder to think that my e-mail could be hacked, that my personal writings could be read by others. Like Sarah, I’d be really ticked. But there’s nothing there that I wouldn’t, or haven’t already said, out loud, in public, often in print.  It’s just how I am. I would, however, be infuriated by the audacity of a stranger peering into my personal business and figuring out that I want another shot at visiting The Three Windows and honoring the grounds of the Goddess (does that make me Wiccan, Pagan maybe?) at Machu Picchu (Sarah’s Wasilla church won’t like me).

Okay, Sarah. Time to look through that Republican lens and know firsthand a bit of what it feels like when our government hacks us.

Last August, President Bush attended an exclusive, high-priced fundraiser for New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici.  Local activists opposed to the president’s policies were, of course, not invited.  To let the president know that not everyone agreed with him, they planned to stand along his motorcade route holding up signs expressing their views, especially their opposition to the war in Iraq.

The peaceful demonstrators’ attempt at free speech was quickly squashed when police officers forced them to stay at least 150 yards away from the motorcade route, walling them off by placing numerous police cars and officers on horseback between the protesters and the president.  Meanwhile, a group of Bush supporters was allowed to stand right along the motorcade route, where their “God Bless George Bush!  We pray for you!” sign was in plain view of both Bush and the journalists accompanying him.

This isn’t the first time law enforcement officers have tried to squelch dissenters in President Bush’s presence. In 2004, Jeffrey and Nicole Rank were arrested for peacefully attending one of the president’s speeches while wearing t-shirts bearing the international “no” symbol superimposed over the word “Bush.”  The Ranks sued and ultimately received an $80,000 settlement from the White House—a win for free speech after a fight that should never have been necessary in a free society.

And in 2005, Leslie Weise and Alex Young were ejected from another of the president’s speeches because of a bumper sticker on their car that read “No More Blood for Oil.”  Their lawsuit is still pending.  

Now, the ACLU has filed a complaint in federal court on behalf of six of the peaceful protesters in New Mexico who were banned from the view of the president.  It is our hope that the lawsuit will prove once and for all that incidents such as these are unconstitutional.

These incidents of censorship appear to be dictated by White House policy.  The official Presidential Advance Manual recommends that someone working on the ground where the president is to make an appearance “ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.”  It advocates the formation of “rally squads” of sign-wielding supporters that can “use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform.”  It also suggests that the rally squads “lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA!  USA!  USA!).”  

Lest it be thought that only Republican administrations engage in this type of behavior, it is worth pointing out that the Clinton administration’s Advance Manual also suggested that supporters could “be encouraged to wave supporting placards in front of opposing ones.”  In fact, the ACLU supported a lawsuit against a government policy that prohibited people from demonstrating along the route of Clinton’s presidential inauguration parade.

It’s easy to see why presidents would want to be pictured surrounded by adoring supporters. After all, the true audience for a presidential appearance is usually not those who attend in person, but the potential millions who will catch a glimpse on the evening news.  Few may hear the words the president speaks, but many will see the images filmed that day.

But the desire to look good does not justify treating members of the public like extras in a campaign commercial rather than citizens with a protected constitutional right to engage in speech of their own.  Shielding the president from all criticism is an unsound and undemocratic policy that violates the Constitution.  The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”  This guarantee is grounded in the idea that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explained almost 90 years ago, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”  

The right to free speech is meaningless when the government is permitted to do an end run around the First Amendment by relegating those who want to exercise it to remote locations where no one will hear them.  Communication requires both a speaker and a listener.  Just as it is censorship to prohibit speech entirely, it is censorship to place individuals where they can speak all they want with no chance of being heard.

Take Action

You should consider joining the ACLU, or at least donating to help them with the good works they are doing to protect all of our civil liberties.

About the author

Catherine Crump works at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to safeguard the right to engage in political dissent. Catherine’s project seeks to protect the First Amendment rights of government whistle blowers and political protesters. She counsels and supports government employees who wish to come forward with information about shortcomings in the government’s national security strategy. She also works with political protesters who are critical of government and have been forced to protest in relatively remote locations because of their viewpoint.
 

