Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Cyber
US federal appeals court upholds law requiring sale or ban of TikTok
2024-12-09
[IsraelTimes] Court rejects social media platform’s claims of free speech violations, noting Americans will still be able to share ‘as much PRC propaganda’ and other content as they want

A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the US.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok’s petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company’s challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States," said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. "Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States."

TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case.

"The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting ans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people," Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute "will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025."

Though the case is squarely in the court system, it’s also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump
...The tack in the backside of the Democratic Party...
, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action.

The law, signed by President Joe The Big Guy Biden
...46th president of the U.S. Old, boring, a plagiarist, fond of hair sniffing and grabbing the protruding parts of women, and not whatcha call brilliant....
 in April, was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China.

"Today’s decision is an important step in blocking the Chinese government from weaponizing TikTok to collect sensitive information about millions of Americans, to covertly manipulate the content delivered to American audiences, and to undermine our national security," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Friday.

The US has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect. The European Union
...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing...
 on Friday expressed similar concerns as it investigates intelligence that suggests Russia possibly abused the platform to influence the elections in Romania.

TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the US hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the US. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government.

Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republicans and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September.

In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three denied TikTok’s petition.

In the court’s ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok’s main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder, or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to "suppress content or require a certain mix of content" on TikTok.

"Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing," Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China.

Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion.

TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators — for which the company is covering legal costs — as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organizations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok.

"This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad," said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organization. "We hope that the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word."

Meanwhile,
...back at the laboratory, Igor and Oleg were discussing what the quickest way might be to deal with the monster...
 on Capitol Hill, politicians who had pushed for the legislation celebrated the court’s ruling.

"I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership," said Republican Representative John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China.

Democratic Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-authored the law, said "it’s time for ByteDance to accept" the law.

To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around US user data.

The company has also argued the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient.

Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm — the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan — would turn the US version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content.

Still, some investors, including Trump’s former treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s US business.

This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital.
Related:
TikTok 12/07/2024 Romania annuls first round of presidential votes won by far-right candidate
TikTok 11/28/2024 Among the media watchdogs, NewsGuard, which often targets conservative outlets, is most feared
TikTok 11/21/2024  Illegal who killed Laken Riley is found guilty on all charges

Link


Fifth Column
How the Trump administration and congressional Republicans may crack down on pro-Palestinian protesters
2024-12-06
[NBCnews] Trump allies and other Republicans have been giving a preview of what could happen to protests, protesters and aligned groups once the new administration begins.

Congressional Republicans and former Trump appointees have spent the last year building out their response to the movement protesting Israel’s war in Gaza, and now that Donald Trump is returning to the White House they warn that protest leaders, activists and those who help them raise money could face an onslaught of federal investigations and possible indictments.

An NBC News review of congressional hearings and letters, along with lawsuits filed by organizations led by former Trump officials, provides a preview of which federal laws a second Trump administration could use when pursuing investigations and potential prosecutions.

Judging from what has been pushed thus far, there are several legal measures most likely to be used once Trump returns to Washington. One would be deporting foreign college students in the U.S. on a visa after they’re found to have openly advocated for Hamas or another U.S.-designated terror group, or after they participated in an unauthorized campus protest and were suspended, expelled or jailed.

Another measure would be to pursue federal prosecutions of demonstrators who block synagogue entrances or disrupt Jewish speakers at events. A third approach is to charge protest leaders and nonprofits that aid in fundraising for protest groups with failing to register with the U.S. Justice Department as an “agent of a foreign principal.” And a fourth avenue is to open investigations into protest leaders who are in direct contact with U.S.-designated terror groups while advocating on their behalf.

The multifaceted law enforcement approach is a marked departure from the Biden administration’s response to the protest movement. Some of the nation’s leading civil rights groups told NBC News that they are gearing up for a flood of legal battles to protect the protesters.

