A previous article discussed institutionalized spying on Americans. Anyone can be monitored for any reason or none at all.<\/p>\n
Manufactured national security threats, silencing dissent, targeting whistleblowers, and challenging press freedom subvert constitutional rights.<\/p>\n
Doing so is worse than ever now. Obama bears full responsibility. He governs by diktat authority. He\u2019s waging war on humanity. He\u2019s spurning fundamental rights. He\u2019s targeting press freedom.<\/p>\n
James Madison understood the threat, saying:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cA popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Harry Truman once said:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWhen even one American \u2014 who has done nothing wrong \u2014 is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Earlier, Helen Thomas accused Obama of trying to control the press. \u201cIt\u2019s shocking,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s really shocking. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThey\u2019re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Free speech, a free press, free thought and intellectual inquiry are fundamental. Without them all other freedoms are endangered.<\/p>\n
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court called \u201c(f)reedom of thought\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00a6.the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n
On May 13, AP headlined<\/a> \u201cGov\u2019t Obtains Wide AP Phone Records in Probe,\u201d saying:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative\u2019s top executive called a \u2018massive and unprecedented intrusion\u2019 into how news organizations gather the news.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
According to AP attorneys, records obtained \u201clisted outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery.\u201d<\/p>\n
During April and May 2012, more than 20 phone lines were monitored. Over 100 journalists work in targeted offices. They report \u201con a wide array of stories about government and other matters.\u201d<\/p>\n
AP president\/CEO Gary Pruitt protested. He called DOJ\u2019s action a \u201cmassive and unprecedented intrusion.\u201d He wrote Attorney General Eric Holder. He demanded all phone records be returned. He wants all copies destroyed, saying:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThere can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u201cThese records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP\u2019s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP\u2019s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.\u201d<\/p>\n
DOJ officials left unexplained why phone records were sought. AP said a criminal investigation is being conducted into \u201cwho may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot.\u201d<\/p>\n
At the time, AP<\/a> headlined \u201cUS: CIA thwarts new al-Qaida underwear bomb plot,\u201d saying:<\/p>\n
Agents foiled \u201can ambitious plot by al-Qaida\u2019s affiliate in Yemen to destroy a US-bound airliner using a bomb with a sophisticated new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, The Associated Press has learned.\u201d<\/p>\n
AP described an upgraded underwear bomb plot. It was \u201cdesigned to be used in a passenger\u2019s underwear, but this time\u201d US officials called it \u201cmore refined.\u201d<\/p>\n
A same dayFBI<\/a>issued statement said:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cAs a result of close cooperation with our security and intelligence partners overseas, an improvised explosive device (IED) designed to carry out a terrorist attack has been seized abroad.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u201cThe FBI currently has possession of the IED and is conducting technical and forensics analysis on it. Initial exploitation indicates that the device is very similar to IEDs that have been used previously by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in attempted terrorist attacks, including against aircraft and for targeted assassinations.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe device never presented a threat to public safety, and the US government is working closely with international partners to address associated concerns with the device.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The incident was fake. It was a false flag. It was like the December 2009 so-called underwear bomber. US officials claimed Nigerian citizen Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab traveled to Yemen, got Al Qaeda training, and explosive PETN chemicals.<\/p>\n
He was wrongfully accused of trying to blow up a Christmas day Amsterdam-Detroit-bound airliner. The incident was staged. Abdulmutallab was set up. He was a patsy for a joint CIA\/Mossad\/India Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) false flag.<\/p>\n
The same alliance staged coordinated 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Dozens were killed and hundreds wounded. They also were behind former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto\u2019s 2007 assassination.<\/p>\n
In February, CIA director John Brennan called releasing information about the 2012 incident to the media an \u201cunauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.\u201d<\/p>\n
He left unexplained what\u2019s discussed above. White House spokesman Jay Carney denied knowledge of DOJ\u2019s investigation.<\/p>\n
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R. CA) said the agency \u201chad an obligation to look for every other way to (investigate) before (it) intruded on the freedom of the press.\u201d<\/p>\n
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D. VT) added:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe burden is always on the government when they go after private information, especially information regarding the press or its confidential sources.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the face of it, I am concerned that the government may not have met that burden. I am very troubled by these allegations and want to hear the government\u2019s explanation.\u201d<\/p>\n