Editor’s Note: This article was originally posted at The Huffington Post, and The Daily Kos. Her bio is from Equal Justice Works

At least one part of the revised USA Patriot Act of 2001 has fallen under a federal judge’s gavel in a ruling that requires a court approval before investigators can order internet providers to turn over customer records. The ruling is another blow to already beleaguered Bush administration and its anti-terrorist policies.

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (revised in 2005) is a perpetually controversial package of anti-terrorist legislation that has been sharply criticized for its apparent violations of basic constitutional rights and civil liberties.

In a 120-page ruling, US District Judge Victor Marrero supported the American Civil Liberties Union contention that the government’s ability to demand records and use administrative subpoenas known as security letters without warrants or judicial review was a violation of free speech and individual rights. The letters under protest include a gag order that also prohibited businesses from disclosing that such demands were even made. Marrero said the law “substantially deters any judicial challenge.”

“The law reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the Judiciary’s designed role under the Constitution.

– US District Judge Victor Marrero

The verdict stems from an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that challenged the legality of allowing federal investigative agencies to demand records with prior court approval. Marrero, of the Southern District of New York, said the Patriot Act “offends the fundamental Constitutional principles” that form the checks and balances and separation of powers. Marrero said government orders must be subject to “meaningful” judicial review.

“Under the mantle of secrecy, the self preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction … secrecy’s protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as to simply save face…”

– US District Judge Victor Marrero

Marrero said the revised Patriotic Act amounted to “unreasonable search and seizure” and violated free speech. Marrero ruled against the first version of the Patriot Act in 2004, and was asked by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to review the constitutionality of the revised 2005 Patriot Act.

In essence, and upon review of an earlier ruling, Marrero said that tools such as NSL’s (national security letters) require a judicial order or grand jury subpoena. NSL’s are commonly used by the FBI and federal security agencies to force the release of otherwise private customer information from internet providers, telephone companies and even public libraries. This ruling, however, applies only to internet and e-mail providers.

“The law reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the Judiciary’s designed role under the Constitution.

– US District Judge Victor Marrero

Arguing the winning ACLU position, Attorney Jameel Jaffer charged that the revised Patriot Act “wrongly” gave the FBI the authority to decide on its own, in the absence of court review, whether internet companies, designated as Electronic Communications Service Providers, could inform their clients of an investigation. The ACLU held that in approving the revised Patriotic Act, Congress failed to provide enough protections to the people when it prohibited service providers from informing clients when records are turned over to authorities.

The ACLU cites this ruling as a strong warning to the government about the tactics it is using in the fight against terror, and said the decision is a “refutation” of the government’s use of “excessive secrecy and unbridled power under the Patriot Act.”

Documents in this case showed that the government had censored some portions of the filings in the case, including a statement from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling that said government has a “tendency” to abuse its power in the name of domestic security.

This latest ruling will now move to appellate court. Earlier rulings issued this year in other U.S. courts supported the rights of “enemy combatants” to legally challenge their imprisonment and two other rulings in June refuted portions of the law regarding the criminality of providing material support to potential terrorists.

Truly astonishing.

Since when does a piece of paper say I know more than someone else? Congratulations. You have a piece of paper that says you paid money to learn something that could be learned for free. You may even be able to recall that information at any given time granted you went to class, paid attention, and passed with something more than a “C’ average. I applaud your efforts and yet I understand that it is all needed to find the cheese.

You know what else is truly astonishing?

Freedom of Speech is fast becoming a joke amongst people, primarily those in authoritative positions, i.e. managers, politicians, religious leaders, etc.

We have been so caught up in the P.C. phenomenon that has swept through our television and other means of communication that we are now unable to express ourselves as we see fit in fear that we may offend someone or it may be deemed “socially unacceptable” or worse, “unprofessional.”

I say psssh to P.C.

Is it so wrong to simply state a fact or facts in their simplest terms? Sounds mathematical doesn’t it?

Today’s society says it is Ok for an employer to locate information that you post about yourself or personal ideals and thoughts and use them against you. That doesn’t seem fair does it? They have something to hang you with and you can’t even defend yourself. It’s sad that a business would stoop so low as to pursue such a thing. It is almost as though the business is looking to fire people, which is odd because the business is always saying that we are not looking for ways to fire you.