“Trying to predict what Trump will do is a fool’s errand. We have to be prepared for the most extreme version of what he’s threatened,” said Ben Wizner, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “We have to take him both literally and seriously.”

‘A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN’
Biden administration officials have told NBC News that prosecuting speech-related crimes related to the anti-war protests is not a high priority for the current Justice Department, nor is seeking out student protesters on foreign visas a top concern for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“President Trump will enforce the law,” said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, in an email to NBC News. Ernst recently asked the FBI to open an investigation into a pro-Hamas student group at Columbia University called Columbia University Apartheid Divest. A member had threatened “Zionists” on social media, which the organization had initially distanced itself from after a strong public outcry but later supported in an Instagram post. CUAD also has handed out pro-Hamas flyers that circulated around campus featuring masked men holding weapons.

“There is a new sheriff in town,” Ernst said. The FBI has yet to respond to Ernst’s request, her office said. An FBI spokesperson did not immediately respond to request for comment. A Columbia University spokesperson said CUAD is not a recognized organization by the school and the flyers were under investigation. Members of CUAD declined to comment.

Reed Rubinstein, who held high-ranking positions in both the Justice Department and the U.S. Education Department in the first Trump administration, is now a senior vice president at America First Legal, a public policy law firm in Washington, D.C., founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. (Miller is expected to return to the White House as a deputy chief of staff for policy.)

Under Rubinstein, America First Legal has in the past year filed four lawsuits that provide a glimpse into how the Trump administration could differ from its predecessor. America First Legal alleges in the suits that the State Department, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education have protected pro-Hamas extremists.

In court papers and in letters to several federal oversight officials, America First Legal has also said it believes the Justice Department should have forced several leaders of pro-Palestinian groups to report themselves under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA, which requires individuals acting as “an agent of a foreign principal” to register themselves with the Justice Department.

It has also accused the Department of Education of not following Title VI regulations, which prohibits schools that accept federal funding from allowing on-campus discrimination based on race, shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics including being Jewish.

“There’s a difference between lawful speech and unlawful conduct,” Rubinstein told NBC News. “Law enforcement has an obligation to act.”

Although the lawsuits haven’t progressed in court, they provide a possible road map for how Trump-minded prosecutors could respond to the protest movement.

So far, only the Education Department has responded to the allegations, court papers show, and said the agency doesn’t have sufficient evidence to respond to the claims that policies aren’t being enforced. The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. Spokespeople at the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education all said they can’t comment on pending litigation.

Rubinstein in an interview brought up an additional law he expects a second Trump administration could enforce. Known as the FACE Act, the law prohibits people from using force, threats or intimidation while blocking entrances of places of worship. Earlier this month, protesters with SJP Chicago gathered at the Chicago Loop Synagogue to demonstrate against an Arab Israeli speaker who had served in the Israeli military. Videos posted to social media showed demonstrators blocking the synagogue’s entrance, banging on the windows and getting inside.

“You do not have the right to deny somebody the ability to congregate in a church or synagogue,” Rubinstein said. “We would like to see the Department of Justice do its job.”

A spokesman for the FBI’s Chicago office said its policy is not to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. The Chicago Police Department said it arrested two protesters and charged them with trespassing and one with property damage, both misdemeanor charges.

SJP Chicago did not respond to a request for comment. But in an Instagram post, it said protesters were not being anti-Jewish. “Zionist have scrambled to throw together a narrative that these acts were anti-semetic and fueled by hate (what’s new).”

AN EXPECTED FLOOD OF LEGAL BATTLES
Some of the nation’s leading free speech and civil rights groups say they are gearing up to fight a new Trump administration and any attempts to go after protesters or their funders. Since 9/11, organizations including the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), along with the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Knight First Amendment Institute have represented Muslim Americans and pro-Palestinian activists in cases involving free speech, surveillance or abuse.

Edward Ahmed Mitchell, CAIR’s deputy executive director, argued that the Biden administration failed to enforce FARA against leaders of pro-Israel groups. Mitchell said both Trump and President Joe Biden single out pro-Palestinian activists with either a lack of enforcement or with too much enforcement.