ACLU Washington legislative office director Laura Murphy said:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe attorney general must explain the Justice Department\u2019s actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This type intrusion has a chilling effect on journalists, whistleblowers and others involved in investigating government wrongdoing, she added.<\/p>\n
William Miller, spokesman for US attorney Ronald Machen, stonewalled AP\u2019s request. Information on why its journalists were targeted was sought. Dismissively he said: \u201cWe do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations.\u201d<\/p>\n
DOJ \u201cstrict rules\u201d require \u201call reasonable attempts\u201d be made to obtain relevant information from other sources.<\/p>\n
A media subpoena must be \u201cas narrowly drawn as possible. (It) should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited period of time.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s to avoid \u201cimpair(ing) the news gathering function.\u201d Authorities are required to recognize that \u201cfreedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news.\u201d<\/p>\n
If phone records are wanted, news organizations are supposed to be notified well in advance. A reasonable explanation should be given. Both sides must agree on information to be provided.<\/p>\n
DOJ cited an exemption. It claimed advance notification might \u201cpose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.\u201d One intrusion means across the board is OK, whatever reason is given.<\/p>\n
AP said it\u2019s unknown whether a judicial or grand jury authorization was sought.<\/p>\n
American Society of News Editors executive director Arnie Robbins expressed grave concern, saying:<\/p>\n
\u201cOn the face of it, this is really a disturbing affront to a free press. It\u2019s also troubling because it is consistent with perhaps the most aggressive administration ever against reporters doing their jobs \u2014 providing information that citizens need to know about our government.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Federation of American Scientists\u2019 government secrecy expert, Steven Aftergood:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThis investigation is broader and less focused on an individual source or reporter than any of the others we\u2019ve seen.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThey have swept up an entire collection of press communications. It\u2019s an astonishing assault on core values of our society.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
A Newspaper Association of America statement said:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cToday we learned of the Justice Department\u2019s unprecedented wholesale seizure of confidential telephone records from the Associated Press.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThese actions shock the American conscience and violate the critical freedom of the press protected by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/a> (EFF) called DOJ\u2019s action \u201ca terrible blow against the freedom of the press and the ability of reporters to investigate and report the news.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Privacy laws need updating, it added. Data-mining is out-of-control. Constitutional, statute, and\/or judicial constraints must be imposed.<\/p>\n
DOJ violated its own rules. Privacy and press freedom are threatened. The so-called third party doctrine is outdated.<\/p>\n
It relates to information or spoken words by one person to another, a government agency, a business, or organization. Doing so excludes Fourth Amendment protection.<\/p>\n
In Miller v. United States (1976), the Supreme Court ruled:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third-party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if it is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third-party will not be betrayed.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court added that information revealed to another source \u201ctakes the risk (that it) will be conveyed\u201d to someone else.<\/p>\n
In Smith v. Maryland (1979), the High Court extended the third party doctrine to telephone communications.<\/p>\n
The court said in \u201cexpos(ing) that information\u201d to phone company equipment, individuals \u201cassumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00a6dialed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Last year in US v. Jones, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged the need to update Fourth Amendment protections, saying:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cPeople disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers, the URLS that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers, and the books, groceries and medications they purchase to online retailers.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In United States v. US District Court (1972), a unanimous Supreme Court ruling upheld Fourth Amendment protections in cases involving domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.<\/p>\n
Spying in America today is institutionalized. Privacy rights no longer matter. Phone calls, emails, and other communications are being monitored secretly without court authorization.<\/p>\n
Unconstrained data-mining and monitoring occur without probable cause. America\u2019s a total surveillance society. A previous article said Big Brother no longer is fiction. It hasn\u2019t been for some time. It\u2019s official US policy.<\/p>\n
Unprecedented, unwarranted prosecutions follow. No one\u2019s safe anymore. Everyone\u2019s vulnerable. Constitutional rights don\u2019t matter. That\u2019s how police states operate. Given the capability of modern technology, America\u2019s by far the worst.<\/p>\n
Stephen Lendma<\/strong>n lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.<\/em><\/p>\n
His new book is titled \u201cBanker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.claritypress.com\/LendmanII.html<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.<\/em><\/p>\n
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.<\/em><\/p>\n
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.<\/em><\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.progressiveradionetwork.com\/the-progressive-news-hour<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.dailycensored.com\/spies-r-us\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n