But wait… it might harm the reputation of the business you work for!!! That’s right. Right now as you type something to someone it may hurt the reputation of the business you work for. Granted, the fact that wages in many Clarksville businesses are lowest in their industries is not a factor. Neither is the fact that the standards are set pretty high are more contributing factors than maybe someone saying something in regards to increased competition in order to drive wages and preformance.

Consider the following equation if you will:

I pay you “X” and you give me “Y” and the result will be “Z”

So lets plug in factors for X,Y,Z:

I pay you “$12.00 an hr” and you give me “Good Consistant Performance” and the result will be “a happy work enviroment and the opportunity to get higher raises due to bonuses recieved for meeting the Good Consistant Performance standard not to mention the money I just saved by not having to train another person.”

Or:

I pay you “$15.00 an hr” and you give me “Great Consistant Performance” and the result will be “a happier work enviroment and of course the opportunity to get even better raises due to bonuses recieved for meeint the Great Consistant Performance standard not to mention the money I just saved by not having to train another person.”

Ha! They say “I don’t know nothing,” but you get the picture.

The formula can be adapted to any business plan.

Before I go I want to impart a few helpful tips to those loyal readers out there:

1.) If you are going to express your opinions and support capitialistic free trade competition on an open website be prepared to take some heat from the kitchen as this God given Constitutional protected right will be questioned at length for no gain other than to attempt to intimidate someone into being quiet.

2.) Using your real name as a username on an open website and not lying about it when asked kinda throws some people off because they are not used to the truth.

3.) Be prepared to be watched like a hawk both online and at work. You can go in two different directions with this aspect. Be careful. You never know who is watching, judging you, so be sure to use good grammar and spell check often as to avoid embarassing mistakes. If you’re going to get talked to about what you wrote, you don’t want it to look like a three-year-old wrote it.

4.) In an attempt to avoid a higher level of flame from said kitchen avoid particular names of companies or employees. That only draws people’s attention to your opinion faster.

So be sure to excercise your Freedom of Speech until it is a fully developed weapon of truth telling and remember: “The pen is mightier than the sword” your congressmen exemplify this truth everyday. Don’t know what I am talking about? Go ask a veteran.

The program includes a point-by-point description of the principles inherent in it and required for a media system that is truly reflective of and responsive to the needs and interests of the public.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Amongst these discussed are the inherent rights to free expression, and for access to the platforms for being able to receive that expression, particularly those whose accessibility is provide through “net neutrality” and well-funded local public access.

The program also features a brief history and overview as to the importance of media to the functioning of, if not the very existence of, a truly democratic society (including segments from the documentary film “Manufacturing Consent”).

Premiered on USTV on November 26th, 2006, Post picture was modified specifically for this posting.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. – THE FEDERALIST NO. 47, at 301 (James Madison)

Here’s the meat of the issue.

George W. Bush, Jr personally stated that he had over 30 times authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans suspected of terrorist connections without a warrant.

The secret eavesdropping program, which President Bush authorized shortly after the September 11 attacks, allows the NSA to intercept domestic communications without a warrant, as long as one party is outside the United States…Bush, who first authorized the program in early 2002, said he has renewed the program over 30 times since its inception and reviews it every 45 days.� – Inquiry into leak of NSA spying program launched, CNN

But that contrary to what the law says on the matter.

Federal law says that “exclusive means” to conduct electronic surveillance is FISA and Title III (which governs the use of wiretaps by law enforcement)…Federal law says that any surveillance that is not conducted under those two statues is illegal. [18 U.S.C. 2551(2)(f); 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)] – The Department of Justice Memo Debunked, Think progress

The Department of Justice issued a memo in defense of the President’s program, and his authorization of it making two basic arguments.

The Department of Justice has released a memo defending President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying argument. There are two main arguments:

• Any limitations FISA places on the President’s authority to issue warrantless domestic searches are unconstitutional, and
• Congress gave the President authority to issue warrantless domestic searches

Two days ago a Judge issued a ruling on this� program which invalidated those two defenses:

Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

****

This court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"); the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law.