“Just as Americans who peacefully marched, protested and lobbied against segregation, the Vietnam War and South African apartheid were not deterred when government agencies spied upon, smeared, arrested and brutalized them,” Mitchell said, “the college students, human rights activists and everyday Americans peacefully opposing the Gaza genocide have not been deterred by such government abuses and, God willing, will not be deterred by such abuses in the future.”

Both CCR and the ACLU told NBC News that their concerns go beyond what the administration could do to crack down on just the protests. They pointed to the possibility that a Republican-led Congress could pass a bill currently under consideration that would strip away the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that a Trump appointed treasury secretary designates as providing material support to “terrorist supporting organizations.” CCR also said it worries a second Trump administration could wrongly level accusations of failing to register as foreign agents against protest leaders and nonprofits that aid protest groups with collecting donations. CCR is also watching whether a Trump Justice Department will charge certain activists accused of supporting Hamas and other U.S.-designated terror organizations with violating a U.S. anti-terror law that prohibits advocating for terror groups while in coordination with them.

“We are prepared for the Trump administration coming in and changing the game, particularly around the question, ‘Where does speech fit into this?’” said Vince Warren, CCR’s executive director. “To the extent that the Biden administration drew a line between speech and actionable conduct, we don’t think that the Trump administration will do that at all.”

CCR is also concerned about the plans laid out in Project Esther, an initiative backed by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that published Project 2025. Project Esther urges law enforcement to use a plethora of federal and state laws to dismantle what it terms the “global Hamas Support Network” using racketeering laws — used to break up the mafia — along with anti-terrorism and anti-hate speech laws.

“They will throw any type of spaghetti up against the wall,” Warren said.

The Knight Institute said although it expects the new Trump administration to aggressively police speech, it is prepared to fight back. Earlier this month, Knight successfully rebuffed the Biden Treasury Department, which had blocked a New York based nonprofit from organizing an overseas conference with Hezbollah members, arguing it can’t work with people sanctioned for ties to terrorism groups. The agency reversed course and settled the case earlier this month after Knight argued that an academic exchange of ideas could not violate anti-terror laws.

“If there’s one thing the First Amendment protects, it’s the right of Americans to criticize their own government’s policies,” said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director.

The ACLU’s Wizner struck a similar note, saying: “The courts have made clear that the First Amendment protects all manner of controversial advocacy, including advocacy of violence, so long as the speaker isn’t actively inciting imminent harm,” Wizner said.

IMPACT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES
Kenneth Marcus, who ran the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights during the Trump and George W. Bush administrations, now leads the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, one of the leading civil rights organizations focused on Jewish students. Over the past year, the center has sued a growing list of universities arguing officials failed to stop what it sees as widespread antisemitism on campus.

Marcus said he has met with Department of Education officials requesting an expansion of civil rights enforcement to protect Jewish students on campuses. The Department of Education didn’t respond to questions regarding Marcus’ concerns.

“We know that President Trump has repeatedly expressed concern about the campus situation,” Marcus said.

During the presidential campaign, one of the 20 promises in the preamble to the Republican Party platform was to “deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again.”

NBC News reported in August that the Biden administration said it was not targeting visa revocations for foreign students who may have engaged in speech-related offenses or participated in unauthorized campus protests and had not terminated any university or college student visas due to protest activity related to the Israel-Hamas war.

Trump’s return to Washington could lead to possible attempts to revoke student visas for foreign students who openly support Hamas or other U.S.-designated terror organizations, Marcus said. Marcus also anticipates more intervention from the Justice Department when Jewish students say they are being targeted on campus.

At a campaign stop in September, Trump said that at the start of his second presidency, he would inform universities that if they allow violence and threats against Jewish students, they “will be held accountable for violations of the civil rights law.”

“My administration will move swiftly to restore safety for Jewish students and Jewish people on American streets,” Trump said.
Link


Home Front: WoT
NSA snooped on Islamists' porn habits: Report
2013-11-29
[Al Ahram] The National Security Agency planned to discredit Islamist "radicals" by spying on their online pornography habits, The Huffington Post reported Wednesday, citing a document leaked by ex-intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

The eavesdropping agency focused on how propagandists for the violent snuffies could be undermined with evidence of hypocrisy, citing surveillance on six individuals as examples, according to the quoted NSA document.

"A previous SIGINT (signals intelligence) assessment report on radicalization indicated that radicalizers appear to be particularly vulnerable in the area of authority when their private and public behaviors are not consistent," said the document.

"Some of the vulnerabilities, if exposed, would likely call into question the radicalizer's devotion to the jihadist cause, leading to the degradation or loss of his authority."

A potentially damaging piece of evidence would show a bad boy "viewing sexually explicit material online or using sexually explicit persuasive language when communicating with inexperienced maidens of tender years," it said.

The leaked document is the latest in a cascade of revelations from Snowden revealing the NSA's large-scale digital spying, which has provoked a global firestorm.

The six individuals targeted for NSA surveillance were seen as radical Mohammedans giving inflammatory speeches, but were not described in the document as linked to terror plots, the report said.

The Huffington Post withheld their identities and locations.

All six live outside the United States, though one was described as a "US person," meaning he is either a citizen or has permanent resident status.

Through electronic spying, the agency had found sexually explicit information about at least two of the people targeted, some of which was gleaned through FBI surveillance, according to The Huffington Post.

One of those targeted was described as a "respected academic" who has promoted the idea that "offensive jihad is justified."

The spy service concluded that he is potentially vulnerable because of his alleged "online promiscuity" and that he publishes "articles without checking facts," according to the report.

The document did not indicate whether the NSA carried out the idea to discredit the men by leaking the information or otherwise.

US intelligence agencies did not deny the report or question the validity of the document.

"Without discussing specific individuals, it should not be surprising that the US government uses all of the lawful tools at our disposal to impede the efforts of valid terrorist targets who seek to harm the nation and radicalize others to violence," said Shawn Turner, front man for the director of national intelligence.

The methods discussed are reminiscent of tactics used by the FBI, the NSA and other agencies in decades past to tarnish civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, anti-war activists and labor organizers.

When an inquiry by politicians in the 1970s exposed the domestic surveillance, Congress adopted new limits on spying powers and created a foreign surveillance court that is supposed to review requests for eavesdropping on communications between a foreign suspect and a US resident.

"This report is an unwelcome reminder of what it means to give an intelligence agency unfettered access to individuals' most sensitive information," said American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer.

"One ordinarily associates these kinds of tactics with the secret police services of authoritarian governments.

"That these tactics have been adopted by the world's leading democracy -- and the world's most powerful intelligence agency -- is truly chilling," he added.
Link


Home Front: WoT
O Finds Himself in W Territory
2013-06-09
In his first public comments on the controversy, Obama emphasized the congressional and judicial oversight of the surveillance programs. He also stressed their effectiveness.

"I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs," Obama said Friday.
Especially since they were being practiced by his predecessor.
As Trotsky once said to a companion, after the companion had made a distasteful remark about the new Red Army: "yes, but it's our army now."
But he said the value in disrupting terrorism outweighed any "modest encroachments on privacy. . . . You know, net, it was worth us doing."
Obviously off-teleprompter.
U.S. officials, civil liberties groups and security experts said the revelations show that, as much as Obama has sought to distance himself from the counterterrorism policies of his predecessor, he has embraced and in some cases expanded controversial programs that originated under Bush.

"If you think about the president's speeches, there has been an attempt to articulate a discontinuity" from Bush on a range of issues, including prisoner interrogations and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, said Steven Aftergood, at the Federation of American Scientists. "But when it comes to surveillance," Aftergood said, "there's no clear repudiation. On the contrary, there appeared to be an embrace and an endorsement all the way through."