She also said:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

One of the duties of the President of the United States enumerated in article� II section 3 of our Constitution:

…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

He also swears in his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Our founders felt this oath was so important they enshrined it in our Constitution also in Article II section 1.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By authorizing this illegal program George W. Bush, Jr is also guilty of a Felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally:

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except� as authorized by statute;

President Bush, violated his oath of office, the constitution, and the law� by authorizing this program. We impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath about an affair in a civil law suit. How can we not respond the same for this much more serious breach by President Bush.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

If our elected representatives do not take prompt action to punish the President for violating his oath, and abrogating one of the primary duties as president, they will be violating their oaths of office as well.

Read on for the full text of the Judges ruling….

Judge orders program to be halted!

It’s just coming out, MSNBC and the AP are reporting that U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has ruled that the President’s warrantless domestic spying program is unconstitutional, and that she has ordered an immediate halt to it.

This is a serious rebuke to the Bush Administrations, and their attempt to use the State secret privilege to block an independent judicial review of the legality of this program. This is something that other judges need to take note of as well.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

Of course the Bush administration argued that they have the right to do this under both the 2001 Authorization for the use of military force, and Article 2 of the Constitution. Their so called unitary executive theory of executive powers (The president as king).

The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU basically argued that Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program to allow a ruling, and that their claims of state-secrets privilege was thus irrelevant.

I will try to track down more information on this and get it posted later!

Legislation Added to Defense Bill Would Restore Free Speech Rights Canceled by Supreme Court for Federal Government Workers on the Job.

WASHINGTON – June 23 – (Press release) – The Senate yesterday acted quickly to plug a government accountability loophole created less than one month ago, when the Supreme Court’s Garcetti v. Ceballos decision canceled constitutional free speech rights for government workers carrying out their job duties. Senate bill S. 494, which includes that reform amidst a general overhaul of the Whistleblower Protection Act, was agreed to by unanimous consent as an amendment to the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, passed 96-0 last evening. For the last three Congresses, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) approved similar legislation, but until yesterday Senate leaders had refused to permit a floor vote.

The House version of the defense bill does not address whistleblower rights, although the House Government Reform Committee has passed an even broader-ranging version of the Senate reform, with two bills (HR 1317 and HR 5112) that together provide jury trials for whistleblowers and extend protection to national security employees and government contractors. The fate of S. 494 will be determined by a conference not expected until late in the session. But the Senate action makes it a foregone conclusion that federal whistleblower law will be strengthened. The remaining questions are – How much stronger will it become, and will rights be extended to all government workers and contractors who defend taxpayers?

The Senate vote is a milestone in a six year campaign by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and a good government coalition that has swelled to 30 citizen organizations, spanning the ideological spectrum from taxpayer watchdogs and national security professionals, to civil liberties coalitions and federal labor unions.

GAP Legal Director Tom Devine commented, “We’re elated – it is long overdue for Congress to protect federal workers and declare war on government misconduct. The Senate acted quickly and responsibly to close the accountability gap created by the Supreme Court. This unanimous Senate mandate for whistleblowers proves there is a political imperative among voters, and a viable base in Congress to restore open government. Now the question is whether House leaders get the message.”

The legislation reflected efforts by a bipartisan coalition including Senator Daniel Akaka (D.-HI), HSGAC Chairman Susan Collins (R.-ME), Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R.- IA), Senator Carl Levin (D.–MI), Senator Joseph Lieberman (D.-CT), and Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner (R.-VA).

Devine singled out Senate staff for particular praise. “The backbone for the victory was tireless efforts by a team of invisible heroes on the staffs of Senators Akaka, Collins and Levin. They proved that Congress sometimes still engages in sustained, collegially bi-partisan hard work to make a difference.”

The good government coalition includes the National Treasury Employees Union, American Federation of Government Employees, National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, the Liberty Coalition, American Library Association, American Whistleblowers League, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, Center for Corporate Policy, Coalition for Democratic Rights and Civil Liberties, Common Cause, Defenders of Wildlife, Federation of American Scientists, Fund for Constitutional Government, Goverup.com, HALT, Information Trust, Integrity International, National Taxpayers Union, National Whistleblower Center, NO Fear Coalition, OMB Watch, Openthegovernment.org, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, Taxpayers Against Fraud, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.