Bush loyalists made similar points in ways that at times bordered on gloating.
I'll only gloat when he is excoriated by the press, like Bush was.
"Drone strikes. Wiretaps. Gitmo. O is carrying out Bush's 4th term," said former Bush administration spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Statistics released by the Justice Department indicate that some surveillance operations authorized by the court have expanded under Obama and that others have remained at levels established under Bush. Requests for warrants under the provision used to compel Verizon to turn over data have surged, from 13 in 2008 to 212 last year.
Just as the use of political power to cow opponents has surged!
Meanwhile, Obama has fought legal attempts to force the government to disclose Justice Department opinions that provide the legal basis for NSA surveillance programs. In 2011, the administration released two heavily redacted memos that had been in effect under Bush, but it has yet to produce any of its own.
The most transparent regime government since ... Stalin?
Since 2008, "the administration has changed, Congress has changed, leadership of intelligence agencies has changed," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been involved in the effort to obtain the memos. But surveillance, Jaffer said, "grows steadily bigger and less accountable every year."
I never thought I'd say this, but - Go, ACLU!
"I think it's interesting that there are some folks on the left, but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren't worried about it when it was a Republican president," Obama said.
Ironic, isn't it? He used to be worried about it, but now he's not. I suppose narcissists can't appreciate irony?
Link


Home Front: WoT
US govt refuses to lift lid on drone strikes
2012-06-22
WASHINGTON: The US government has asked a federal court to reject lawsuits demanding the release of documents on CIA drone strikes targeting suspected militants abroad, saying the entire subject is “classified.” Shortly before a midnight deadline on Wednesday, US government lawyers filed a brief to the district court in New York defending the veil of secrecy around the drone campaign, which has killed numerous Al-Qaeda figures and associates in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

“Whether or not the CIA has the authority to be, or is in fact, directly involved in targeted lethal operations remains classified,” the government brief stated.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Times had filed lawsuits after having requested papers on the drone bombing campaign under the Freedom of Information Act.
Why didn't the NYT just ask their favorite leaker for the documents? They could have offered to do a special Sunday edition for Champ and his campaign on the subject...
The organizations had requested documents explaining the legal basis for the raids and the killing of terror suspects who are US citizens, such as the US-born cleric Anwar Al-Awlaqi who was taken out last year in a drone strike.

The government not only ruled out releasing documents related to the drone strikes, but argued that merely referring to the number or categories of documents posed a threat to national security.

“Even to describe the numbers and details of most of these documents would reveal information that could damage the government’s counter terrorism efforts,” it said.

The ACLU called the government’s argument “absurd,” saying the drone war was an open secret that government officials have boasted about to reporters.

“Senior officials have discussed it, both on the record and off. They have taken credit for its putative successes, professed it to be legal, and dismissed concerns about civilian casualties,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement. “The public is entitled to know more about the legal authority the administration is claiming and the way that the administration is using it.”
He's got a point. Once you start leaking secret information to score political points on the campaign trail, you really can't come back with an argument about national security. The proper thing for Champ and his administration would have been to keep their mouths shut from day one about the drones, and blame it all on the Ruritanians.
The Obama administration’s brief to the court acknowledged the use of lethal force is “undoubtedly of the utmost public concern” but said it had to take into account legal prohibitions against the release of classified information.
So when will you discipline the ones who leaked the rest of this to the press on behalf of your campaign?
Link


Arabia
Awlaki's father says CIA "kill list" unconstitutional
2010-11-10
[Al Arabiya] A U.S. judge held a hearing Monday on CIA targeting of key terrorist suspects as a lawyer for the father of radical U.S.-Yemeni holy man Anwar al-Awlaki argued it was unconstitutional for his son to be on a "kill list."

U.S. District Judge John Bates heard arguments in the case on the same day that a video of Awlaki calling for the killing of Americans "without hesitation" was posted on cut-thoat websites.

President Barack B.O. Obama's administration has refused to officially acknowledge the existence of a assassination program but sources have told AFP that Awlaki is on a "capture or kill list."
Nasser al-Awlaki argues that his son, an American citizen suspected of being a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and of instigating a string of attacks against the United States, still has a constitutional right to due process.

Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which along with the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken Awlaki's case, accused the U.S. government of imposing the death penalty without trial.

The administration is empowered to use lethal force against American citizens deemed an imminent threat to national security and wants the case thrown out on the basis that such matters are not the realm of the courts.

"Your honor, if an injunction is issued here, it provides to the leader of al-Qaeda (in the Arabian Peninsula) the ability to continue planning operations" against the United States, a government lawyer said.

Yemeni authorities, under mounting U.S. pressure to fight al-Qaeda after a foiled air cargo bomb plot, charged Awlaqi last week with alleged ties to al-Qaeda and ordered his arrest by any means possible.

The Yemen-based branch of al-Qaeda has grabbed credit for the parcel bomb plot and said it was also behind the September downing of an American cargo plane in Dubai, according to the SITE Intelligence Group.
Link


Fifth Column
FIFTH COLUMN: ACLU sues over 'Targeted Killings'
2010-08-31
Socialist-Front Civil-liberties groups filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the legality of the Obama administration's expansion of the U.S. fight against al Qaeda terrorists beyond Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Because fighting terrorists before they blow up stuff in America is ucky ...
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights are taking aim at what the government calls its "targeted killing" program, which mostly uses Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones against suspected terrorists.
The CCR is, if anything, worse than the ACLU in their dislike of all things right and good with America.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the father of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Islamic cleric of Yemeni descent, who is believed to be targeted for extra-judicial killing for his alleged involvement in terror plots against the U.S.
Maybe Daddy should tell Sonny to come in and answer a few questions...
The weakness in the Obama case is that Bambi hasn't publicly declared Anwar to be a traitor. If we did that and stripped him of his citizenship then he'd be fair game, and international law wouldn't protect him in any way. But Bambi doesn't want to appear to be forceful.
Declaring a traitor is easy, since Mr. Al-Awlaki is a natural-born American citizen. Stripping him of that citizenship raises constitutional issues not present for those who were mistakenly naturalized. And while the issue of tourism babies is overdue to be addressed, this administration is not the one to do it.
The administration hasn't publicly described its deliberations about Mr. Awlaki's fate, nor how it uses the secret drone program against suspected terrorists.
Nor should they.
Mr. Awlaki is believed to be skulking about hiding in Yemen, which is far from the battlefield in Pakistan and Afghanistan,
But right in the middle of the Arabian battlefield, oddly enough. We aren't heavily involved there, at the moment, but it's important not to be parochial about the war against the Caliphatists.
where al Qaeda launched the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. In recent months, U.S. officials have been weighing expanded attacks on the al Qaeda-affiliated groups Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Somalia's al Shabaab, The Wall Street Journal reported recently. The U.S. military previously has launched operations in that region.
The simple point is, wherever the terrorists go, that's where we go ...
The expansion would exceed the legal limits of the program, the civil-liberties groups say. Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said "Yemen is not Afghanistan or Iraq. The legal limits on the authority they claim hasn't been specified."
It's called taking the war to the enemy, irrespective of what map grid he's hiding in.
The legal limits can be fixed with a presidential order ...
Vincent Warren, executive director of the CCR said: "The government chose Awlaki and put him on the targeted killing list. The government has to show he is an imminent threat to the U.S. in order to justify him being killed like this."
He wants stuff in our country blowed up. I think that counts ...
The man coached Major Nidal Malik Hasan of Ft. Hood fame, and the Pantibomber. I think he has passed beyond the imminent threat stage.
In June, CIA Director Leon Panetta was asked on ABC News's "This Week" program whether Mr. Awlaki was targeted for assassination.