S. 494 restores the mandate of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), which has been gutted by judicial activism since 1994, when Congress unanimously approved it as the strongest free speech law in history – on paper. The amendment also strengthens the due process enforcement structure for paper rights, and applies them to a broader scenario of harassment such as security clearances, retaliatory investigations and gag orders. Specifically, the legislation would –

• Codify the legislative history of “any” protected disclosure, meaning the WPA applies to “any” lawful communication of misconduct, restoring the scope of protection already approved by three unanimous votes and canceling the effect of Garcetti v. Ceballos on federal workers.
• Restore the unqualified, original “reasonable belief” standard established in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act for whistleblowers to qualify for protection.
• Make permanent and provide a remedy for the anti-gag statute – a rider in the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill for the past 17 years – and make it prohibited for an agency to issue an illegal gag order. The anti-gag statute has banned spending to cancel WPA free speech rights due to hybrid secrecy categories like “classifiable,” “sensitive but unclassified,” “sensitive security information” and other new labels that lock in prior restraint secrecy status, enforced by threat of criminal prosecution for unclassified whistleblowing disclosures.
• Codify protection against retaliatory investigations, giving whistleblowers a chance to end reprisal by challenging preliminary witch-hunts.
• Bar the President from imposing ex post facto “intelligence employee” status to strip employees of their merit system rights after they assert them by filing a lawsuit.
• End the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals monopoly on appellate review of the Whistleblower Protection Act (The Court has single-handedly gutted the WPA, leading to a 1-119 record against whistleblowers since 1994, when Congress voted unanimously to strengthen the Act), restoring all-Circuit review, as in the original 1978 Civil Service Reform Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.
• Restore independent due process review of security clearance determinations for whistleblower reprisal, unavailable since a 1985 Supreme Court decision.
• Provide specific authority for whistleblowers to disclose classified information to Members of Congress on relevant oversight committees or their staff.
• Strengthen the Office of Special Counsel’s authority to seek disciplinary sanctions against managers who retaliate.
• Authorize the Special Counsel to file friend of the court briefs.

The Senate bill does not contain five critical reforms in House-passed legislation, H.R. 1317 and 5112. These reforms are: protection for national security whistleblowers at the FBI, CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies, protection for government contractors, protection for baggage screeners, jury trials for a fair day in court, and neutralization of the government’s use of the “state secrets privilege” as a way to cancel whistleblower trials. Devine emphasized that the coalition will not ease its efforts until those reforms are achieved as well. Jury trials are the cornerstone of Congress’ Sarbanes-Oxley reform for corporate workers, and were approved in last year’s Energy Policy Act for employees at the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Senate action follows U.S. leadership that won similar whistleblower rights last December for U.N. employees. Late last year, U.N. Under-Secretary General for Management Christopher Burnham stated, “If we are going to have a culture here of ‘I am not going to lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do,’ we have to have a whistleblower protection policy.” Burnham, previously the State Department’s Chief Financial Officer, engineered U.N. approval for new whistleblower rights that are the gold standard for freedom of expression at international organizations.

GAP Legislative Representative Adam Miles commented, “The Senate has applied our U.N. anti-corruption policy to fight misconduct at home. Now House leaders are on the spot to do the same. Before the November elections, House leaders have a basic choice to make: Will they act to protect whistleblowers that defend the public, or maintain the wall of secrecy that harms the taxpayer? The choice should be clear.”

Devine put the Senate action in perspective. “The Senate victory is a burst of sunlight in what has become the dark ages of government secrecy.” Government Accountability Project The Government Accountability Project is the nation’s leading whistleblower protection organization. Through litigating whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAP’s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1977, GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Seattle, WA.

CONTACT: Government Accountability Project
Dylan Blaylock, Communications Director
202.408.0034 ext. 137, cell 202.236.3733

Tom Devine, Legal Director
202.408.0034 ext. 132, cell 240.888.4080

Adam Miles, Legislative Representative
202.408.0034 ext. 132, cell 202.276.2007