"Awlaki is a terrorist and yes, he's a U.S. citizen, but he is first and foremost a terrorist and we're going to treat him like a terrorist," Mr. Panetta said. "We don't have an assassination list, but I can tell you this: We have a terrorist list and he's on it."
Attaboy, Leon, I always figured that you had a spine, even though you're a Democrat. Nice to see that we have at least one adult in the Bambi administration.
Link


Fifth Column
ACLU sues gov't over drones
2010-03-17
Enjoy your meal, folks...
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government Tuesday to learn the use of unmanned drones for targeted killings by the military and CIA.

"In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings," the ACLU said in a statement, announcing its action.
I wonder if the ACLU sued in May, 1942 to find out FDR's preparations for the battle of Midway, so that the public could have an informed discussion about the wisdom and legality of bushwhacking the Japanese Navy ...
The nonprofit civil liberties group filed initial Freedom of Information Act requests with the Defense, Justice and State departments and with the Central Intelligence Agency on Jan. 13. Only the CIA responded, and the ACLU is pursuing that request with an appeal to the agency.

The military and intelligence communities have increasingly relied on Predator and Reaper unmanned drones to capture video imagery and launch deadly missile strikes, particularly lately in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. The Pentagon, especially, continues to purchase more and more drones each year.

A New American Foundation study, cited in Jane Mayer's October 2009 New Yorker piece that drew attention to the CIA's use of killer drones, found the number of attacks has continued to grow under the Obama administration -- from 34 in 2008 to 43 by October of 2009.

"The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions -- not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project. "These kinds of questions ought to be discussed and debated publicly, not resolved secretly behind closed doors. While the Obama administration may legitimately withhold intelligence information as well as sensitive information about military strategy, it should disclose basic information about the scope of the drone program, the legal basis for the program and the civilian casualties that have resulted from the program."

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is a defendant in the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, said he had not yet seen the complaint. "The bottom line is that we will review the compliant once we receive it and make a determination as to how we'll respond in court," he said. The Defense Department, another defendant, had no immediate comment.
Link


Home Front: WoT
ACLU Condemns Indefinite Guantanamo detention
2010-01-23
The American Civil Liberties Union has criticised a recommendation that 47 Guantanamo Bay inmates should be held indefinitely without trial.

Justice department officials said the men were too dangerous to release, but could not be tried as evidence against them would not stand up in a US court.
Maybe a civilian court is the wrong place for them?
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said their detention would reduce the camp's closure to a "symbolic gesture".

The White House said the president did not have to accept the recommendation.

It came as the deadline President Barack Obama had set himself on his second day in office for closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay passed.
I read he now wants to close it this year...
Earlier on Friday, officials said a task force led by the justice department had recommended that while 35 detainees could be prosecuted through trials or military tribunals, 110 could be released either now or at a later date.

The other 47 detainees were considered too dangerous to release, but could not be tried because the evidence against them was too flimsy or was extracted from them by coercion, so would not hold up in court, it concluded.

In a statement, the ACLU said it disputed that any terrorists significant category of such detainees existed, and renewed its call for the closure of the prison.

"If there is credible evidence that these prisoners are dangerous, there is no reason why that evidence could not be introduced against them in criminal trials," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project.

"The criminal laws, and the material support laws in particular, are broad enough to reach anyone who presents a serious threat, and the federal courts are fully capable of affording defendants fair trials while protecting the government's legitimate interest in protecting information that is properly classified."

Mr Jaffer said evidence that had been "tainted" according to the task force's recommendation, was "not evidence at all". The US justice system, he added, "excludes coerced evidence not only because coercion and torture are illegal, but because coerced evidence is unreliable".
Nice bit of legalistic footwork.
"Just as important as closing the prison quickly is closing it right, and that means putting an end to the illegal policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial," said Mr Romero.
Link


Home Front: WoT
US government sticks to ban on Tariq Ramadan
2009-03-25
A lawyer arguing on behalf of the Obama administration on Tuesday echoed Bush administration policies to back a decision to deny one of Europe's leading Muslim intellectuals entry to the United States. Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jones told a U.S. federal appeals court panel that they should uphold a decision to bar Swiss Muslim Tariq Ramadan, an Oxford University professor and a vocal critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, from entering the United States. Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, had hoped Tuesday's arguments would see a reversal of Bush administration policies that they argue exclude foreign scholars from visiting the United States due to their political beliefs.

"Consular decisions are not subject to litigation," Jones told the three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, broadly arguing the courts have no power to examine visa denials. The ACLU argued against a judge's ruling in late 2007 that upheld Ramadan's ban.

Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, an Islamist thinker and activist who in 1928 founded the Muslim Brotherhood, which opposed secular and Western ideas. The ACLU has championed Ramadan's case as part of a larger pattern of scholars and writers being excluded due to unwarranted or unspecified U.S. national security grounds.

"It's disappointing to come here today and hear Obama administration lawyers argue the same sweeping executive power arguments," ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said after the hearing. "There should be a clean break of the Bush administration national security policies."

During arguments, Jones said if the courts questioned a consular officer's decision to bar Ramadan, then that would leave the U.S. government in a "quagmire" with others seeking such reversals. When questioned how high up the chain of command Ramadan's case had been considered by the new Obama administration, Jones only said it was "upwards in the State Department."

Academic and civil liberties groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ramadan in 2006 against Bush administration officials for denying scholars foreign visas. The United States has revoked Ramadan's visa several times since 2004. Washington initially gave no reason for its decision, but later said Ramadan had been barred based on a provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows people to be excluded for supporting terrorism. The ACLU argued the government was using the provision more broadly to deny entry to people whose political views they did not approve of.

Government lawyers later argued in 2007 Ramadan was barred because he gave 1,670 Swiss francs, then worth $1,336, to the Association de Secours Palestinien, or ASP, from 1998 to 2002. Washington listed ASP as a banned group in 2003, saying it supported terrorism and had contributed funds to the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.
Link


Home Front: WoT
Supreme court won't review Bush domestic spying case
2008-02-19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program. The civil liberties group also asked the nation's highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.

"The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in the appeal.

Bush authorized the program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court warrant. The program's disclosure in December 2005 caused a political uproar among Democrats, some Republicans and civil liberties activists. The administration abandoned the program about a year ago, putting it under the surveillance court that Congress created more than 30 years ago.

The high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.
Because journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups get their best information from terrorists and their collaborators ...
The appeals court based in Cincinnati dismissed the case because the plaintiffs could not state with certainty they had been wiretapped by the government's National Security Agency.

Administration lawyers opposed the appeal and said further review by the Supreme Court was unwarranted. The Supreme Court sided with the administration and rejected the appeal without any comment.
Link


Home Front: WoT
Court Rejects ACLU Request on Wiretaps
2007-12-13
The top secret US court overseeing electronic surveillance programs rejected a petition to release documents on the legal status of the government’s “war-on-terror” wiretap operations.

In only the third time the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has publicly released a ruling, it turned back a request to reveal documents that would shed light on the government’s program to spy on the communications of terror suspects without first obtaining warrants.

FISC’s ruling argued that its role as a unique court dealing with national security issues necessarily meant its case documents and decisions would be classified, and that US constitutional provisions did not require it to release case materials.

It also said that even first deleting sensitive material from the papers sought by the American Civil Liberties Union — secret documents related to the legality of the surveillance programs — risked accidentally damaging the country’s security.

“That possibility itself may be a price too high to pay,” the court said in rejecting the ACLU request. Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, called the decision disappointing.

“A federal court’s interpretation of federal law should not be kept secret from the American public,” Jaffer said. “The Bush administration is seeking expanded surveillance powers from Congress because of the rulings issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this year. Under this decision, those rulings may remain secret forever.”

Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More